fao-eu integrated pest management (ipm) programme for ... · integrated pest management (ipm) has...

FAO-EU Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Programme for Cotton in Asia

In response to the call for information on alternatives to endosulfan by the Persistent Organic

Pollutants Review Committee of the Stockholm Convention, the Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations (FAO) submits, annexed to this note the information on

the FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia as an example.

IPM is an ecosystem approach to crop production and protection that combines different

management strategies and practices to grow healthy crops and minimize the use of pesticides.

FAO promotes IPM as the preferred approach for crop protection and regards it as a pillar of

both sustainable intensification of crop production and pesticide risk reduction.

Pest control in cotton in India relied inter alia on some very persistent organochlorine

pesticides such as endosulfan (Kooistra et al., 2006 in Mancini et al., 2007).

From 1999 to 2004, FAO implemented the “IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia” in response

to the need of cotton producing countries to tackle rising production costs, increasing

pollution of environment due to excessive pesticide use, the deteriorating health of farmers

and increase in poverty. The Programme funded by EU involved Bangladesh, China, India,

Pakistan, the Philippines and Vietnam, which produce about 50% of the world’s cotton.

The adoption of IPM led to a significant reduction of total use of pesticides, including

endosulfan. This programme has shown that farmer education through the Farmer Field

School approach is key to encourage more sustainable agricultural production. Annexed to

this note is the report of this programme and additional relevant publications.

Annex

1) Francesca Mancini, Aad J. Termorshuizen, Janice L.S. Jiggins, Ariena H.C. van Bruggen, 2008,

Increasing the environmental and social sustainability of cotton farming through farmer education in

Andhra Pradesh, India, Agriculture Systems, (96) 16-25.

2) Francesca Mancini, Janice L. S. Jiggins, Michael O’malley, 2009, Reducing the Incidence of Acute

Pesticide Poisoning by Educating Farmers on Integrated Pest Management in South India, Int J Occup

Environ Health, (15) 143–151.

3) FAO, 2004, Report of the FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

Agricultural Systems 96 (2008) 16–25

Increasing the environmental and social sustainability of cottonfarming through farmer education in Andhra Pradesh, India

Francesca Mancini a,*, Aad J. Termorshuizen a, Janice L.S. Jiggins b,Ariena H.C. van Bruggen a

a Biological Farming Systems, Wageningen University, Marijkeweg 22, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlandsb Communication and Innovation Studies Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6700 EW, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Received 23 January 2006; received in revised form 17 April 2007; accepted 8 May 2007Available online 5 July 2007

Abstract

Integrated pest management (IPM) has been introduced in India to reduce the serious impact of the use of highly toxic pesticides onpeople’s health and the environment. However, IPM diffusion has been slow, in part because of the inherent complexity of the approachbased on decisions requiring knowledge of ecological principles and local ecological dynamics. Farmer field schools (FFSs) on IPM, con-ducted for cotton growers in Andhra Pradesh, India, is shown to be an effective educational approach for building the essential knowl-edge and decision-making skills among farmers for IPM adoption. FFS farmers (73) drastically reduced the use of highly toxic pesticidesas a result of increased knowledge on biological control principles. Yield levels were not affected by this reduction, showing that part ofthe current use of pesticides in cotton cultivation is superfluous. IPM labour demand has been suggested also as limiting IPM diffusion.However, an analysis of the physical labour use, carried out on a sub-sample (43 FFS and 52 control farms), showed that the adoption ofIPM in the studied farms did not lead to an increase in the overall physical labour requirement, nor in the total time spent on plantprotection.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Integrated pest management; Farmer field schools; Cotton; Pesticides; Farmers’ education; Physical labour; Gender; India

1. Introduction

The global use of synthetic pesticides at the beginning ofthe current millennium exceeded 2.5 million tons per year.World pesticide expenditures were around $32.0 billion(EPA, 2002). The negative consequences on human health,water quality, biodiversity and wild life associated with therelease of large quantities of toxic products into the envi-ronment increasingly has become a matter of concern(Harper and Zilberman, 1989; Agne et al., 1995).

Cotton cultivation is estimated to receive some 10% ofall synthetic pesticides and 20–25% of insecticides appliedworld-wide each year. Developing countries use approxi-mately 50% of the total (EPA, 2002). India is the third larg-

0308-521X/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2007.05.001

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Mancini).

est cotton producing country in the world; the area undercotton fluctuates between 8 and 9 million ha. Cotton culti-vation generates extra cash for family expenses to millionsof small-scale farmers. The cotton chain, including process-ing and textile industries, provides employment to even alarger population of low-salary factory workers, many ofthem women. Promotion of the industry is an importantpart of the national strategy for reducing rural poverty.However, the average cotton yields, constrained primarilyby water availability and pest attacks, are among the low-est in the world (429 kg/ha, ICAC, 2005).

Pest control in cotton in India largely relies on pyre-throids, highly toxic organophosphate pesticides, and somevery persistent organochlorine pesticides such as endosul-fan (Kooistra et al., 2006). Repeated and improper applica-tions of insecticides have caused the development of cottonpest resistance and the resurgence of pest outbreaks

mailto:[email protected]

F. Mancini et al. / Agricultural Systems 96 (2008) 16–25 17

(Kranthi et al., 2002). Farmers have responded with higherdoses of chemicals, which have led to ever higher costs ofcultivation.

In 1981, the Government of India addressed the afore-said problems by promoting the adoption of an integratedapproach to plant protection that combines biological, cul-tural and chemical control, namely integrated pest manage-ment (IPM) (Hall and Duncan, 1984; USDA, 1993).However, until 1994 no significant, large-scale changes inthe management of cotton-based farming systems wereobserved (Directorate of Plant Protection, 2003). Thiswas because an inherently difficult and labour-intensivemethod such as IPM (Fernandez-Cornejo, 1998), was dis-seminated without an adequate investment in farmer edu-cation. The dissemination of IPM was based on shortfield demonstrations of standard technical packages devel-oped in research stations. However, IPM efficiency dependslargely on timely management decisions taken on the basisof actual field situations. Unlike traditional chemical con-trol, IPM requires that farmers have in-depth ecologicalknowledge, analytical ability and practical experience.The farmer field school (FFS) approach was introducedby the Government to address this deficiency. FFSs areseason-long educational courses organised in the field forsmall (25–30) groups of farmers (Kenmore, 1996). TheFFSs provide farmers with opportunities to experimentwith IPM principles and find locally-relevant pest manage-ment solutions. In FFSs, farmers study insect ecology byobserving the predatory behaviours of specimens collectedfrom their own fields and reared in insect zoos. Addition-ally, they collect data on pest and predator abundance intheir fields, data that are then analysed in groups, whoare encouraged to take informed decisions on plant protec-tion based on the analysis’ results. This process of buildingfarmers’ knowledge and confidence in IPM, as comparedto the previous top-down delivery of technical recommen-dations, is expected to be more effective in supporting theuptake of ecologically-informed farming practices (Bingen,2004). The curriculum of the FFSs conducted in AndhraPradesh also covered topics on production practices toenhance plant health and crop productivity, such as opti-mising doses and application of synthetic fertilisers, wateruse, and the number of weeding operations.

Up to now, there are no agreed universal standards orindicators to quantify IPM FFS impacts (Van den Bergand Jiggins, 2007), and because IPM practices vary byfarming system and context, cross-case comparisonbetween situations or between approaches is both difficultand contentious. In the specific case of this study, farmerswho have made a transition towards low pesticide cottonfarming as a result of an increase in their ecological knowl-edge and a more analytical decision-making process areconsidered IPM practitioners. In terms of labour, cottonis already one of the most intensive crops in India; itslabour requirement ranges between 190 and 225 workingdays/ha (PRDIS, 2003), compared to 29–84 days/ha formaize (Joshi et al., 2005) and 195 days/ha for rice (FAO,

2002). Fernandez-Cornejo (1998) pointed out that labouravailability has positive effects on the adoption rate ofIPM and the first empirical results of this effect were pre-sented by Beckmann et al. (2005). Therefore, it is importantto understand if farms previously using conventional syn-thetic chemical pest control increase their physical labourrequirement when converting to IPM. Evaluation of thechanges induced by the introduction of a new system man-agement is needed also to understand the associated socialimplications. Such changes often are gender differentiated,particularly in countries like India where a sharp genderdivision of roles is common. For instance, the introductionin 1961 of high-yielding varieties and hybrids has increasedwomen’s labour share in agriculture as a result of the sig-nificant technical changes entailed (Bennet, 1992), particu-larly in areas where cash crops are grown (Duvvury, 1989).

In order to test if developing farmers’ human capital isan effective way to improve the uptake of IPM in cotton,this paper presents an assessment of the changes in agro-nomic practices, input use (fertiliser, pesticides and physi-cal labour) and yield levels of farmers trained in FFSs.The labour analysis was carried out on gender-disaggre-gated data to address the gender effects associated withthe adoption of IPM. The study also establishes the rela-tion between pesticide use, farmer knowledge on insectecology, and farmers’ decision-making criteria with respectto pesticide application. The study formed part of a largerMonitoring and Evaluation (M&E) effort (2003–2005),conducted in the same geographical districts, that assessedthe impacts of FFSs on the environment (Kooistra, unpub-lished), farmers’ health (Mancini et al., 2005), and thesocial capital of farmers (Mancini et al., 2007).

2. Methods

2.1. Study area and sampling

Around 10% of the national acreage under cotton isgrown in Andhra Pradesh (AP) with an average yield of483 kg/ha (1994–2003 average, CAB, 2005; ICAC, 2005).The study was conducted in two districts of AP: Warangaldistrict (IPM1 and C1 villages) and Mahaboobnagar dis-trict (IPM2, IPM3, and C2 villages). Cotton was grownas the main crop during the rainy season on 121,260 haand 22,697 ha, respectively.

In 2002/2003, season-long (July–January) FFSs on cot-ton IPM were organised in the study districts. A total of137 households were interviewed for this study, of which73 were headed by farmers trained in 3 FFSs and 64 byfarmers who lived in villages where no FFSs had ever beenconducted. FFSs were attended by female members of thehousehold, in some cases accompanied by their husbands.All the farmers who graduated from the 3 FFSs were inter-viewed. The questionnaires were filled in by the persondirectly involved in the training, and jointly if more thanone member of the household had attended the FFS.Descriptive statistics of the respondents are provided in

Table 1Descriptive statistics of the IPM and control villages and farms in 2001/2002

Village code Village All farms

IPM1 IPM2 IPM3 C1 C2 IPM Control Sign.a

N 29 19 25 31 33 73 64Districtb W M M W MAge (y) 34.9 34.6 38.5 45.3 36.6 36.0 40.8 0.05

(10.8)d (9.8) (11.0) (11.0) (12.7) (10.6) (12.5)Educationc 1.38 2.53 2.96 1.71 1.73 2.22 1.72 0.01

(0.73) (0.61) (0.84) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0) (1.0)Farm size (ha) 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.5 2.9 2.7 3.2 ns

(2.8) (1.4) (1.7) (2.9) (2.8) (2.2) (2.8)Cotton area (ha) 0.8 1.1 2.1 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.2 ns

(0.42) (0.63) (1.53) (0.81) (0.56) (1.52) (0.70)

a Significance level of differences between IPM and control villages tested with t-student paired test, ns = not significant.b District name, W = Warangal; M = Mahaboobnagar.c Education level 1 = not literate; 2 = primary school; 3 = secondary school.d Standard deviation in brackets.

18 F. Mancini et al. / Agricultural Systems 96 (2008) 16–25

Table 1. In order to exclude potential diffusion effects, thecontrol villages were selected in the same agro-ecologicalzone but located 30 km away from the FFS villages. Thephysical labour survey was carried out for a sub-sampleof 43 IPM farms (23 in Warangal district and 20 in Maha-boobnagar district) and for 52 (26 in each district) controlfarms.

2.2. Data

Data were collected by means of interviews the yearbefore (cropping season 2001/2002) and the year after(2003/2004) the FFSs were conducted. The same householdmembers were interviewed in both years using a standar-dised questionnaire, which included questions on agro-nomic practices, physical labour use, ecologicalknowledge on cotton insects and the criteria used to decideabout the application of pesticides.

The questionnaire section on practices included the fol-lowing operations: irrigation (number per crop cycle),weeding (number per crop cycle), organic as well as inor-ganic fertilisation (doses in kg of commercial products/ha) and pesticide application (formulated products, doses,and number of applications per crop cycle/ha). The dosesof commercial fertilisers were converted into kg/ha ofnitrogen, phosphorous and potassium and the doses of for-mulated pesticides were converted into ml of active ingredi-ents (a.i.)/ha. The use of pesticides was expressed by threevariables: PEST: ml of a.i. belonging to WHO toxicity clas-ses I and II; PEST3: ml of a.i. belonging to WHO class IIIand U (WHO, 2005) and SPRAY: total number of applica-tions including all products.

The questionnaire section on knowledge focused on cot-ton insect ecology. Three scores were derived from thefarmers’ ability to: (1) list the names of the insects com-monly found in cotton fields (Identification Score, IS), (2)define whether the listed insects were pests or predators(Functional Score, FS), (3) describe the feeding habits ofthe insects, the plant damages in the case of pests and the

preying capacity in the case of predators (Ecology Score,ES). The number of right answers determined the valuesassigned to each score.

The questionnaire section on the decision criteria usedto apply pesticides contained a multiple-choice questiondeveloped on the basis of the common practices used inthe area. Farmers could select their answer from the fol-lowing options: 1-Calendar spraying advised by dealers,2-Calendar spraying advised by neighbour farmers, 3-Pestabundance or pest damage perceived as too high, 4-Pestabundance in relation to predator abundance. The firsttwo options refer to decisions taken without observingthe field situation and are therefore based on pre-fixedapplication schedules, e.g. calendar-based applications.The third option is based on the evidence of plant damageand/or presence of insects and insect eggs observed in thefield but without a systematic assessment of the risk oflosses. The last implies an analytical process that takes intoconsideration a number of observed factors (e.g. generalplant health, weather, temperature, soil moisture, preda-tors’ abundance), and interpretation of the relationshipamong these in order to determine potential losses frompest.

Finally, the questionnaire section on physical labourincluded a list of 21 agricultural operations, which hadbeen identified previously in collaboration with local farm-ers. The hours of physical labour required to perform eachoperation were recorded under four headings: familyfemale labour, family male labour, hired female labour,and hired male labour. Exchange labour is not a commonpractice in the area and was excluded from thequestionnaire.

3. Data analysis

The study compared the pre/post changes of the treat-ment (FFS) group to the pre/post changes of the controlgroup. The design, called the Double Difference (DD)model, has been proposed as necessary to address the bias


introduced by a non-random farmer sampling procedure,inherent to FFS evaluation studies because of the purpose-ful way in which recruitment to a FFS is carried out (Federet al., 2004a). As the descriptive statistics have shown, eventhough no specific criteria were used to select FFS partici-pants, socio-economic factors might have favoured the par-ticipation of the more progressive, wealthier and educatedfarmers in the villages studied. The DD model, comparingthe changes in performance over time of the treatmentgroup against those of the control group (a two-factordesign with a repeated measure of one factor), rather thanthe simple comparison of treatment and control groups’behaviour at one point in time, allows for the control ofany built-in, systematic, or seasonal, effects other thanthe training effect.

Data on practices and knowledge were analysed usingtwo units: the farm and the village, in order to isolatepotential village effects relating to the different geographi-cal regions in which the FFSs were held and the differentpeople organising the training. Pre and post means of thevariables for the five villages and for the total IPM andcontrol sample were compared using the paired t-test.Means of scores were compared using the non-parametricWilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test (Van derWaerden, 1969). Wherever farm level findings were consis-tent with village level findings, the discussion presentedbelow focuses on the former.

A canonical correspondence analysis (sensu Ter Braak),a multivariate analysis that allows inclusion of categoricaldata (Ter Braak and Smilauer, 2002), was performed todetermine whether the five villages were, overall, differentin respect of the changes undergone and which of thechanges contributed most to the distinction between IPMvillages and control villages. The data were log-trans-formed to obtain normality, and subsequently were stan-dardised, and then processed using the software programCanoco (Canonical Variate Analysis (Ter Braak and Smil-auer, 2002)) with villages as ‘samples’, and cases (pre-FFS,pre-Control, post-FFS, post-Control) as ‘species’. Best lin-ear combinations to discriminate among the villages werebased on the variables that proved to be relevant in the pre-vious analysis: PEST; PEST3; SPRAY; ES and YIELD,and two uncorrelated axes, were calculated.

Data on physical labour use were analysed by a two-wayANOVA with time as the repeated measure, using thePROCGLM procedure in the statistical analysis systemSAS version 6 (SAS Institute, 1994).

4. Results

4.1. Analysis of changes in agronomic practices, input use

and farmers’ attitude towards pest management

FFS respondents were significantly (4.8 y; P < 0.05)younger than control farmers and more educated (morepeople had completed primary school; P < 0.01). Therewere no significant differences in terms of average farm size

(2.7 and 3.2 ha for IPM and control farmers, respectively)and area under cotton cultivation (1.2 and 1.3 ha for IPMand control farmers, respectively) (Table 1).

Early in the season, prior to any FFS training, farmersapplied organophospates at low dosage against suckingpests, particularly jassids (Amrasca bigutullai); aphids(Aphis gossypii) and trips (Thrips tabaci). From theflowering stage to the boll opening pyrethroids, andorganophosphates, primarily monocrotophos, quinalphos,cholorpyriphos and profenophos, and the only organo-chlorine pesticide recorded, endosulfan, were used to con-trol the bollworm complex, including American bollworm(Helicoverpa armigera), spotted bollworm (Earias vittella),pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella), and caterpillar(Spodoptera litura). However, the group of farmers whosubsequently enrolled in FFSs used lower dosages of pesti-cides, closer to company and government recommenda-tions, perhaps because of their higher level of education.Pesticides were applied manually, mostly using rucksacksand power pumps.

The year after the FFSs, all farmers decreased the use ofhighly and moderately toxic pesticides, which they relatedto a lower pest load as reported by the national phytosan-itary observers. However, the reduction in the case of IPMfarmers was equivalent to 75%, whereas control farmersreduced their use of pesticides by 28%. The usage of lessharmful or ‘not likely to be harmful’ products (WHO tox-icity class III and U) was also remarkably lower the yearafter (74%) for FFS farmers, while no significant changesin toxicity class were reported by control farmers. Likewise,the total number of pesticide applications, including lesstoxic products, which was around 8 for the two groups inthe pre-survey, was significantly reduced in the case ofFFS farmers from 7.9 to 1.7, while no significant differ-ences were recorded in control villages. The yieldsincreased in IPM villages by 19.6% and in control villagesby 17.9%; however, the two percentages were not signifi-cantly different (Table 2).

There were no significant changes in the number of irri-gation and weeding operations, nor in the use of syntheticand organic fertilisers that could be attributed to a clearlearning effect and therefore these data are not presentedhere in full. The use of irrigation, often limited to emer-gency interventions when the rainfall was not sufficient tomeet the water requirement of the crop, did not changeacross the years. The number of weeding operationsslightly decreased for both groups. In 2003/2004, the fertil-isation levels were respectively for FFS farmers and controlfarmers 50 and 100 kg/ha N, 42 and 45 kg/ha P, 35 and53 kg/ha P for synthetic fertilisers, and 932 and 987 kg/hafor organic manure. The difference in the use of syntheticnitrogen between the two groups occurred prior to theFFS and was determined primarily by the village C2(140 kg/ha), where presumably subsidised fertilisers hadbeen distributed.

The FFS and control farmers were homogeneous interms of ecological knowledge in the pre-survey. FFS

Table 2Yield and pesticide use at the IPM and control farms before (2001/2002) and after (2003/2004) the FFS training per village and for all IPM or controlvillages together

Villagecode

Yield seedcotton (kg/ha) Pesticides class I and II (ml a.i./ha) Pesticides class III and U (ml a.i./ha) Sprays (no.)/ha

2001/2002 2003/2004 2001/2002 2003/2004 2001/2002 2003/2004 2001/2002 2003/2004

IPM1 569***a 756 1671*** 316 375*** 58 10.2*** 1.5IPM2 926*** 1200 731*** 256 301* 71 5.8*** 2.6IPM3 967ns 988 855*** 185 366*** 97 7.6*** 1.0C1 841* 953 2535*** 1664 496ns 689 9.7ns 8.5C2 477* 567 1722ns 1382 863ns 707 6.7ns 5.9Tot IPM 820** 981 1085.7*** 252.3 347.3*** 75.3 7.9*** 1.7Tot C 659** 760 2128*** 1533 679.5ns 698 8.2ns 7.2

Tot IPM 19.6nsb �76.6* �78.2*** �78.5***

Tot C 17.9 �28.0 �2.7 �12.2

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ns = not significant.In the last two rows the changes expressed as percent of the 2001/2002 values are reported.

a Significance level between 2001/2002 and 2003/2004 in adjacent columns.b Significance level between all IPM (Tot IPM) and control villages (Tot C) in the same columns.

-3.0 3.0

-1.5

2.0

C1a

IPM1a

C2a

IPM2a

IPM3a

C1b

IPM1b

C2b

IPM2b

IPM3b

YIELD PEST

PEST3

SPRAY

Fig. 1. Canonical correspondence analysis of the three IPM villages(IPM1, IPM2 and IPM3) and two control villages (C1 and C2) before (a,2001/2002) and after (b, 2003/2004) the FFS based on ml a.i./ha of WHOI and II pesticides (PEST), ml a.i./ha of WHO III and U (PEST3), totalnumber of pesticide applications (SPRAY) and Kg/ha of cotton harvested(YIELD).


farmers significantly improved their ability to identify cot-ton insects at different development stages from egg toadult (IS), to describe whether the insects were pests or pre-dators (FS), to describe the damage caused by the pestinsects, and the preying habits of predators (ES) after theFFSs, whereas no significant changes were recorded forthe control group (Table 3).

With respect to the criteria applied to decide about pes-ticide applications, the majority of the farmers during thebaseline year checked the presence of pests in the field. Inthe post-survey, half of the FFS farmers had shifted to per-forming a complete agro-ecosystem analysis (including theoccurrence of natural enemies) of their own fields. No sig-nificant changes were recorded for the control farmers(Table 3). The results of the canonical correspondenceanalysis confirm these results (Figs. 1 and 2). The threeIPM villages had changed remarkably with respect to pes-ticide variables the year after the schools were held, whilethe changes in control villages were small (Fig. 1). Interest-ingly, changes in yield did not go hand in hand with

Table 3Knowledge and decision-making scores of IPM and control farmers before (control villages together

Village code Identification scoreb Functional scorec

2001/2002 2003/2004 2001/2002 2003/2

IPM1 4.0***a 7.7 3.3*** 7.3IPM2 5.4*** 7.2 5.2*** 7.3IPM3 4.6*** 5.5 3.7*** 5.4C1 5.4*** 3.9 4.4ns 3.9C2 3.3ns 3.4 3.2ns 3.1

Tot IPM 4.7*** 6.8 4.0*** 6.7Tot C 4.4* 3.7 3.8ns 3.5

a Significance level between 2001/2002 and 2003/2004 in adjacent columns.b Identification score: ability to list the names of the insects commonly founc Functional score: ability to define whether the listed insects were pests ord Ecological score: ability to describe the feeding habits of the insects, the p

predators.e Decision criteria: 1-Calendar spraying advised by dealers, 2-Calendar sp

perceived as too high, 4-Pest abundance in relation to predator abundance.

changes in pesticide use, which is illustrative of the ineffi-ciency of the pesticides use to control losses due to pestattacks in at least some of the villages. Also, ecological

2001/2002) and after (2003/2004) the FFS per village and for all IPM or

Ecological scored Decision criteriae

004 2001/2002 2003/2004 2001/2002 2003/2004

2.3*** 7.0 3.4* 4.04.0*** 7.3 2.5ns 3.22.5*** 4.4 3.2* 3.54.2*** 3.1 3.1ns 3.03.2ns 3.1 2.9ns 2.9

2.9*** 7 3.0* 3.63.1ns 4.7 3.0ns 2.9

* = 0.05, ** = 0.01, *** = 0.001, ns = not significant.d in cotton fields.predators.lant damages in the case of pests and the preying capacity in the case of

raying advised by neighbour farmers, 3-Pest abundance or pest damage

-3.0 4.0

-1.5

2.0

C1a

IPM1a

C2a

IPM2aIPM3a

C1b

IPM1b

C2b

IPM2b

IPM3b

YIELDPEST

ES

Fig. 2. Canonical correspondence analysis of the three IPM villages(IPM1, IPM2 and IPM3) and two control villages (C1 and C2) before (a,2001/2002) and after (b, 2003/2004) the FFS based on ml a.i./ha of WHOI and II pesticides (PEST), ml a.i./ha, kg/ha of cotton harvested (YIELD)and ecological knowledge score (ES).


knowledge and pesticide use did not explain in a similarway the variation between villages (Fig. 2), although theywere negatively correlated (Pearson’s r = �0.49), indicat-ing that those farmers who had learned more about pestand predators ecology have reduced their use of moder-ately and highly toxic pesticides.

4.2. Analysis of physical labour use before and after the FFS

In 2001/2002, the total time required to cultivate onehectare of cotton was on average 1913 h, equivalent to239 8-hour days, of which 74% was provided by women(23% female family labour and 51% waged female labour)and 26% by men (22% male family labour and 4% malewaged labour). Women provided a high share of wagedwork for weeding and harvesting (Fig. 3). In terms of gen-der roles, the study confirmed that men performed mostly

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Mech3

Non-mech2

Fert. Appl.

Pest. Appl.

IPM1

Irrigation

Harvest

Hours/ha

Family Female

Waged Female

Family Male

Waged Male

z

Fig. 3. Gender analysis of the physical labour input in conventionalcotton farming (h/ha) in 2001/2002. 1IPM tasks: application of traditionalbotanical preparations, hand-picking of larvae, and installing pheromonetraps. 2Non-mechanised tasks: stubble removal, sowing, gap filling,intercropping, thinning of the crop, unearthing plants, weeding, fertiliserapplication, de-topping, labour supervision and cotton grading. 3Mechan-ised tasks: ploughing, cultivating, furrows making, irrigation, inter-rowcultivation.

tasks that involved the use of tools and machines, suchas preparing the land for cultivation (ploughing and furrowmaking), while women were in charge of selecting and sow-ing seeds, removing stalks, ensuring proper plant popula-tions by thinning the crop or filling the gaps, weeding thefield and harvesting the lint. The application of fertilisersand pesticides involved both men and women. However,in the case of pesticide application, there was a sharp gen-der division between men, who carried out the actualspraying, and women, who prepared the chemical mixtureand re-filled the tanks.

Overall, the total physical labour requirement was notsignificantly different for the IPM farms and the controlfarms (Table 4). The post-survey recorded a 11.2% and8.6% decrease in the total physical labour requirementfor both IPM and control farms respectively as a resultof less time being invested in weeding and harvesting.The higher yields of 2003/2004, although apparently asso-ciated with a lower harvesting time, can be explained by amore efficient boll picking. Cotton lint is harvested in a var-iable number of pickings, up to 7 in the area studied; how-ever, the second and the third picking contribute the mostto the final harvest. Farmers are interested in reducing thelabour cost by renouncing the last few pickings if the pre-vious have been fruitful.

The total time spent on plant protection measures (pes-ticide application and IPM) was around 3.3% of the totalin 2001/2002 and 5.2% in 2003/2004, for both FFS andcontrol farms. There were no significant differencesbetween the groups before and after in terms of the timespent in plant protection, but there were differences interms of specific plant protection practices. The controlgroup increased the time spent on applying pesticides by42.6% and no significant time was spent on IPM practicesin either year. Considering that the number of pesticideapplications for the control group was the same in bothyears, it appears that in 2003/2004 control farmers usedhigh-volume sprays. The FFS group reduced the time spenton pesticide application by 48.4% and increased the timespent on IPM 10.9-fold (from 4.8 to 56.3 h) during thepost-FFS year. The time spent on IPM practices by theFFS group was slightly higher at the pre-survey period,confirming the hypothesis that this group of farmers wasalready sensitised towards more ecological plant protectionmeasures at the time of their enrolment in an FFS.

The ratio of female to total work before and after FFSsfor the control group and the FFS group were analysed toinvestigate any changes in gender roles. The only ratiosthat significantly differed pertained to the plant protectionmeasures and specifically the adoption of IPM. Women inthe pre-survey contributed 40% of the total work requiredfor pesticide application, including the time required tofetch water (8–10%) (Table 5). This ratio remainedunchanged for the control group in the post-survey. In con-trast, the adoption of IPM shifted the female proportion ofthe total time spent in plant protection from 0.33 to 0.49i.e. the adoption of IPM resulted in a higher time demand

Table 4Physical labour use (h/ha) in the IPM and control farms before and after the FFS

Group Year Total Mecha Non-Mechb Pesticide IPMc Plant Prot.d

IPM 2001/2002 1875.5A* 236.0A 1554.8A 61.8A 4.8A 66.7A

2003/2004 1666.3B 169.1B 1383.4B 37.4B 56.3B 93.8B

Control 2001/2002 1951.7A 324.5C 1549.8A 70.2A 0.5C 70.7A

2003/2004 1784.2B 372.0D 1444B 105.2C 0.0D 105.2B

a Mechanised tasks: ploughing, cultivating, furrows making, irrigation, inter-row cultivation.b Non-mechanised tasks: stubble removal, sowing, gap filling, intercropping, thinning of the crop, unearthing plants, weeding, fertiliser application, de-

topping, labour supervision and cotton grading.c IPM tasks: application of traditional botanical preparations, hand-picking of larvae, and installing pheromone traps.d Plant Protection includes the time spent on applying pesticides and IPM practices.* Means with the same letter within the same column do not significantly differ among them according to the Duncan’s multiple range test. Different

letters indicates differences at a significance level of P < 0.001.

Table 5Ratios of female to total work hours in cotton cultivation before and afterthe FFS

Group Year Total Pesticide IPM Plant Prot.

IPM 2001/2002 3.40A* 0.30A 0.14A 0.33A

2003/2004 4.00A 0.22A 0.50B 0.49B

Control 2001/2002 3.21A 0.31A 0.02C 0.31C

2003/2004 3.29A 0.32A 0.00D 0.32D

* Means with the same letter do not significantly differ from other meansin the same column according to the Duncan’s multiple range test. Dif-ferent letters indicates differences at a significance level of P < 0.001.


on women. The reliance of IPM on time-demanding andunmechanised tasks may explain this shift in physicallabour time allocation. Hand-picking of larvae to controlthe bollworm population and to prepare the natural bio-control agent Nucleus Polyhedrosis Virus (NPV), theinstallation of pheromone traps, and the application of her-bal extracts had become ‘typically’ female tasks.

The analysis carried out so far has aimed to evaluate theoverall potential of the FFS approach as an educationalmeasure and therefore included all FFS graduates (FFSparticipants who registered an attendance rate above75%). Among the graduates, there were also eleven farmerswho did not prove to be good IPM practitioners, and whoactually increased their use of chemical controls the yearafter the FFSs. the analysis of the time spent on pesticideapplication was repeated to exclude these eleven records.In this case the reduction by the FFS group was larger,decreasing from 66.2 to 19.5 h.

The study does not take into account the time spent byfarmers on field observation. An initial attempt to includethis aspect in the list of operations was made; however, thedata collected were discarded because of their poor quality.Farmers visited their fields on a regular basis before andafter the FFS, also in the control group, but an accuratequantification in hours was not possible. Tripp et al.(2005) reported similar difficulties in using the time devotedto field monitoring as an indicator of the time spent onmonitoring pest populations in his survey of FFSs in SriLanka. This is an important gap in that the effectiveness

of IPM relies in part on regular and accurate field observa-tion, and thus deserves further investigation using moreadequate tools for data capture.

5. Discussion

The study shows that the adoption of integrated pestmanagement (IPM) can significantly reduce the use of pes-ticides on cotton in Andhra Pradesh. Given that farmerstrained in IPM through FFS used one sixth of the pesti-cides used by the control group to obtain the same yieldlevels, it can also be concluded that the scope for reductionis extremely large. However, this reduction was possiblebecause of the knowledge-intensive, skills-oriented andhands-on educational approach adopted to train farmersin IPM, as suggested by the strong correlation betweenknowledge level and reduction in pesticide use. The farmerswho learned more about biological control principles wereable to manage the largest decrements in pesticide usage.These were anticipated impacts of the FFSs, where the cur-riculum is structured around a weekly field visit to sampleinsects on plants and leaves. Farmers attending the schoolslearn to sample plants in the field and leaves on the plantsaccording to a randomised design, and to record the num-ber of insects and eggs visible. On the basis of factors influ-encing pests’ population dynamics, e.g. climate conditionsand food availability, farmers learn to estimate the risksof plant damage and to take informed decisions, both indi-vidually and collectively. Empirical evidence on the role ofIPM in reducing pesticide use while sustaining yields hasbeen provided for a number of cases, e.g. rice farmers inIndonesia (Fliert, 1993), Vietnam (Huan et al., 1999), andpistachio farmers in Iran (Heidari, 2003). Some studieshave also established a positive relation between the reduc-tion in pesticide use and increased knowledge on bio-con-trol principles (Rola et al., 2002; Godtland et al., 2004;Feder et al., 2004b; Sinzogan et al., 2004; Reddy and Sury-amani, 2005).

The FFS approach focuses on the importance of judgingthe necessity for plant protection interventions on the basisof actual field needs, a judgement widely seen as essential toachieve a more sustainable agriculture. In this light, a


replacement of toxic pesticides by other less harmful prod-ucts is considered an improvement only if the need forthese products has also been established through an ecolog-ical field assessment. Mere substitution of synthetic pesti-cides with biocontrol agents or other technologies such astransgenic cotton thus is unlikely to become a definitivesolution to sustain agricultural productivity, unless thesenew technologies are paired with educational programmesfor farmers, spray operators, hired workers, and familymembers who also work on the crop. The cultivation ofthe genetically modified bollworm-resistant Bt cotton wasrecently (2002) authorised in India. Although increasedyields and profits, along with reduced pesticide applicationshave been credited to its introduction (Huang et al., 2002),also many cases of poor performance have been reported,particularly in Andhra Pradesh (Kranthi et al., 2005; Sahaiand Rehman, 2004). Experiences in China, where Bt cottonhas been grown since 1996, have shown that pesticide use isconsiderably lower if the Bt technology is integrated inimproved production systems, rather than considered as adefinitive solution to pesticide overuse (Pemsl et al., 2005).

The current study shows that FFS farmers changed theirpractices as a result of a change in their decision-makingprocess, unlike the control group that continued to applysynthetic pesticides and biocontrol agents at the same ratein terms of number of applications. A similar behaviouraldifference was observed by Khan et al. (2005) in Pakistanwhere trained farmers reduced the frequency and doses ofpesticide applications as a result of increased decision-mak-ing and field observational scores. Yang et al. (2005)reported that in China FFS trained farmers made manage-ment decisions on the basis of a cotton ecosystem analysis,whereas control farmers followed a calendar sprayingregime in the early stages of the crop and in the later stagesmade decisions on the basis of the evidence of plantdamage.

Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) showed thatyield was not correlated with ecological knowledge. Thiscan be explained by the fact that in many cases pesticideuse likely has been highly inefficient (i.e. application ofunsuitable pesticides, or overusage). Furthermore, otherfactors may have been limiting to crop yield, notably soilfertility and water availability. CCA originates from com-munity ecology, and especially from vegetation science(Ter Braak and Smilauer, 2002), but it has been appliedonly very rarely in the social sciences. However, we showhere that CCA provides easy insight in the relation betweenvariables that allows more powerful and accurate analysisand more powerful policy conclusions to be drawn.

The hypothesis that the FFSs generate an overallimprovement in all production practices was not validatedby the findings. Even though the curriculum of the cottonFFSs conducted in Andhra Pradesh had a broader focusthan plant protection alone, no accompanying effects otherthan pesticide reduction can be claimed on the basis of thepresent study. The use of fertilisers – of particular interestfor their consequences for the environment and crop pro-

ductivity – was not changed by the FFS experience. Similarconclusions were drawn by a complementary environmen-tal assessment of cotton cultivation carried out in the samearea (Kooistra, unpublished), and in Pakistan (Khan et al.,2005). This result can be explained by the relatively higheremphasis given to plant protection measures in comparisonwith other topics in the curriculum. This result also can beinterpreted as a confirmation that intensive educationalinvestments are required in order to achieve appreciablechanges in farmers’ practices. Despite the improvement inpest management, the yield remained relatively low, there-fore it seems advisable to strengthen the training focus onnutrient and water management.

The adoption of IPM did not lead to an increase in thetotal physical labour requirement, nor in the time allottedto plant protection measures. However, the time spent onapplying pesticides for the control group in the post-surveywas 3-fold higher than for the FFS group. In the case ofchemical control, women continued to work alongsidemen, but after the adoption of IPM the average ratiofemale to total work for plant protection increased from0.3 to 0.5. Availability of female work, particularly at peaktimes, might therefore influence the adoption rate of IPM.In term of social sustainability, creating female employ-ment in an occupationally and legally safe environmentmight be seen as a positive effect considering that most ofthe women belonging to poor households rely on agricul-tural wages to meet daily basic needs. However, greaterfemale employment has not always enhanced women’empowerment, particularly in the villages of Andhra Pra-desh where women have replaced men in the bonded(unfree) agricultural workforce (Da Corta and Ven-katesharlu, 1999). In the physical labour class analysedby this study, the highest share of work was provided byfemale family members, who thus are likely to be burdenedwith extra, unremunerated work as a result of IPMadoption.

Yet considering the severe degree of acute pesticide poi-soning affecting cotton growers in the studied area (Man-cini et al., 2005), the promotion of IPM throughimplementation of FFSs on a larger scale is a advisableto mitigate the serious consequences that the heavy use ofpesticides has caused to people’s health, and especially towomen’s heath. However, the costs of FFSs compared toother approaches have been debated (Quizon et al., 2001)and can be seen as a factor limiting large-scale publicinvestment in FFSs. As yet, there are few evaluations thathave attempted to quantify the development benefits ofFFSs beyond the technical gains, such as human capacity,social capital, and institutional building (Mancini et al.,2007). The debate remains open on the cost-benefit issuesas well as on how to achieve cost-efficient pest managementwith complementary efforts of IPM extension, multi-mediamessages, IPM FFSs and other forms of occupational edu-cation, and legislative measures such as removal of certainchemicals from the market. A number of State Govern-ments in India, including AP, are now experimenting with


various models for scaling up IPM FFSs, which warrantsproper documentation and evaluation.

6. Conclusions

This study shows that the conventional pesticide prac-tices in cotton in India are unnecessary and that IPM prac-tices can be adopted without sacrificing yield. Consideringthe well-established impacts of pesticides on the environ-ment and people’s health, there is a need to support thegovernment’s policy to promote the use of ecologically-informed control methods such as IPM. We showed thatfarmer field schools are an effective way of assisting farmersto develop the skills and understanding necessary to adoptIPM practices. Broadening the IPMFFS curriculum toaddress issues of plant production, specifically nutrientand water management issues, and produce marketing, isnecessary to improve cotton productivity and profitabilityin India. Finally, women’s labour time may be a limitingfactor in wider adoption of IPM in farming systems char-acterised by strongly-defined gender roles.

The multidimensionality of IPM FFS outcomes (effectson yield, farmer’s income and health, environmentalhealth, increase in human and social capital, etc.) defiesconventional approaches to evaluation and demands newmethodological and conceptual efforts. More systematicresearch programmes are needed to understand the overallvalues of investing in farmer education for sustainable agri-culture so as to advise policy makers and funding agenciesabout appropriate and sustainable ways forward.

Acknowledgements

The financial support provided by the EU-FAO IPMProgramme for Cotton in Asia and the constant technicalguidance provided by P. Kenmore, P. Ooi, G. Walter-Echols, D. von Werner, P. Pachagounder and the local staffduring the fieldwork are gratefully acknowledged. We aregrateful to Justus Wesseler for his valuable advice on thelabour analysis. Special thanks are due to the farmerswho collaborated in this survey for letting the first authorto visit their farms and dedicating their valuable time tothe survey.

References

Agne, S., Waibel, H., Jungbluth, F., Fleischer, G., 1995. Guidelines for

pesticide policy studies. A Framework for Analyzing Economic and

Political Factors of Pesticide Use in Developing Countries. Institute of

Horticultural Economics, Hannover, Germany.

Beckmann, V., Irawan, E., Wesseler, J., 2005. Does farm labour

organization affect IPM adoption? Poster paper presented at the

Tropentag the Global Food and Product Chain–Dynamics, Innova-

tions, Conflicts, Strategies, October 11–13, 2005, University of

Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.

Bennet, L., 1992. Women Poverty and Productivity in India. World Bank,

Washington, DC, USA, Economic Development Institute Seminar

Paper 43.

Bingen, J., 2004. Pesticides, politics and pest management: toward a

political ecology of cotton in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Moseley, W.G.,

Logan, B.I. (Eds.), African Environment and Development: Rhetoric,

Programs and Realities. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot, UK,

pp. 111–126.

CAB (Cotton Advisory Board), 2005. Cotton and Man-made Fibre

Filament Yarn industry, Annual Report 2004/2005, Ministry of

Textile, India.

Da Corta, L., Venkatesharlu, D., 1999. Unfree relation and the femini-

zation of agricultural labour in Andhra Pradesh, 1970–1975. In: Byres,

T.J., Kapadia, K., Lerche, J. (Eds.), Rural Labour Relations in India.

Frank Cass Publishers, London, UK, pp. 71–139.

Directorate of Plant Protection, 2003. Integrated Pest Management

Package for Cotton. IPM Package No. 25, Government of India,

Ministry of Agriculture, Faridabad, India.

Duvvury, N., 1989. Work Participation of Women in India: A Study with

Special Reference to Female Agricultural Labourers, 1961–1981.

International Labour Organization, New Delhi, India.

EPA, 2002. In: Kiely, T., Donaldson, D., Grube, A. (Eds.), Pesticides

Industry Sales and Usage 2000 and 2001 Market Estimates. US

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

FAO, 2002. Issues and challenges in rice technological development for

sustainable food security, The International Rice Commission, 23–26

July 2002, Bangkok, Thailand.

Feder, G., Murgai, R., Quizon, J.B., 2004a. Sending farmers back to

school: the impact of farmer field schools in Indonesia. Review of

Agricultural Economics 26, 45–62.

Feder, G., Murgai, R., Quizon, J.B., 2004b. The acquisition and diffusion

of knowledge: the case of pest management training in Farmer Field

Schools, Indonesia. Journal of Agricultural Economics 55, 221–243.

Fernandez-Cornejo, J., 1998. Environmental and economic consequences

of technology adoption: IPM in viticulture. Agricultural Economics

18, 145–155.

Fliert, E.V.D., 1993. Integrated pest management: farmer field schools

generate sustainable practices. Wageningen Agricultural University

Papers, 1993 (93 3): xv + 304, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Godtland, E.M., Sadoulet, E., Janvry, A.d., Murgai, R., Ortiz, O., 2004.

The impact of farmer field schools on knowledge and productivity: a

study of potato farmers in the Peruvian Andes. Economic Develop-

ment and Cultural Change 53, 63–92.

Hall, D.C., Duncan, G.M., 1984. Econometric evaluation of new

technology with an application to integrated pest-management.

American Journal of Agricultural Economy 66, 624–633.

Harper, C.R., Zilberman, D., 1989. Pest externalities from agricultural

inputs. American Journal of Agricultural Economy 71, 692–702.

Heidari, H., 2003. Farmer Field Schools slash pesticide use and exposure

in Iran. In: Pesticides News, 59, Pesticide Action Network UK,

London UK, pp. 12–14.

Huan, N.H., Mai, V., Escalada, M.M., Heong, K.L., 1999. Changes in

rice farmers’ pest management in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Crop

Protection 18, 557–563.

Huang, J., Hu, R., Rozelle, S., Qiao, F., Pray, C.E., 2002. Transgenic

varieties and productivity of smallholder cotton farmers in China. The

Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 46 (3),

367–387.

ICAC, 2005. Cotton production practices. Technical information session.

In: Proceedings of 64th Plenary Meeting, International Cotton

Advisory Committee, Liverpool, UK.

Joshi, P.K., Singh, M.P., Singh, N.N., Gerpacio, R.V., Pingali, P.L., 2005.

Maize in India: production systems, constraints and research priorities,

CYMMIT, Mexico.

Kenmore, P., 1996. Integrated pest management in rice. In: Persley, G.

(Ed.), Biotechnology and Integrated Pest Management. CAB Interna-

tional, Wallingford, pp. 76–97.

Khan, M.A., Ahmad, I., Walter-Echols, G., 2005. Impact of an FFS-

based IPM approach on farmer capacity, production practices and

income: evidence from Pakistan. In: Ooi, P.A.C., Praneetvatakul, S.,

Waibel, H., Walter-Echols, G. (Eds.), The Impact of the FAO EU


IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia, Pesticide Policy Project Publi-

cation Series No. 9, Hannover University, Germany.

Kooistra, K.J., Pyburn, R., Termorshuizen, A.J., 2006. The sustainability

of cotton. Rapport 223, Science Shop Wageningen UR, The Nether-

lands.

Kranthi, K.R., Jadhav, D.R., Kranthi, S., Wanjari, R.R., Ali, S.S.,

Russell, D.A., 2002. Insecticide resistance in five major insect pests of

cotton in India. Crop Protection 21, 449–460.

Kranthi, K.R., Naidu, S., Dhawad, C.S., Tatwawadi, A., Mate, K., Patil,

E., Bharose, A.A., Behere, G.T., Wadaskar, R.M., Kranthi, S., 2005.

Temporal and intra-plant variability of Cry1Ac expression in Bt-

cotton and its influence on the survival of the cotton Bollworm,

Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner), Noctuidae: Lepidoptera. Current

Science 89, 291–298.

Mancini, F., van Bruggen, A.H.C., Jiggins, J.L.S., Ambatipudi, A.,

Murphy, H., 2005. Incidence of acute pesticide poisoning among

female and male cotton growers in India. International Journal of

Occupational and Environmental Health 11, 221–232.

Mancini, F., van Bruggen, A.H.C., Jiggins, J., 2007. Evaluating farmer

field school outcomes using the sustainable livelihood approach.

Experimental Agriculture 43, 1–17.

Pemsl, D., Waibel, H., Gutierrez, A.P., 2005. Why do some Bt-cotton

farmers in China continue to use high levels of pesticides? Interna-

tional Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 3, 44–56.

PRDIS, 2003. Impact Assessment of Cotton Integrated Pest Management

Training Through Farmer Field School Approach, Final report, FAO,

Bangkok, Thailand.

Quizon, J., Feder, B., Murgain, R., 2001. Fiscal sustainability of

agricultural extension: the case of the farmer field school approach.

Journal of International Agriculture and Extension Education 8 (1),

13–23.

Reddy, S.V., Suryamani, M., 2005. Impact of farmer field school approach

on acquisition of knowledge and skills by farmers about cotton pests

and other crop management practices – evidence from India. In: Ooi,

P.A.C., Praneetvatakul, S., Waibel, H., Walter-Echols, G. (Eds.), The

Impact of the FAO EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia, Pesticide

Policy Project Publication Series No. 9, Hannover University,

Germany.

Rola, A., Jamias, S., Quizon, J., 2002. Do farmer field school graduates

retain and share what they learn? An investigation in Iloilo, Philip-

pines. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education

9, 65–76.

Sahai, S., Rehman, S., 2004. Bt Cotton performance 2003–2004: fields

Swamped with Illegal Variants’. Available from: <www.genecam-

paign.org>.

SAS Institute, 1994. SAS/STAT User’s Guide fro Personal Computers,

Version 6 ed., SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.

Sinzogan, A.A.C., van Huis, A., Kossou, D.K., Jiggins, J.,

Vodouhe, S., 2004. Farmers’ knowledge and perception of

cotton pests and pest control practices in Benin: results of a

diagnostic study. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Science 52,

285–303.

Ter Braak, C.J.F., Smilauer, P., 2002. Canoco reference manual and

canodraw for windows user’s guide, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Tripp, R., Wijeratne, M., Piyadasa, V.H., 2005. What should we expect

from farmer field schools? A Sri Lanka case study. World Develop-

ment 33, 1705–1720.

USDA, 1993. USDA Programs related to integrated pest management.

USDA Program Aid 1506, Agricultural Research Service, Washing-

ton, DC.

Van den Berg, H., Jiggins, J., 2007. Investing in farmers—The impacts of

farmer field schools in relation to integrated pest management. World

Development 35 (4), 663–686.

Van der Waerden, B.L., 1969. Mathematical Statistics. Springer-Verlag,

New York.

WHO, 2005. The WHO recommended classification of pesticides by

hazard and guidelines to classification to 2004, International Pro-

gramme in Chemical Safety.

Yang, P., Li, K., Shi, S., Xia, J., Guo, R., Li, S., Wang, L., 2005. Impacts

of transgenic Bt cotton and integrated pest management education on

smallholder cotton farmers. International Journal of Pest Management

51, 231–244.

http://www.genecampaign.org

http://www.genecampaign.org

143

Sixty-five farmers reported on pesticide use and thesigns and symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning whenusing two different plant protection strategies: in 2003using chemical controls and in 2004 using an approachto Integrated Pest Management (IPM) based on anecological analysis of the field conditions. Exposure toorganophosphates was confirmed as a serious riskfactor for occupational poisoning. The adoption ofIPM reduced the use of pesticides and halved the inci-dence of acute pesticide poisoning. Overall, the pesti-cide use spectrum shifted towards lower WHO HazardClasses. A reduction of adverse health effects wasattained through a reduction in exposure to toxic pes-ticides and behavioural changes. Given that otherstrategies to reduce the rate of acute poisoning haveproven ineffective, interventions aiming to minimizepesticide poisoning in India and in other developingcountries with similar rural conditions should focus onrestricting the use of highly toxic compounds and edu-cating farmers on IPM. Key words: Pesticide poisoning;organophosphates; Farmer Field School; IntegratedPest Management; cotton

INT J OCCUP ENVIRON HEALTH 2009;15:143–151

Synthetic pesticides are widely used in agricultureto control crop losses caused by insects and otherpests. In 2007, the global market value for con-

ventional crop protection products reached US$33.4billion, 9.7% up from the previous year, according toCroplife International.1 The trends in the use of pesti-cides in more recent years are unclear, as official statis-tics on global consumption of active ingredients arenot yet available. In OECD countries, the use and han-dling of pesticides is strictly regulated, while in manydeveloping countries the necessary legislation is stillincomplete or not properly enforced.

In 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO)estimated global pesticide poisoning at 3 million cases.However, clinical surveillance has provided compellingevidence that these estimates do not represent the real

extent of illness and death by pesticide poisoning, fail-ing either to reflect the actual hospital records or toaccount for misdiagnosed or nonhospitalized cases.2–4

Reportedly, national authorities fail to keep completerecords on non-fatal occupational exposure in develop-ing countries.5 Pesticide poisoning studies based onquestionnaires have shown much higher figures thanhospital registries, and directly observed poisoning rateshave been recorded at levels even higher than recalledinformation provided by farmers in questionnaires.6

Farmers and agricultural workers perceive the signsand symptoms of acute poisoning as an unavoidablepart of their occupation. As signs and symptoms oftendisappear by themselves, those affected tend to avoidvisits to health centers or hospitals, which are often toofar away or too expensive to access. In 140 cases of mod-erate to severe acute pesticide poisoning recorded in asample of 97 Indian cotton growers during one sprayingseason of 4 months, poisoned individuals never soughtthe advice of a doctor.7 Less predictable forms of con-tamination, like take-home exposure to pesticidesamong farm families or entering fields recently sprayedbefore the no-entry recommended period, have beenoverlooked in epidemiological assessments, eventhough the few studies conducted have shown that farmchildren of pesticide applicators are more highlyexposed to pesticides8–10 and have higher levels of pesti-cide metabolites in their urine samples, compared toother farm children and non-farm children.11–12 Socio-economic factors such as poverty, malnutrition and illit-eracy13–14 amplify the adverse consequences of pesticideexposure of poor people.

The implementation of appropriate preventivemeasures in occupational exposures remains limited byinsufficient information among users.15 Some studiesevaluating the effectiveness of Personal ProtectiveEquipment (PPE) in reducing exposure to pesticideshave estimated that effective PPE reduces exposure upto 50% in developing countries; others have shown itsinadequacy to protect farmers. Hruska and Corriols16

monitored the cholinesterase levels of farmers whoused PPE over two years and found no reduction ofexposure to organophosphate insecticides as com-pared with farmers who did not use the equipment.Atkin17 has shown the inadequacy of risk reduction pro-grams promoting the use of PPE and training on safeuse as a means to contain exposure in the socio-eco-

Received from: Biological Farming Systems, Wageningen Univer-sity (FM), Communication and Innovation Studies Group, Wagenin-gen University (JLSJ), and Occupational Health Services, Universityof California Davis (MO). Send correspondence to: FrancescaMancini, Corso Martinetti 34a/7, 16149 Genova, Sampierdarena, Italy;email: <[email protected]>.

Disclosures: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Reducing the Incidence of AcutePesticide Poisoning by Educating Farmers onIntegrated Pest Management in South India

FRANCESCA MANCINI, PHD, JANICE L. S. JIGGINS, PHD, MICHAEL O’MALLEY, MD, MPH

nomic context of rural India. PPE includes imperme-able gear that is usually not affordable or available, noracceptable to workers in hot climates.18,19 The localcotton garments commonly used by Indian farmers donot offer any protection against skin exposure.McConnell,20 who studied the epidemic of pesticidepoisoning in Nicaragua, listed among the main causesof poisoning the use of acutely toxic pesticides underprimitive working conditions which did not allow forsafe handling.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) ofthe United Nations (UN) has developed the Interna-tional Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use ofPesticides21 (the Code), which serve as globallyaccepted voluntary standards of conduct for all publicand private entities engaged in, or associated with, thedistribution and use of pesticides. The Code recom-mends that pesticides whose handling and applicationrequire the use of PPE that is uncomfortable, expensive,or not readily available should be avoided, especially inthe case of small-scale users in tropical climates. Prefer-ence should be given to pesticides that require inex-pensive personal protective and application equipmentand to procedures appropriate to the conditions underwhich the pesticides are to be handled and used (Arti-cle 3.5). According to the Code, the ‘prohibition of theimportation, sale and purchase of highly toxic and haz-ardous products, such as those included in WHOHazard Classes Ia [extremely hazardous] and Ib [highlyhazardous], may be desirable if other control measuresor good marketing practices are insufficient to ensurethat the products can be handled with acceptable risk tothe user’ (Article 7.5).

Due to shortcomings in the implementation of thecode, the incidence of pesticide poisoning remainsoften high in developing countries and among casualor migrant workers in industrial countries. Phasing outthe most toxic pesticides (WHO Hazard Class I), and inparticular organophospate products, has been calledfor as the only effective intervention to protect farmingcommunities wherever proper use can not be guaran-

teed, as is the case in most developing countries.22–24 In2006, the FAO Council (COAG/ 2007/Inf.14) agreedthat the activities of FAO on risk reduction shall sup-port the progressive ban on highly hazardous pesti-cides, and the promotion of good agricultural prac-tices. However, implementation of such a policyrequires a strong political will and effort to providefarmers with plant protection alternatives.

In India, large quantities of pesticides are used oncash crops, primarily on cotton, chilies and vegetables.Significant efforts have been made by the governmentto promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in thecountry to improve the profitably of farming and thehealth of the farming population. IPM is an approachto plant protection based on the principle that healthyfield ecosystems with a balanced pest and predator pop-ulation ratio offer resilience to economically damaginginsect attack. Farmers are trained on IPM throughoutan entire cropping season in intensive group trainingson field-based ecological management, namely FarmerField Schools (FFSs). In FFSs, 20–25 farmers meetweekly to monitor pest and predator populations in thetraining field under the facilitation of two IPM experts.The facilitators are generally development agents ofthe Department of Agriculture who have undergone aseason-long Training of Facilitators (ToF) on technicaland facilitation skills. ToF and FFS programmes havebeen organized in the country since the 1990s. Thedeeper ecological understanding achieved as a result ofattending FFSs has reportedly led to a significant reduc-tion in the use of pesticides.25

The current study offers a comparative analysis ofthe use of pesticides, exposure level, and incidence ofacute poisoning during (2003) and after (2004) farm-ers’ participation in FFSs, in order to establish whetherparticipation led to measurable improvements in thehealth of field workers. It was conducted as a follow upto the health assessment by Mancini et al., which docu-mented an alarming level of acute pesticide poisoningoccurring among cotton growers.7

As part of a larger impact assessment of FFSs, thefarmers who participated in this study were also inter-viewed in 2003 and 2004 on their management prac-tices in separate sessions. The results of the surveyshowed that FFS-trained farmers used one-sixth of thepesticides used by the control group to obtain the sameyield. Farmers with strong ecological knowledge and ananalytical approach to decisions pertaining to controlmeasures, including chemicals as well as botanicals,attained the largest decrements.26

METHODS

Data Collection

The study was conducted in three cotton-growing vil-lages in the state of Andhra Pradesh: Sairedapalli and

144 • Mancini et al. www.ijoeh.com • INT J OCCUP ENVIRON HEALTH

Manual application of fertilizer.

Srinagar (Warangal District) and Darpalli (Mahabub-nagar District). The use of pesticides in the two districtsis among the highest in the country. According to the2001 census, Mahabubnagar and Warangal districtshad total populations of 3,077,050 and 2,818,832,respectively. Cotton is grown as the main crop duringthe rainy season (Karif) on 121,260 ha in Warangal and22,697 ha in Mahabubnagar. In each village, one FFSwas conducted in 2003 to train 25 farmers.

FFSs were conducted during the cotton croppingseason of 2003. The curriculum included weekly train-ing exercises that aimed to increase farmers’ awarenessof the hazards of pesticide use. A series of practicalexercises were carried out to train farmers on the wayspesticides enter the human body and potential expo-sure based of liters of products applied, as well as farm-ers’ behavior in the field with respect to handling,application, storage and disposal practices.

As part of the FFS curriculum, fifty female farmersmonitored their signs and symptoms of acute pesticidepoisoning and those of 47 male relatives from Augustto December 2003. Prior to the start of the monitoring,respondents were trained on the identification of signsand symptoms in four hourly sessions. Discussions wereheld on the mode of action of different chemical fami-lies (organophosphate, carbamate, organochlorineand pyrethroid) and their health effects on the centralnervous system. Many of these effects are unspecificand can be caused by other conditions such as extremefatigue and sun exposure; therefore farmers weretrained to examine themselves before and after spray-ing to establish a link between exposure and the mani-festation of illness. Farmers were given guidelines torecognize signs and symptoms during the exercises andthroughout the monitoring.

As significant decrements in pesticide applicationpractices have been usually observed a year after theFFSs are concluded in the case of India, in the currentstudy the 2003 assessment was considered a baselineof the pesticide handling practices of the respon-dents. During the FFS, participants implement andevaluate IPM practices in the experimental plotduring the training session, while practices in theirown fields are not monitored. However, it cannot beexcluded that some of the trained farmers adoptmore ecological practices in their respective fieldsduring the training, in which case the impact meas-ured in the current study would result in an underes-timation of the actual change. In the subsequentcotton season, a second monitoring was carried out bya subgroup of the female farmers (34) and their malefamily members (31) from July to December 2004.

The second monitoring activity started a month ear-lier than the baseline had in the previous year, due toweather-related differences in the cropping season. Adetailed description of the reporting methodologyused is given in Mancini.7 In brief, women farmers

filled in a form containing a diagnostic pool of 18 signsand symptoms of acute pesticide poisoning27,28 afterevery field exposure to pesticides (spraying in the field,mixing spray solution, refilling spray tanks, and work-ing in field sprayed the same day). Women reported ontheir own health experience and on those of one malefamily member working in the field. Additional infor-mation on the type and quantity of chemical productsused (mL formulated product/L water), operation per-formed, and hours spent in performing the operationwere collected on the form. Forms were reviewed andcorrected every week by experienced facilitators.

On the basis of the signs and symptoms reported,forms were assigned to four severity classes: mild poi-soning (severity class 1), moderate poisoning (severityclass 2), severe poisoning (severity class 3), and formswith no signs and symptoms marked were assignedseverity class 0 and classified as asymptomatic. The totalnumber of signs and symptoms (#S&S) reported oneach form was also considered as an indicator of poi-soning and analysed as a continuous variable in corre-lation analysis.

The comparison proposed in this study does nothave the benefit of a control group, which was initiallyincluded in the first monitoring activity but subse-quently dropped because of the low response of thefarmers not enrolled in the FFSs; therefore it is not pos-sible to control for external factors which may haveinfluenced the health of the population under investi-gation, such as exposure to a different source of pollu-tion. Individual predisposing factors to specific symp-tom or sign, such as headache, were controlled forusing 2003 as a reference year and calculating individ-ual variation in reporting.

Data Analysis

We analysed individual risk factors for symptoms (sever-ity class > 1, classified as probable cases of poisoning)associated with 311 applications in 2003 and 179 appli-cations in 2004, using 2 � 2 tables and odds ratios (OR)

VOL 15/NO 2, APR/JUN 2009 • www.ijoeh.com Integrated Pest Management in South India • 145

Farmer mixes a pesticide with water for application.


calculated with the public domain software EpiInfo.Specific risk factors included exposure to organophos-phate, nicotinoid, pyrethroid, organochlorine, botani-cal insecticide, miscellaneous (fungicides, gaba recep-tor inhibiting insecticides and oxadiazine insecticides),and unclassified materials (pesticides reported onlywith local names, unidentified by study staff and notlisted in several standard pesticide databases). Relativetoxicity, as indicated by WHO Hazard Classes, was eval-uated. Non-chemical factors evaluated included literacylevel, gender, year of application (2003 vs. 2004, as a sur-rogate for the effect of the FFS training), mixing pesti-cides, spraying pesticides, and performing field work.Significant association between individual factors andprobable cases of poisoning was calculated using a Yates-corrected chi-square statistic.

To evaluate possible confounding, factors thatproved significant in the univariate analysis and wereplausible biological risk factors or plausible protectivefactors were included in an unconditional logisticregression.29

For those participating in both monitoring years (65respondents), we also analysed pesticide use, key expo-sure operations performed, mean number of signs andsymptoms per informant, and incidence of poisoning.It was not possible to perform this analysis using Epi-Info so it was performed instead with the analysis packin Microsoft Excel 2003.

RESULTS

Characteristics of the Respondents

Of the original reporting group (97) in 2003, a total of65 reported in the 2004 survey. The 2004 groupincluded 34 out of the original 50 female participantsdirectly monitoring their health and 31 out of the orig-inal 47 male relatives reporting to the female farmers(Table 1). Of the 2003 respondents who did not reportin the 2004 survey, the majority (25) had filled in only1 or 2 forms in 2003; a likely reason for their attritionmay be that they used virtually no pesticides in the year

after the training. However, the remaining respondents(9) who reported in 2003 but not in 2004, reported anumber of applications ranging from 3 to 8, with oneexceptional case of 18. Hence it is possible that at leastsome of them had dropped out of the monitoring activ-ities in 2004 for reasons unrelated to their continueduse of pesticides. These assumptions were not inde-pendently verified and, in order to avoid biases in thefindings, changes in the pesticide use, exposure leveland incidence of health effects were analysed only forfarmers who participated in both surveys.

The two monitoring exercises generated a total of 594forms, including asymptomatic forms. The average age ofthe respondents was 37 years. Land holding size rangedfrom marginal (up to 0.8 ha) to small (1–2 ha) (Table 1).

Risk Factor Analysis of Acute Pesticide Poisoning

The analyses of single variable risk factors are shown inTable 2. Factors that proved significantly associated withprobable poisoning included exposure to organophos-phates (OR=2.78, p<0.01), use of WHO Hazard Class IIinsecticides (OR=2.06, p<0.01), mixing pesticides(OR=1.49, p=0.0476), illiteracy (OR=2.35, p<0.01), andyear of exposure (OR2003 vs 2004=3.10, p<0.01). Statisticalsignificance of the health effects of exposure to WHOHazard Class U products could not be determined dueto the low number of exposure cases.

Significant protective factors included male gender(ORmale vs female=0.595, p<0.01), use of WHO HazardClass U insecticides (OR=0.36, p<0.01), exposure tobotanical/organic insecticides (OR=0.38, p<0.01) andperforming field work without spraying or mixing(OR=0.28, p<0.01).

Variables included in the multivariate analysis wereilliteracy, handling organophosphate insecticides, han-dling category IV pesticides, performing only field work,and exposure during 2003. Significant risk factors forprobable poisoning in this analysis included illiteracy(OR=1.94, p<0.01), exposure during the year 2003

TABLE 1 Distribution of Respondents by Age and Land Class, 2004

2004_______________________Women Men(n = 34) (n = 31)

Age (years)< 30 12 930–39 10 840–50 12 9> 50 — 5

Land (acres)Marginal (up to 2) 7 6Small (>2 and <5) 11 13Semi-medium (5-10) 12 6Medium/large (>10) 4 6

Young farmer preparing pesticide to refill tank.


(OR2003 vs 2004=2.67, p<0.01), and exposure to organo-phosphates (OR=1.70, p=0.02). Significant protective fac-tors in the multivariate analysis included exposure toWHO Hazard Class U pesticides (OR=0.53, p=0.01, andperforming only field work (OR=0.28, p<0.01).

Changes in the Use of Pesticides, Exposure, and Incidence of Acute Poisoning During and After theFarmer Field Schools

Changes in the use of pesticides. The pesticides applied bythe informants significantly changed over the twoyears. Organophosphates were the most applied in

both years, but a reduction of 15% was registered in2004. The applications of botanical products went upfifteen fold. Some of the moderately to highly toxic pes-ticides used in 2003, specifically Parathion and Phorate(WHO Hazard Class I), and Dimethoate and Phosa-lone (WHO Hazard Class II), were not reported in2004. Exposure to Endosulfan was reduced from nearly15% to 3% of the total cases of reported use. Applica-tions of Monocrotophos (WHO Hazard Class I),Quinalphos, and Chlorpyriphos (WHO Hazard ClassII) also decreased (Figure 1). Overall, the pesticide usespectrum shifted towards lower WHO Hazard Classes(Figure 2).

TABLE 2 Evaluation of Risk Factors and Demographic Variables Associated with Single Exposure to Pesticides(N=490)

Probable Poisoning____________________________Yes No Total OR Lower Upper Chi-square p Value*

Organophosphates 2.7774 1.9258 4.006 29.5643 0.00000Yes 152 98 250No 86 154 240TOTAL 238 252 490

Neonicotinoid 0.8532 0.5178 1.406 0.2468 0.61931Yes 33 40 73No 205 212 417TOTAL 238 252 490

Pyrethroid 0.7308 0.3821 1.397 0.6211 0.43064Yes 17 24 41No 221 228 449TOTAL 238 252 490

Organochlorine 1.5466 0.8765 2.729 1.8778 0.17058Yes 32 23 55No 206 229 435TOTAL 238 252 490

Unclassified 0.8063 0.3467 1.876 0.0823 0.7741Yes 10 13 23No 228 239 467TOTAL 238 252 490

Other: fungicides—sulfur, copper sulphate, etc 0.4334 0.2500 0.751 8.4403 0.00370

Yes 21 46 67No 217 206 423TOTAL 238 252 490

Hazard Class WHO 1 1.4895 0.9395 2.362 2.5090 0.11319Yes 51 39 90No 187 213 400TOTAL 238 252 490



Hazard Class U 0.3553 0.2296 0.55 21.4991 0.0000Yes 37 86 123No 201 166 367TOTAL 238 252 490

*p value obtained by univariate analysis (continued on next page)


Spraying operations. In 2004, women played an enhancedrole in the preparation and application of spray mixtures,primarily botanical preparations (43 out of 81 forms)such as nuclear polyhedrosis virus, neem oil, chili-garlicextracts and spinosad (Table 3). A redistribution of plantprotection tasks among genders consequent to the adop-tion of IPM was also observed by Mancini et al. in theirgender analysis of labor task allocations.30 Behaviouralchanges, like informants tending to spend less time work-ing in a recently sprayed field, were also observed.

The average duration of one exposure session in2003 was 4.45 hours for men and 4.47 hours forwomen, and, respectively 3.04 hours and 3.06 hours in2004; the average volumes applied during the sessionwere respectively, 186 and 187 L in 2003, and 148 and142 L in 2004. Spray parameters of application sessionsin 2004 reflect the use of low-volume botanical prod-ucts such as neem oil and powder.

Respondent-Paired Analysis of Health Effects. The followingvariables, in addition to the Severity Class variable, wereused in the analysis of health effects:

• Pesticide toxicity: a score assigned to each reportingform according to the most toxic pesticide usedduring the reporting session. Pesticide toxicity isdefined on the basis of the WHO hazard classifica-tion: Class Ia (“extremely hazardous”) scored 1

point, Class Ib (“highly hazardous”) 2 points, Class II(“moderately hazardous”) 3 points, and Class III(“slightly hazardous”) 4 points. Pesticides unlikely topresent acute hazard in normal use (class U) wereassigned a score of 5 points

• Individual severity class: the highest class of poisoningreported in each form by the respondent in theyear of reference

• Individual mean #S&S: the average number of S&Sexperienced per exposure session (form) by therespondent in the year of reference

In 2004, the reduction in the use of highly toxiccompounds (–31%) was associated with a proportionalreduction in the number of cases of Severity Class 3 poi-sonings reported (–28%). Severity Class was positivelycorrelated to Pesticide Toxicity (Pearson correlationcoefficient: 0.46). Moderate poisoning (Severity Class2) was halved, whereas mild poisoning (Severity Class1) slightly increased and asymptomatic cases (SeverityClass 0) tripled (Figure 3).

The average level of poisoning experienced by theinformants over the entire cropping season shiftedfrom moderate (2003) to mild (2004). Correspond-ingly, the mean number of signs and symptoms experi-enced decreased. The association between mean #S&Sand severity class already established in the first part ofthe monitoring7 was reconfirmed (Table 4).

TABLE 2 (continued). Demographic, Workplace Variables95% Confidence

Probable Poisoning IntervalYates’

_____________________________ ___________________ Corrected Yes No Total OR Lower Upper Chi-square p Value

Illiteracy 2.3509 1.4960 3.694 14.1742 0.00016Yes 67 36 103No 171 216 387TOTAL 238 252 490

Male 0.5950 0.4156 0.852 7.5806 0.00598Yes 115 154 269No 123 98 221TOTAL 238 252 490

Year 2003 3.0988 2.1018 4.569 32.6564 0.00000Yes 182 129 311No 56 123 179TOTAL 238 252 490

Mixing pesticides 1.487 1.022 2.165 3.9225 0.0476Yes 92 75 167No 146 177 323TOTAL 238 252 490

Spray 0.9398 0.6550 1.349 0.0599 0.80667Yes 140 152 292No 98 100 198TOTAL 238 252 490

Work in unsprayed field 0.2704 0.1076 0.679 7.6441 0.0057Yes 6 22 28No 232 230 462TOTAL 238 252 490


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Organophosphates, used broadly in agriculture, wereconfirmed as a serious risk factor for occupational poi-soning in this study. Illiteracy, a social proxy for povertyand malnutrition, aggravated the risk of being poi-soned. Andhra Pradesh, and especially Warangal dis-trict where part of this assessment was carried out, havesome of the largest reported use of organophosphatesand the highest reported rates of pesticide poisoning inIndia.2

In the absence of a control group, it is hard to estab-lish the exact extent of reduction in pesticide use attrib-

utable to the IPM training on the basis of the data col-lected in this study. Other factors, for instance pestpressure, weather conditions, and pesticide marketprices might have differed in the two years of the study,leading to different levels of pesticide use. However, anadditional questionnaire-based survey, using a doubledelta design, was carried out with the same group offarmers and a control group over two years.30 Accord-ing to the survey, the use of pesticides in the district in2004 was overall lower than in 2003 because of a lowerpest load as reported by the phytosanitary service.However, the reduction in the case of FFS trainedfarmers, in terms of total active ingredient used wasalmost 50% greater compared to the control group.FFS farmers’ number of applications decreased from7.8 to 1.7, whereas no significant variation of this indi-cator was registered for the control group. The mostsignificant change introduced by FFSs in field manage-ment was the criteria applied to determine when andwhether pesticides would be applied. FFS farmers

Figure 3—Distribution of Severity Index by class and byyear

Figure 2—Use of pesticides by WHO Hazard class

The WHO hazard classification refers to the formulated chem-ical products. The classification of the formulations was basedon toxicity data obtained on that formulation by the manu-facturer. In the cases in which this was not available, thevalues were calculated on the basis of the LD50 oral ordermal toxicity using WHO conversion tables (IPCS, 2002).I = extremely and highly hazardous, II = moderately haz-ardous, III = slightly hazardous, U = unlikely to present acuteserious hazard in normal use.

Figure 1—Type of pesticides used, as in percentage of the total use, by year


adopted the performance of a complete agro-ecosystemanalysis (including the occurrence of natural enemies)of their own fields.30 In particular, the application ofhighly toxic organophosphates like monocrotophosand the chlorinated insecticide endosulfan (WHO Iand II Hazard Class) were significantly reduced. Con-sequently, the exposure and incidence of associatedadverse health effects of pesticides were minimized.Trained farmers also avoided risky behaviors such asworking in recently sprayed fields.

Increase in knowledge of risk associated with pesti-cide practices, changes in exposure behavior andreduced health risks for IPM-trained farmers are con-sistent FFS outcomes described also for Sri Lankanfarmers cultivating maize31 and Nicaraguan farmers.18

In the case of Andean farming communities, the adop-tion of IPM through FFSs has resulted in a diminishedskin exposure and improved neurobehavioural statusof potato farmers.4

Limited access to health care, improper administra-tion of antidotes and lack of trained doctors and nursesin hospitals make patient management a rather inef-fective option in India2 as in many other countries withemerging economies. A recent medical study has sug-gested that the inhibition of cholinesterase enzymealone does not explain the wide range of disordersobserved in association with exposure to organophos-phorus products.32 In addition to the well known choli-

genic phase observed immediately after exposure,delayed neurotoxic effects can manifest themselvesfrom 7 to 21 days after exposure.33 Generally, thehuman toxicological effects of pesticides are still poorlyunderstood and researched.34

The use of highly toxic products is currently underclose evaluation in countries where their use is muchmore strictly regulated than in developing countries. Asrecently as January 2009, the European Parliament hasapproved a legislative resolution on the Council’scommon position for adopting a directive of the Euro-pean Parliament and establishing a framework for Com-munity action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides.35

Given that insufficient medical information existsfor implementing appropriate preventive measuresand therapeutic interventions for occupational expo-sure,15 interventions aiming to minimize pesticide poi-soning in developing countries need to focus onrestricting the use of highly toxic compounds, espe-cially organophosphates.

Stronger regulatory measures might lead to theremoval of a significant percentage of chemical prod-ucts from the market. Concern has been expressedabout possible risks to productivity that could beincurred in the absence of other plant protection meas-ures, with negative consequences for food prices andhence for the well-being particularly of poor con-sumers. In the case presented in this study, ecological

TABLE 4 Individual Average Level of Poisoning (Individual Severity Class ) and individual Average Number of Signsand Symptoms Reported Over the Reporting Period (Individual Mean #S&S), by Year

Individual Severity Class* Individual mean #S&S_____________________________ _____________________________2003 2004 2003 2004

Mean 1,923077 1,492308 3,409275 1,238543Variance 0,697115 1,035096 4,145002 1,288168Observations 65 65 65 65Pearson Correlation 0,10046 –0,4074Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 0Df 64 64t Stat 2,779233 6,470338P(T<=t) one-tail 0,003572 7,83E-09t Critical one-tail 1,669014 1,669014P(T<=t) two-tail 0,007145 1,57E-08t Critical two-tail 1,997728 1,997728

*Severity class: mild poisoning (class 1), moderate poisoning (class 2), severe poisoning (class 3).

TABLE 3 Pesticide-handling Operations Performed, by Year and Gender No. (%) Forms_____________________________________________________________

2003 2004___________________________ ___________________________Operations Men Women Men Women

Preparing spray mixture 5 (5) 54 (45) 0 (0) 81 (73)Preparing spray mixture AND working in the field 0 (0) 31 (26) 0 (0) 0 (0)Working in a recently sprayed field 4 (4) 21 (17) 4 (3) 3 (3)Applying mixtures 70 (65) 12 (10) 130 (94) 27 (24)Applying mixtures and working in the field 28 (26) 3 (2) 3 (4) 0 (0)

Total 107 (100) 121 (100) 137 (100) 111 (100)


farming practices offered viable alternative plant pro-tection options for cotton cultivation in India that didnot affect production outcomes.

In order to restore the ecological viability of farm-ing, in terms of impact on the environment and humanhealth, it is necessary that significant investments aremade to support the education of farmers on bettermanagement practices.

The authors thankfully acknowledge the extensive and valuablereviews and comments of Harry van der Wulp and Peter Kenmore,Plant Production and Protection Division, Agriculture and ConsumerProtection Department, FAO, Rome. Special recognition is due tothe Indian farmers and facilitators who participated in this project.

References

1. Croplife International. Global market performance. 2008 2. World Health Organisation. Mental Health and Substance

abuse Facts and Figures Suicide Prevention: Emerging fromDarkness. New Delhi, India, 2006. (Htpp://www.searo.who.int/en/Section1174/Section1199/Section1567/Section18248078.htm)

3. Rao C S, Venkateswarlu V, Surender T, et al. Pesticide poisoningin south India: opportunities for prevention and improved med-ical management. Tropical Medicine and International Health.2005;10:581–588.

4. Cole DC, Sherwood S, Paredes M, et al. Reducing pesticide expo-sure and associated neurotoxic burden in an Ecuadorian smallfarm population. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2007;13:281-289.

5. Murray DL, Taylor PL. Claim no easy victories: evaluating thepesticide industry’s global safe use campaign. World Develop-ment. 2000; 28(10):1735-1749.

6. Kishi M. Indonesian farmers’ perception of pesticides andresultants health problems from exposure. International Jour-nal of Occupational Environmental Health. 2002;8(3):175-81.

7. Mancini F, van Bruggen AHC, Jiggins JLS, et al Incidence ofAcute Pesticide Poisoning Among Female and Male CottonGrowers In India. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2005;11:221-232.

8. Daniels JL, Olshan AF, Savitz DA. Pesticides and childhood can-cers. Environ Health Perspect. 1997;105(10):1068-1077.

9. Flower KB, Hoppin JA, Lynch CF, et al. Cancer risk and parentalpesticide application in children of Agricultural Health Studyparticipants. Environ Health Perspet. 2004;112(5):631-635

10. Curwin BD, Hein MJ, Sanderson, WT, et al. Pesticide contami-nation inside farm and non-farm homes. Occup EnvironHygiene. 2005;2:357-367.

11. Fenske RA, Kissel JC, Kalman C, et al. Biologically based doseestimates for children in an agricultural community. EnvironHeslth Persp. 2002;106(6):515-520.

12. Loewenhrz C, Fenske RA, Simcox NJ, et al. Biological monitor-ing of organophosphorous pesticides exposure among childrenof agricultural workers in central Washington State. EnvironHealth Perpest. 1997;105(12):1344-1353.

13. London L, Rother A. People, pesticides and the environment:who bears the brunt of background policy in South Africa? NewSolutions. 2000;10:339-50.

14. WHO. The Public Health Impact of Pesticides Use in Agricul-ture. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1990.

15. Kamanyre R, Karalliedde L. Organophosphate toxicity andoccupational exposure. Occupational Medicine. 2004;54:69-75.

16. Hruska AJ, Corriols M. The impact of training in integrated pestmanagement among nicaraguan maize farmers: Increased netreturns and reduced health risk. Int J Occup Environ Health.2002;8(3):191-200

17. Atkin J. In: Lesinger KM (ed). Safe and Effective Use of CropProtection Products in Developing Countries. Wallingford, UK:CABI Publishing, 2002.

18. Dinham B. The pesticide hazard: a global health and environ-mental audit. London: Zed Books, 1993.

19 Wesseling C, McConnell R, Partanen T, Hogstedt C. Agricul-tural pesticide use in developing countries: health effects andresearch needs. Int J Health Services. 1993;27:273-308.

20. McConnell R, Hruska AJ. An epidemic of pesticide poison in Nicaragua: Implication for prevention in developing coun-tries. American Journal of Public Health. 1993;83(11):1559-1562.

21. International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use ofPesticides, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, Rome, 2003, ISBN 92-5-104914-9. [Internet] Availablefrom: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y4544E/y4544e00.HTM.

22. Keifer MC. Effectiveness of interventions in reducing pesticideoverexposure and poisonings. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18(4S):80-89.

23. Konradsen F, van der Hoek W, Cole DC, et al. Reducing acutepoisoning in developing countries—options for restricting theavailability of pesticides. Toxicology. 2003;192(2-3):249-61.

24. Eddleston M, Karalliedde, Buckley LN, et al. Pesticide poison-ing in the developing world—a minimum pesticides list. Lancet.2002;360:1163–67.

25. Braun AJ, Jiggins N, Ro¨ling H, et al. A Global Survey andReview of Farmer Field School Experiences. Nairobi: Interna-tional Livestock Research Institute, and Wageningen: Endelea.2006.

26. Mancini F, van Bruggen AHC, Jiggins J. Evaluating Farmer FieldSchool Outcomes using the Sustainable Livelihood Approach.Experimental Agriculture. 2006;43:1-17.

27. Keifer M. Estimating underreported poisonings in Nicaragua.Am J Ind Med. 1996;30:195-201.

28. Murphy H, Hoan NP, Matteson P, Morales Abubakar AL. Farm-ers’ self-surveillance of pesticide poisoning: a 12-month pilot inNorthen Vietnam. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2002;8:201-11.

29. Epi Info™ Version 3.4.3, 2007.30. Mancini F, Termorshuizen AJ, van Bruggen AHC, Jiggins J.

Increasing the environmental and social sustainability of cottonfarming through farmer education in Andhra Pradesh, India.Agricultural Systems. 2008;96:16-25.

31. Smit LAM, van Wendel de Joode BN, Heederik D, Peiris-JohnRJ, van der Hoek W. Neurological symptoms among Sri Lankanfarmers occupationally exposed to acetyl cholinesterase-inhibit-ing insecticides. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2003;44:254-264.

32. Monnet-Tschudi F, Zurich MG, Shilter B, Costa LG, HonneggerP. Maturation-dependent effects of chlorpyrifos and parathionand their oxygen analogues on acetylcholinesterase and neu-ronal and glial markers in aggregating brain cell cultures. Toxi-col Appl Pharmacol, 2002; 165: 175-183.

33. Johnson MK. The delayed neurotoxic effects of organophos-phorus compounds. Biochem J. 1969; 14: 711-717.

34. Buckley NA, Karalliedde L, Dawson A, et al. Where Is the Evi-dence for Treatments Used in Pesticide Poisoning? Is ClinicalToxicology Fiddling While the Developing World Burns? Clini-cal Toxicology. 2004;42(1):113-116.

35. European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 January 2009on the Council common position for adopting a directive of theEuropean Parliament and of the Council establishing a frame-work for Community action to achieve a sustainable use of pes-ticides[Internet] Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0010+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN

36. Johnson S, Peter JV, Thomas K, et al. Evaluation of two treat-ment regimens of pralidoxime (1 gm single bolus dose vs 12 gminfusion) in the management of organophosphorus poisoning.J Assoc Phys India. 1996;44(8):529-531.

Environmental Education for Poor Farmers

i

FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia

ii

This publication has been produced by the staff of the FAO-EU IPM Programme for

Cotton in Asia which is solely responsible for its content.

The designation employed and the presentation of the material and maps in this

publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of

the Food and Agriculture Organization or the European Commission concerning the

legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning

the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

© 2004

All rights reserved. Parts of this publication may be reproduced for educational and

other non-commercial use provided that such reproduction shall be subject to

acknowledgment of the FAO and European Commission as holder of the copyright.

Editors : Peter A. C. OoiPeter A. C. OoiPeter A. C. OoiPeter A. C. OoiPeter A. C. Ooi

Gerd Walter-EcholsGerd Walter-EcholsGerd Walter-EcholsGerd Walter-EcholsGerd Walter-Echols

Dai WeidongDai WeidongDai WeidongDai WeidongDai Weidong

Alma Linda Morales-AbubakarAlma Linda Morales-AbubakarAlma Linda Morales-AbubakarAlma Linda Morales-AbubakarAlma Linda Morales-Abubakar

Lim Guan SoonLim Guan SoonLim Guan SoonLim Guan SoonLim Guan Soon

Palaniswamy PachagounderPalaniswamy PachagounderPalaniswamy PachagounderPalaniswamy PachagounderPalaniswamy Pachagounder

Manzoor H. SoomroManzoor H. SoomroManzoor H. SoomroManzoor H. SoomroManzoor H. Soomro

Cesar GalvanCesar GalvanCesar GalvanCesar GalvanCesar Galvan

Francesca ManciniFrancesca ManciniFrancesca ManciniFrancesca ManciniFrancesca Mancini

Rikke PetersenRikke PetersenRikke PetersenRikke PetersenRikke Petersen

Kevin KampKevin KampKevin KampKevin KampKevin Kamp

Designer : Romulo T. YambaoRomulo T. YambaoRomulo T. YambaoRomulo T. YambaoRomulo T. Yambao

For copies write to:

FAO Regional Office for Asia and the PacificFAO Regional Office for Asia and the PacificFAO Regional Office for Asia and the PacificFAO Regional Office for Asia and the PacificFAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Maliwan Mansion, 30 Phra Atit Road

Bangkok 10200

Thailand


iii

COTTON IN ASIA.....................................................................................................................................1Cash for the Poor • Rural Poverty and Cotton • Pesticides and Cotton • Environmental, Healthand Trade Problems Intensify Poverty

PROJECT DESIGN, STRATEGY AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................9Cotton-First to People-First • Quality Farmer Education for Empowerment • Innovation andNational Ownership

PROJECT ACTIVITIES...........................................................................................................................17Farmer Field Schools for Empowerment • Farmer-to-Farmer Field Schools for Sustainability •FFS Alumni Groups for Social Mobilisation • Training of Facilitators for Institutional CapacityBuilding • Training of Farmer Facilitators for Ownership

COUNTRY PROJECT RESULTS ...........................................................................................................29Bangladesh: Hope for Rural Communities • China: Bringing About Synergy of FarmerEducation and Technology • India: Expanding Cotton IPM • Pakistan: National Policiesand Farmer Mobilisation • Philippines: New Opportunities for the Rural Poor •Vietnam: Environmental Education for the Poor • Regional Support and Coordination:Adding Value to Country Achievements

PROJECT IMPACT ..................................................................................................................................45Millennium Goals and International Conventions • Improving Farmer Livelihoods andReducing Poverty • Reducing Environmental Risks and Increasing Biodiversity •Reducing Suffering from Pesticide Poisoning • Strengthening Farmer’s Human andSocial Capacities

CONCLUSIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES .........................................................................................55Mid-term Review: Enthusiastic Endorsement • Final Review: “Significant Impact” •Remaining Critical Issues and Opportunities


iii


iv


v

This programme completion report for the public acknowledges the closepartnership between the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities (EC) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of

the United Nations in addressing the issues of poverty alleviation, sustainableagricultural and rural development, environment protection, trade, goodgovernance, human health and education and most of all hopes for the poorthrough quality farmer education. Both EC and FAO are grateful to the national

and state/provincial governments who have supported this initiative and continue to believe in thisapproach by following up with local funding to sustain the achievements made in their respectivecountries. The Programme is grateful to the national field staff from governments and NGOs who tookup the challenge of educating farmers. To the national and international consultants (especially fromEuropean universities and institutions) our grateful thanks for sharing their experience and expertise.Thanks are due to FAO staff in headquarters, regional and country offices for helping in implementingthis Programme. To the Italian and Danish Governments, our thanks for supporting the AssociateProfessional Officer schemes of the FAO that saw two of their nationals working in India and Vietnam,respectively. The Programme had the privilege of hosting two M.Sc. students from WageningenUniversity, Netherlands in the field site in Vietnam and the synergy of student research and farmereducation helped enrich the farmer field research programme.

The publication of this book is a testimony to the thousands of resource-poor farmers who benefitedfrom the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach as reflected in the faces of IPM from the six countries.


v


vi


vii

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONEuropeAid Co-operation Office

Asia

The Director

In seeking to address the challenges and the opportunities offered by globalisation and to strengthen jointefforts on global environmental and security issues, the EC has identified a number of core developmentpriorities which underline EC-Asian Co-operation. These policies are set down in the 2001 Commission

Communication “Europe and Asia: A Strategic Framework for Enhanced Partnerships” and include: Peaceand security in Asia; the development of the less prosperous countries of the region, the strengthening ofmutual trade and investment flows and the creation of global partnerships and alliances with Asian countries.

In March 1999, the European Commission and the FAO (as the implementing agency) signed a FinancingAgreement (ASI/B7-3000/IB/96/150) of an amount of EUR 12 Million for the implementation of the five yearprogramme entitled: “Integrated Pest Management for Cotton in Asia”. Through the successful implementation ofthe programme, which ends in December 2004, the EC has taken one step further to achieving its objectives.

The EU funded the “IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia” in response to the needs of cotton producing countriesto tackle rising production costs, increasing pollution of the environment due to excessive pesticide use, thedeteriorating health of farmers and the increase in poverty. Under these conditions, cotton producers faceincreasing challenges in a globalised market. The IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia is promoting more ecologicalproduction methods in Asia, where over 50% of the world’s cotton plantations are. This Programme has shownthat farmer education through the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach is key to encouraging more sustainableagricultural production, which is profitable to small-scale producers and acceptable to local and international traders.

The European Commission is pleased to be associated with the FAO in bringing about the benefits of farmereducation to small-scale farmers. The Farmer Field School education has helped to empower the farmers workingfor most of them under rainfed conditions to be more efficient. In this respect, the EU in engaged with FAO inachieving common objectives in reducing poverty in the less prosperous countries through the promotion ofsustainable agricultural development. The EU-FAO initiative is supporting the efforts towards peace and securityas well as a stable and democratic political environment in participating countries.

Erich W. MULLERDirector


viii

FAO is committed to the realization of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) set during theMillennium Summit in the year 2000, and its current programme encompasses most of these goals.They include, among others, actions to eradicate poverty and hunger, ensure environmental

sustainability and develop a global partnership for development. With more than two thirds of the world’spoor and over 500 million people living in hunger in the Asia and the Pacific region, the Organization,along with the member states, faces tremendous challenges in meeting the MDG of reducing hunger andpoverty by half by the year 2015. To strengthen its contributions for achieving the MDGs and for respondingmore effectively to the needs in the region, the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific has adopted aregional strategy that includes priorities such as agricultural sector restructuring, decentralized governanceand empowerment, effective and equitable management, conservation and sustainable use of naturalresources, reduced vulnerability to natural disasters and strengthened biosecurity.

The FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia fits well into this regional strategy; it has shown thatfarmer field schools are an effective method of empowering and mobilising farm families and of developingthe enhanced management skills necessary for a sustainable pro-poor and environmentally-friendlyagricultural and rural development. The experiences gained from this Programme will benefit many ongoingand future endeavours to reduce poverty and conserve precious natural resources. The FAO RegionalOffice in Bangkok is proud to have been associated with this Programme. I am pleased to take thisopportunity to express my most sincere appreciation to the European Commission for having providedthe financial resources, to FAO staff in the headquarters, the regional office and the field, and to ourcooperation partners in the participating countries who all have contributed to the Programme’s successand significant impact.

He ChangchuiAssistant Director-General and

FAO Regional Representative for Asia and the Pacific

Regional Office for Asia and the PacificMaliwan Mansion, 39 Phra Atit Rd

Bangkok 10200, Thailand


ix

The FAO-EU IPM Programme on Cotton in Asia demonstrates again that IPM is morethan pest management and offers an entry point to improve the farming system as a whole. Itprovides ecological sustainability, as it protects the environment; it improves social stability, as it

is institutionalized at local level; it helps the poor, as it reduces farmers’ dependence on procured inputsand lessens their vulnerability. In combination with farmer field schools, IPM is an effective instrumentto link poverty reduction and environmental management.

The FAO-EU Programme has addressed a major source of pesticide misuse and overuse in Asia. Ithas established the large potential for pesticide reduction and the socio-economic benefits that can comefrom it. I would like to thank the European Commission for entrusting FAO with the implementation ofthis regional project that has achieved important outcomes in terms of economics, environment includingagro-biodiversity, and human and animal health and has shown the potential to improve the livelihoodsof millions of poor farmers.

Niek van der GraaffChief, Plant Protection Service

Food and Agricultural Organizationof the United Nations

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome. Italy Cables FOODAGRI ROME Telex 625852-625853 Facsimile (39 6) 57053047 Telephone: 57051


x

FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia: Environmental Education for Poor Farmers


1

More than half of the world’scotton is produced by Asianfarmers, the majority of themsmall landholders with plot

sizes of less than one-half hectare. Within Asia,cotton production is diverse and this diversitymanifests itself among the countriesparticipating in the FAO-EU Integrated PestManagement (IPM) Programme for Cotton inAsia. Three of the Programme countries aremajor contributors to the total world cottonharvest: China producing 20 percent, India 14percent and Pakistan 10 percent. The other threemember countries are very minor participants,each representing less than one-tenth of onepercent of world production. Since projectinitiation in 1999 there have been considerablefluctuations in world production, consumptionand prices. With consumption outpacingproduction, international cotton prices rose24 percent in 2003-04, the highest in six years.

All member countries have important cotton-processing and textile industries employingmillions of low-salary factory workers, many of

them women. However, more cotton is consumedin these industries than is produced in thecountries; thus, valuable foreign exchange isspent on imports. Given the importance of cottonin their national economies, the Cotton IPMProgramme was very relevant in terms of trade,reducing environmental contamination fromheavy pesticide use, improving health of farmingcommunities, promoting complex andautonomous management skills, and meetingrequirements of WTO regimes that come intoforce in 2005.

The FAO-EU Programme was implementedto contribute to rural poverty alleviation andto protect agro-biodiversity through anecosystem-based production and pestmanagement approach. After establishinga training capacity of more than50,000 farmers per year,participating countries arepoised to take on majorrural poverty alleviationand environmentalprotection activities.


2


2

F AO-EU Programme member countriesproduce 45% of the world’s cotton, butemploy more than 70% of its cotton growers,

many of them living in poverty. Despite rapidlydeveloping economies, three-quarters of the world’spoor still live in Asia. For more than 20 million small-scale farmers there, cotton is the only crop that givesthem extra cash for family expenses. For example,in Pakistan 70-80% of the programme’s farmers livebelow the poverty line. For this reason, cottonproduction is actively promoted as an important partof the rural development strategy in most membercountries. However, cotton also has its drawbacks,as it is by far the largest user of pesticides, addinghealth problems to poverty and deterioratingenvironmental conditions.

Cotton production involves the whole family, andwomen play an important role. They not only supplyup to 70% of the labour inputs, they also contribute tomany crop and pest management decisions andallocation of scarce family resources, even in maledominated societies. When husbands look for workelsewhere, women find themselves in charge of all cropmanagement decisions. Though not specified in theoriginal project document as main beneficiaries, theProgramme focused its attention on strengthening themanagement capacities of small-scale farmers andwomen. It continuously monitored whether farmereducation activities reached the right group ofbeneficiaries. According to the impact assessmentsample, the number of participants living below onedollar per day averaged from 47% to 92% for thedifferent countries. Women participation steadilyincreased over the years.

Rural Poverty Levels in Member Countries

Country National International YearPoverty Line Poverty Line of survey

% rural popula- % below

tion below $1/day

BANGLADESH 53.0 36.0 2000

CHINA 4.6 16.6 1998/01

INDIA 30.2 34.7 2000

PAKISTAN 35.9 13.4 1998

PHILIPPINES 50.7 14.6 1997/00

VIETNAM 57.2 17.7 1993/97

Source: World Development Indicators, World Bank 2004


3


3

Philippines - 0.7 ha

China - 0.22 ha

Pakistan - 2.8 ha

Bangladesh - 0.35 ha

Vietnam - 0.8 ha

India - 1.8 ha

World Cotton Farmers

Estimated Total: ~29 million

FAO-EU Programme Member Countries: ~20 million (70%)

Pakistan

IndiaChina

Bangladesh

VietnamPhilippines

Other Countries

Cotton Plot Sizes

of Project Beneficiaries

Country averages of

impact assessment samples


4


4

More pesticides are used on cotton thanon any other crop. For example, inIndia and Pakistan, in excess of 50% of

all pesticides in these countries are applied tocotton. In many areas, cotton is sprayed 15-20times during the season. Overall, an estimated 30%of all pesticides used in Asia are applied to cotton,representing a value of US$ 1.5 billion every year.Considering that integrated pest managementexperience has shown that more than half theseapplications are unnecessary, substantial savingsof US$ 500-1,000 million annually are possible.

Insecticides currently represent 15-25% of thecotton production cost in China, India, Pakistanand Philippines, if labour costs are included.

Looking at small farmers’ actual financial outlay,the percentage is even higher.

Over the past decade, rising insecticide costs havelowered the returns on growing cotton and resultedin declining cotton areas, especially in the Yangtseand Yellow River basins of China, in India and inthe Philippines. Excessive pesticide use has beenassociated with build-up of pest resistance, declinein populations of natural enemies, degradation ofthe environment, and serious health problemsamong those spraying and picking cotton.

Many pesticides used in cotton belong to thehighly toxic WHO Class I group of chemicals.Detoxifying pest control strategies and replacingthem with a more sustainable and environmentallyfriendly cotton production system was a majorobjective of the FAO-EU Programme.


5

400,000 ton a.i.*; US$ 5,600,000,000400,000 ton a.i.*; US$ 5,600,000,000

Annual Pesticide Usage in Asiawithout Japan, Near East and CISwithout Japan, Near East and CISwithout Japan, Near East and CISwithout Japan, Near East and CISwithout Japan, Near East and CIS



5

* a.i. = active ingredient* a.i. = active ingredient* a.i. = active ingredient* a.i. = active ingredient* a.i. = active ingredient


6


6

Problems associated with heavy pesticide useare widely recognised and include healtheffects on applicators, field workers and

consumers. Detrimental effects on agro-biodiversityand ecological functions such as natural pestsuppression, soil fertility and pollination have alsobeen observed. Ground water contamination withpesticides and percolating into drinking waterresources is widespread. Recent reports aboutcontaminated soft drinks and bottled water inIndia highlighted the environmental and healthhazards associated with excessive use ofinsecticides in cotton.

Phytosanitary standards, pesticide residues andenvironmentally and socially unacceptablecultivation practices are increasingly used as barriersto international trade, and consumers in importing

countries are rejecting questionable products. Insteadof investing in expensive pesticide residuelaboratories and testing, IPM aims to address theproblem at the source and produce low-pesticidehealthy crops in an environmentally friendly andsocially acceptable manner. In this way, anuninterrupted access to local and foreign marketscan be secured.

Farmers who have observed and understoodecological interactions through self-discoveryexercises during farmer field schools become highlymotivated protectors of natural enemies in theirfields. They avoid using pesticides out of conviction,not because they are told to. IPM significantlyincreases the biodiversity in agricultural fields byconserving natural enemies and maintaining a soundecological balance.


7

Farmer field schools empower farmers tocreate a safer working environment for them-selves and their families. By becoming awareof negative health effects and ways to reducepesticide applications, farmers can live with-out the fear of being poisoned, endangering

their families and com-munities, and consum-ing contaminated farmproducts.


7


8



9

The Programme formulation wascarried out in June 1993 and sixyears elapsed before theImplementing Agreement

between FAO and the EC was signed bythe EC and FAO in February/March 1999.The project officially started on 17 October1999 with the arrival of the first teamleader. Much had changed in the six yearssince the project document was originallyformulated. This made it necessary toreassess assumptions and strategies andrevise workplans, outputs and schedules.EC supported flexible Programmeplanning and adjustment which was adecisive factor for staff enthusiasm andinnovation during implementation.

China

India

Pakistan

Bangladesh

Vietnam

Philippines

Project Title : FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia

Scope : Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan, Philippines and Vietnam

EC Project No. : ALA 96/04

Agreement No. : ASI/B7-3000/IB/96/150

(signed 19 February 1999 by EC and 15 March 1999 by FAO)

FAO Project No.: GCP/RAS/164/EC

Duration : 5 years (17 October 1999 to 16 October 2004)

Budget : ECU 12,000,000 (US$ 12.4 million)


10

T he developmentobjective in theP r o g r a m m e

document focused only oncotton production, i.e.“sustainable, profitable andenvironmentally soundproduction of cotton in theparticipating countries,through the development andpractice of IPM by farmersand extension staff.”

In the years between project formulationand actual implementation, farmer field schoolsemerged as the key ingredient of successful IPMand a powerful instrument of farmer capacitybuilding. Therefore, farmer empowerment andinformed decision-making also became key goalsfor the FAO-EU Programme, yet this was notreflected in the stated development objective ofthe Programme. Therefore, the mid-termevaluation suggested a more appropriatedevelopment objective: “Farmers in a cotton-based production system, through observation andexperimentation, are empowered to solve pest andother production problems in their own fields.”This development objective effectively shifted theemphasis from cotton production to humanresource development and more accuratelyreflected what the Programme was actually tryingto achieve in the field.


10

The original ‘cotton production’ objective,however, influenced the choice of partners in someof the Programme countries. In the three countrieswhere cotton was only a minor national crop, thepartner was the national cotton productioncompany, for which farmer empowerment was asecondary objective to increased cottonproduction. All countries except for Pakistan hadprevious IPM projects on rice and/or vegetables,and had already trained field school facilitators.

The Programme was financed for five yearsand involved building training capacity and anoperational framework. This would naturally leadto a deployment of facilitators and the building ofboth effective institutional structures andsustainable farmer groups.


11


11

Follow-up Activities

❏ build sustainable management systemsto utilise full training capacity

❏ focus on poverty alleviation potentialof IPM-FFS

❏ focus on cropping system management❏ reach critical mass of farmers for local

reinforcement and farmer-to-farmerspread to new areas

❏ build sustainable FFS farmer alumnigroups and farmer self-helporganisations

❏ build local, provincial and nationalumbrella organisations for farmermobilisation and empowerment

❏ promote farmer field research foradaptation of new technologies andknowledge generation

❏ use impact study evidence for policydialogue to conserve agro-biodiversityand reduce poverty

❏ redirect extension policies to focus onrural adult education and self-helpcapacity for male and female farmergroups

❏ institutionalise quality and impactmonitoring to build effective learningorganisations

Targets*

❏ 21 ToF courses and more than1,000 IPM facilitators

❏ capacity to educate 50,000farmers per year

❏ at least 3,829 FFS and 90,000farmers trained

❏ focus on skills to organise FFS

❏ increased number of contacts,exchanges and agreementsbetween organisations concernedwith IPM and cottonproduction in Asia

❏ production of newsletters,electronic website and technicalreports

❏ results of training programmesand impact studies will be widelyavailable

❏ IPM policies for cotton will havebeen reviewed,

❏ evidence of policy change willcome in the form of policystatements, sector plans andprogramme documents preparedby national governments

Immediate Objectives

1. To develop a cadre of IPMfacilitators from existingextension or field plantprotection staff to educatefarmers in farmer fieldschools

2. To promote co-operation forcotton IPM amonggovernments, researchinstitutions, developmentagencies, extension servicesand farmers’ and other non-governmental organisationsand to improve access for allinterested parties toinformation from within andoutside of the Programme area.

3. National policies on plantprotection in cottonre-oriented to support IPMdevelopment in the sixProgramme countries.

Programme Objective

“Sustainable, profitable and environmentally sound production of cotton in participating countries,through the development, promotion and practice of IPM by farmers and extension staff”

* * * * * based on the revised targets in thebased on the revised targets in thebased on the revised targets in thebased on the revised targets in thebased on the revised targets in the Inception Report Inception Report Inception Report Inception Report Inception Report of 2000of 2000of 2000of 2000of 2000


12


12

In order to achieve the Programme objectives,country projects concentrated their efforts ondeveloping training capacity to educate cotton

farmers about the agro-ecosystem and about howto verify and further develop environmentallyfriendly pest control strategies. The biggestchallenge the project faced was how to bring highquality education efficiently to large numbers offarmers, each one with only a small plot of cotton.

Like any skill, the new pest and productionmanagement skills needed to be repeatedly practicedby farmers under the guidance of an expert facilitatoruntil they were mastered independently. In theCotton IPM Programme, skills training took placein weekly, season-long practical sessions calledFarmer Field Schools (FFS). To achieve and maintaina high quality farmer education, extension agentsand fellow farmers were extensively trained inseason-long Training of Facilitator (ToF) courses.

The originally targeted number of 21 ToF and1,000 facilitators was found to be too low toachieve a sustainable training capacity of morethan 50,000 farmers per year. Therefore, additionalcourses had to be scheduled for both governmentextension agents and farmer facilitators.

Farmer field schools and integrated pestmanagement are a powerful combination ofstrategies for farmers growing diverse crops suchas rice, vegetables or cotton to achievecomprehensive sustainable development. Thisapproach has been particularly successful withsmall-scale farmers searching for a way out of thevicious cycle of increasing costs and reducedprofits. Such cycles have occurred whereecological processes in the fields have beendisrupted by the excessive use of pesticides andother agricultural inputs.


13

Farmer field schools are also suitable foreducating farmers in the complex management skillsnecessary for a modern, market-oriented economy.Therefore, farmer education is a trans-sectoral fieldthat addresses a number of development issues:

❏ Poverty alleviation and sustainable livelihoods❏ Protection of the environment and natural resources❏ Food safety, safe trade and international treaties❏ Health and safety at work❏ Good governance, self-reliance and efficiency of

state institutions❏ Education and gender equality


13

Mission Statement:

The Programme aims to improve inefficient small-scale cotton-based production systems inAsia and develops, implements and evaluates sustainable farmer education programmes inmember countries. We care for the agricultural environment and serve the people who have tolive from it. Through our activities we seek to improve the livelihoods of small-scale farmfamilies, thus helping to alleviate poverty and health risks while protecting the environment.We believe that this can be best achieved by nurturing farm families’ capacities to managetheir field ecologies in a self-reliant manner, to generate and evaluate new knowledge andtechnologies, and work together cooperatively with other farmer families.

PovertyAlleviation

Cotton IPM Implementation Strategy

EnvironmentalConservation

Human & SocialDevelopment

Institutional &Policy Support

HigherIncome

ImpactStudiesReduced

Pest OutbreaksHealthier

Community

IncreasedBiodiversity

DecreasedInput Cost

FarmerOrganisation

Follow-up FarmerField Research

Farmers’Self-Reliance

ManagementTraining

IntegratedPest Control


14


14

The Programme started in October 1999 witha one-year inception phase. The InceptionReport of June 2000 set the output targets for

the Programme as a whole. In consultations betweenFAO and EC it was decided at that time to haveadditional country IPM officers and to investigatethe effect of genetically modified Bt cotton in China.Since these new activities had not been included inthe original budget of Euro 12 million, an additional$ 2 million was requested. This planning flexibilityfor adding quality and addressing critical new areaswas a factor for enthusiasm and innovation duringProgramme implementation.

The Programme became fully operational in2001. Project Management Units were established

in each participating country, and these werecoordinated by the Programme Management Unitlocated at the FAO Regional Office for Asia andthe Pacific in Bangkok, Thailand. From 2001onward, annual work plans were prepared androutinely monitored. A quarter of all funds werespent in China, followed by India with 19% andBangladesh, Pakistan and Vietnam with 11-12%each. Only 4% were invested in the Philippines.Comparatively little was spent in Pakistan relativeto the number of cotton farmers because the AsianDevelopment Bank and the Arab Gulf Fundfunded two complementary cotton IPM projects.The projects were implemented as one under theNational IPM Programme.

Million Million Million Million Million US$

Cotton IPM Programme Cost Distribution

4

3

2

1

0

12 %

25 %

19 %

11 %

4 %

11 %

18 %

Bangladesh China India Pakistan Philippines Vietnam PGMU

TrainingTrainingTrainingTrainingTraining

Technical AssistanceTechnical AssistanceTechnical AssistanceTechnical AssistanceTechnical Assistance

TravelTravelTravelTravelTravel

EquipmentEquipmentEquipmentEquipmentEquipment

Management & AdministrationManagement & AdministrationManagement & AdministrationManagement & AdministrationManagement & Administration


15


15

The mid-term review mission recom-mended expanding the successful Programmeto more countries and other crops. The EC con-cluded that the Programme with its objectivesdid “not correspond to the strategic priorities out-lined in the EC Strategy Paper and IndicativeProgramme for Multi-Country Programmes inAsia 2005-2006”. As a result, participatingcountries were challenged to provide theirown funding in order to implement farmerfield schools with the trained facilitators in2004.

The final review mission in 2004 concluded thatthe Programme had a significant impact inparticipating countries. However, it also recognisedthe critical need for continued technical assistancefor a successful realisation of the follow-upprogramme expansion plans of India and Pakistan.

EU-paidEU-paidEU-paidEU-paidEU-paid

Farmer Field Schools Implementation 2000-2004Accumulative Numbers of Farmers Trained

100,000100,000100,000100,000100,000

90,00090,00090,00090,00090,000

80,00080,00080,00080,00080,000

70,00070,00070,00070,00070,000

60,00060,00060,00060,00060,000

50,00050,00050,00050,00050,000

40,00040,00040,00040,00040,000

30,00030,00030,00030,00030,000

20,00020,00020,00020,00020,000

10,00010,00010,00010,00010,000

-----

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Government-paidGovernment-paidGovernment-paidGovernment-paidGovernment-paid


16



17

The central ingredient in the FAO-EUIPM Programme for Cotton in Asiawas the farmer field school (FFS),which had already demonstrated its

rural development potential in rice andvegetables cultivation systems in Asia. Like inother crops, educating farmers on IPM in cottoninvolved FFS on an ecology-based pest controlapproach that sought to maximise economicbenefits to farmers while protecting health andthe environment.

The four principles of IPM are1. Grow a healthy crop;2. Base decisions on understanding the field

agro-ecosystem, including the role ofnatural enemies;

3. Regular and careful observation of the field;4. Farmers are experts.

An FFS in IPM involves facilitated season-long experiential learning by farmers in villagegroups. Through the FFS, farmers become IPM

experts and pest managers of their own crops.The FFS approach differs from conventionalextension programmes insofar as it does notpass on instructions to farmers, but aims to raisetheir educational level through experientiallearning and the enhancement of human andsocial skills.

In the FAO-EU Programme, FFS facilitatorslearned their skills in season-long Training ofFacilitators courses. The participants wereusually recruited from extension services, butalso included NGO staff and experiencedfarmers. Continued training of new facilitatorswas expected to have a compounding effectover several years to allow for an expansion andintensification of the Programme. It wastheorised that the number of trained farmersin a given location needed to reacha critical level before IPMknowledge and practice wouldbecome the norm in thefarming community.


18


18

T he farmer fieldschool (FFS) wasthe primary

learning approach usedto educate farmers aboutIPM through a season-long learning experience.FFS are schools withoutwalls, organised in the

fields of participating farmers. About 25-30participants meet in the morning for a half day eachweek for one entire season, from the pre-plantingperiod until after the harvest. At each FFS meeting,the members break into small groups to makedetailed observations of the crop and field conditionson two study plots: an IPM plot, and a ‘farmerpractice’ plot. Observations are recorded, discussed,and interpreted by the group with assistance fromthe FFS facilitator. This analytical process, which isusually carried out by comparing drawings of whatwas observed, is called “cotton ecosystem analysis”.

FFS participants evaluate the balance among theobserved pests and their natural enemies and thendecide collectively on the field management practicesfor the coming week. The whole concept of FFS is tohelp farmers become better decision makers, and theapproach encourages self-motivated discoverylearning.

FFS Activities Distribution2003 averages of 500 FFS in hours per season;2003 averages of 500 FFS in hours per season;2003 averages of 500 FFS in hours per season;2003 averages of 500 FFS in hours per season;2003 averages of 500 FFS in hours per season;

average total: 74.9 hoursaverage total: 74.9 hoursaverage total: 74.9 hoursaverage total: 74.9 hoursaverage total: 74.9 hours

Special Topics,10.8

InsectZoo,

6.1

FieldTrials/Cultivation,8.7

Group Dynamics,6.2

Review, 5.6

Other,8.1

FFSOrganisation,5.2

Cotton Ecosystem Analysis, 22.9


19


19

Total FFS and Graduates in the Programme Countries 2000-2004

Country Total FAO-EU Government/Programme Others

No. Graduates No. Graduates No. Graduates

BANGLADESH 148 3,700 148 3,700 - -

CHINA 1,061 29,654 661 18,125 400 11,529

INDIA 1,456 35,828 487 11,787 969 24,041

PAKISTAN 525 12,999 352 8,685 173 4,314

PHILIPPINES 43 920 38 813 5 107

VIETNAM 428 10,615 428 10,615 - -

TOTAL PROGRAMME 3,661 93,716 2,114 53,725 1,547 39,991FFS farmers carry out additional field

experiments, such as defoliation studiesto learn about plant-physiologicalcompensation after damage. They set up “insectzoos” to study predation and parasitism. Specialtopics also studied in the FFS include the effects ofpesticides on natural enemies and on human health,as well as improvement and maintenance of soilfertility. Group dynamics activities aim to buildstronger farmer cohesion, trust and cooperation.

FFS curricula are usually decided in a joint effortinvolving farmer participants, FFS facilitators andconsultant researchers, who collaborate on both thecontent and the set-up of field experiments.

In the course of the FAO-EU Programme, atotal of 3,661 FFS were organised, educating nearly94,000 farmers. Sixty-one percent of these werefinanced from EU funds. The Programmesucceeded in building a training capacity of morethan 50,000 farmers per year. With the help fromNational and State/Provincial Governments andother donors, two-thirds of the availablefacilitators conducted FFS in 2004, reaching morethan 30,000 farmers in China, India and Pakistan.


20


20

F armer-to-farmerfield schools (F2FS)involved skilled

farmer-facilitators trainingother farmers in an FFS,allowing enthusiastic FFSgraduates to share theirnew skills and experiencewith fellow farmers. It wasdemonstrated to be a majorcomponent of sustainableIPM practice. In theProgramme membercountries, such field schoolswere first implemented

in Vietnam in 2000 and 2001. This was followedby China and Bangladesh in 2002 and India andPakistan in 2003. Farmer-to-farmer field schoolscomplemented the regular FFS by governmentfacilitators, established ownership among farmersand thereby contributed to the long-termdevelopment and sustainability of IPM.

Farmer-facilitators were selected from amongfarmer field school graduates. Before conductingtheir own farmer field schools, they attended afarmer ToF (FToF) course. At the FAO-EUProgramme, more than 12,000 farmers wereeducated by fellow farmers. Especially in India,China and Pakistan, farmer-to-farmer educationhas become an important vehicle for IPMexpansion.


21


21

F2FS and Graduates in the Programme Countries 2000-2004*



BANGLADESH 33 825 33 825 - -

CHINA 132 2,878 102 2,016 30 862

INDIA 208 5,146 33 791 175 4,355

PAKISTAN 134 2,985 61 1,160 73 1,825

PHILIPPINES - - - - - -

VIETNAM 36 851 36 851 - -

TOTAL PROGRAMME 543 12,685 265 5,643 278 7,042

Farmers as facilitators have as advantages theirextensive farming experience and that they “thinklike farmers”. However, the cost benefit of usingfarmer-facilitators needs further investigation,since their operational range and availability ismore limited than that of government staff. In thelong run, the major role of farmer-facilitators maybe as alumni group leaders for follow-upknowledge-generation and social mobilisationactivities, rather than as facilitators of new FFS.

* These numbers are included in the previous “Total FFS” Table* These numbers are included in the previous “Total FFS” Table* These numbers are included in the previous “Total FFS” Table* These numbers are included in the previous “Total FFS” Table* These numbers are included in the previous “Total FFS” Table


22


22

T hough they were notpart of the originalproject design, increased

attention was given to thesustainability of FFS alumnigroups. It was stressed that anFFS starts with the graduationceremony; it does not end with

it. Consequently, FFS became an important entrypoint to a wide range of multi-disciplinary farmerfield research and social mobilisation activities.

Post-FFS activities can be divided into farmer-to-farmer education; cotton production related fieldtrials; IPM initiatives on other crops; incomegeneration; and social/community activities.

Most country projects actively supported farmerresearch through the Participatory Technology Developmentapproach. Farmers decided on the issues to be studied,many of which stemmed from topics raised during FFSsessions. Examples of such research were: conservation

and improvement of soil fertility through the use ofcompost and nitrogen-fixing crops; efficient use offertilisers; the testing of cotton varieties; evaluating Btcotton in Shandong and Hubei provinces of China,experimentation with spacing and planting densities;the use of trap crops to reduce pest damage; the timingand dosage of pesticide applications; and the use of‘organic’ pesticides such as neem-tree extracts,nucleopolyhedrosis virus (NPV) solutions, garlic andchilli mixtures, soap, etc. In Pakistan, additional trainingin field experimentation was offered to prepare farmersfor a more scientific approach.

Many FFS alumni groups also applied the IPMprinciples to other crops. For example, femaleparticipants in Bangladesh considered theirparticipation in cotton IPM useful since they couldapply the principles learned to vegetables.

Many farmer clubs generated income throughmembership fees, communal cotton production,production and sale of neem-tree based pesticides,


23


23

artificially reared natural enemies (Trichogramma) orvermi-compost. In Bangladesh, one group started acommunal dairy farm and another group gave creditto members to allow them to postpone their sale ofcotton until a time when prices were higher.

Some alumni clubs embarked on social-culturalactivities for the benefit of the village. In India, mass-marriages were arranged for poor villagers who couldnot afford the costs involved in a wedding; inBangladesh, literacy classes were organised; in Pakistan,communities built bridges over irrigation canals andset up clinics, and women alumni organised sewing andvegetable seed production activities for extra income.

IPM Farmer Practice No Pesticide

Conventional Conventional Conventional Conventional Conventional Bt-CottoBt-CottoBt-CottoBt-CottoBt-Cottonnnnn

18001800180018001800

16001600160016001600

14001400140014001400

12001200120012001200

10001000100010001000

800800800800800

600600600600600

400400400400400

200200200200200

00000

Ne

t P

rofi

t (U

S$

/h

a)

Ne

t P

rofi

t (U

S$

/h

a)

Ne

t P

rofi

t (U

S$

/h

a)

Ne

t P

rofi

t (U

S$

/h

a)

Ne

t P

rofi

t (U

S$

/h

a)

1191

1689

624

1329

552

934

Net Profit Data from Farmer Bt-Cotton StudyXiantao County, Hubei Province, China, 2001


24


24

Training of Facilitators (ToF)is a field-based, season-long residential learning

experience involving up to 30future facilitators at a time. Duringthe course, participants improvetheir technical expertise in IPM;develop participatory, non-formaladult education training skills; and

enhance their management and experimentalcapabilities. The curriculum consisted ofecosystem analysis; crop development andmanagement; decision-making; participatoryeducational process; organisation and planning;gender sensitivity; and group dynamics. It wasannually revised based on previous experiences.During the ToF courses, participants practised FFSimplementation by conducting full-season‘practice FFS’ as part of the curriculum. Aftergraduation they were able to implement FFSindependently.

The original prime objective of the FAO-EUIPM Programme was to develop a cadre of IPMfacilitators capable of educating 50,000 farmers peryear. During the Programme, 54 season-long ToFcourses were conducted, of which 25 were EUfinanced (against 21 planned). A total of 1,542participants graduated from these courses. Mostgraduates were government field and extensionstaff, but they also included NGO employees in somecountries. In China, Vietnam and the Philippines,additional 285 IPM facilitators that had previouslybeen trained in rice or vegetable FFS were givenrefresher courses to conduct cotton FFS.

However, it was not only training capacity thatneeded to be developed, but also managementcapacity. As the Programme grew, an increasingnumber of the most experienced field staff weretherefore assigned to assist in project implementationas district and provincial coordinators and expertfacilitator coaches.


25


25

ToF Courses and Graduates in the Programme Countries 2000-2004



BANGLADESH 3 103 3 103 - -

CHINA 8 225 8 225 - -

INDIA 26 687 5 164 21 523

PAKISTAN 12 325 4 100 8 225

PHILIPPINES 1 80 1 80 - -

VIETNAM 4 122 4 122 - -

TOTAL PROGRAMME 54 1,542 25 794 30 748Maintaining the quality of FFS imple-

mentation was a major Programme con-cern. Impact assessment activities helpedfocus attention on project results and clarified coun-try strategies for goal achievement. The Programmeimproved its monitoring and reporting system anddeveloped checklists for key processes; it startedAnnual Planning and Refresher Practica to strengthenfacilitation skills and organisational development; itset up farmer and facilitator research activities forcontinuous learning, knowledge generation andimprovement; it established farmer alumni groupsand district facilitator meetings as “quality circles” toself-assess and improve project activities.


26


26

Neither the trainingnor utilisation offarmer facilitators

was envisaged in the origi-nal Programme document.However, based on the de-velopments and experiencesof the FAO Regional Commu-nity IPM Programme, farmerfacilitators were alreadywidely adopted at the startof the Programme in 1999.

Following this trend, all Cotton IPM membercountries except the Philippines organised farmerToF (FToF) courses. By the end of 2004, 979 FFSalumni were trained as farmer facilitators in 44FToF; of these, 33 were EU-funded.

The training of farmer-facilitators varied fromcountry to country. In Bangladesh and Vietnam,

FToF were season-long experiences, starting with10-14 day refresher courses focusing on organisingFFS and facilitation skills. This was followed byweekly sessions and practice FFS. In China, FToFlasted for only 10 days during which farmer-facilitators were trained in aspects of FFSorganisation, including facilitation skills andtechnical issues. In Pakistan, farmers met 3 daysper week for an entire season and conducted apractice-FFS. In India, after a 2-week introductorycourse, farmers were teamed up with experiencedfacilitators to conduct field schools.

As this activity emerged in the penultimateyear of the Programme, it challenged national IPMprogrammes to sustain the use and expansion offarmer facilitators, which are seen as an importantelement for the long-term sustainability andexpansion of IPM-FFSactivities.


27


27

FToF Courses and Graduates in the Programme Countries 2000-2004



BANGLADESH 6 90 6 90 - -

CHINA 16 296 16 296 - -

INDIA 11 376 3 105 8 271

PAKISTAN 5 154 2 71 3 83

PHILIPPINES - - - - - -

VIETNAM 6 63 6 63 - -

TOTAL PROGRAMME 44 979 33 625 11 354

In view of the importance of expanding cottonIPM through farmer-to-farmer education, it wasvital to monitor the effectiveness of farmerfacilitators. The Indian project developed a modelfor quality assurance monitoring of FFS, F2FS andalumni groups. District officers monitoredadministrative aspects while 3-4 FFS facilitatorsmonitored technical and communication aspects.In Pakistan, IPM and FFS quality indicators weredeveloped and field-tested.


28



29

The FAO-EU IPM Programme forCotton in Asia had six participatingcountries: Bangladesh, China, India,Pakistan, Philippines and Vietnam.

While most Programme activities were financedby the European Union, additional contributionsand funding came from national and localgovernments, and even from farmers. In Pakistan,the FAO-EU Programme was implementedtogether with an Asian Development Bank cotton

IPM project and an Arab Gulf Fund contributionunder the umbrella of the National IPMProgramme.

Project results were achieved at threedifferent levels: farmers, institutions andpolicy. Project activities on each of these levelsfollowed one and the same learning cyclestarting with observation and collection of data,proceeding to their collective analysis and

discussion, and coming full circlewith the planning of new andimproved activities. Thus, in the cycle,learning farmers were augmented bylearning facilitators and institutionsin order to achieve a complete andholistic system developmentapproach that may affectnational policies andregulations.


30


30

I n Bangladesh, the project succeeded intraining the number of field school facilitatorsrequired to reach the targeted number of

farmers in the main cotton growing districts. Halfof these facilitators were farmers themselves.However, they still need to conduct enough farmerfield schools to reach the critical numbers offarmers necessary for a durable momentum forcommunity change.

The Programme has been able to set thedirection for change in the minds of 3,700 farmerbeneficiaries. Cotton IPM alumni have shownenhanced management of their cotton fields andalso applied newly-acquired confidence and skillsto managing other crops, not to mention certainaspects of their personal lives. Compared to theirneighbours, FFS farmers have shown themselvesmore ready to share their knowledge and helpother farmers in such activities as field trials.Potential leaders amongst IPM alumni have

emerged. These core groups of farmers havebecome a valuable resource to their communities,improving the conditions of poor farmers in termsof income-generating capacity, food security,occupational health and environmentalconservation. In effect, the project helped mobilisethe country’s social capacity in cotton growingdistricts.

FFS graduates have been able to reduce theirpesticide applications from 15-20 to 2-3 sprays perseason, with the consequent positive impact onthe environment, farmers’ health, cotton yield andincome. Moreover, with new strategies, such asintercropping vegetables with cotton, farmershave discovered through their own field studiesthat they can increase profits by as much as 75%compared to growing cotton alone. The success ofthe project is reflected in the enthusiasm andinterest of the farmers, who have started applyingIPM in their own fields or experimenting with new


31


31

ideas. On field days, neighbouring farmers, villageleaders and elders have enjoyed learning aboutthe IPM process from FFS farmers interacting withthem. The positive experience has inspired manyFFS graduates to help as farmer facilitators.Besides being a more cost-effective trainingalternative, the initial group of farmer facilitatorsdemonstrated that they could successfully conductfield schools and supplement the government’srural extension system.

COUNTRY PROFILE

% Rural poverty 53%

Annual pesticide use 12,000 t

Cotton area 40,000 ha

Cotton farmers 80,000

FFS farmer cotton plot size 0.35 ha

PROJECT PROFILE

Project implementing institution:

Cotton Development Board (CDB) with support

from the Department of Agricultural Extension

No. ToF / FToF 9

No. IPM-FFS facilitators 193

No. FFS / F2FS 148

No. FFS farmers 3,700


32


32

In the vast cotton production areas of theYangtse and Yellow River basins in China, thecotton IPM project focused its attention on

about two dozen townships in the provinces ofAnhui, Hubei and Shandong, and a few locationsin Henan and Sichuan. The Programme succeededin establishing a strong team of young and genderbalanced facilitators. ‘Science by farmers’ and teambuilding were major components of the facilitatortraining curriculum. Farmer education in IPMresulted in reducing pesticide applications fromaround 12 to 7 per season, both for farmers directlyparticipating in FFS and their neighbours.

The FAO-EU project in China was successfulaccording to a number of criteria. In spite of theGovernment’s strong push towards higherproduction through genetically modified Btcotton, IPM remains a vital component of thecountry’s long-term cotton strategy and is relevantto the country’s perceived needs. IPM field schools

can add significant value to the use of Bt cotton.The commitment of provincial and localgovernments to co-financing FFS throughout theproject period is a strong indication of nationalinterest in IPM implementation. However, thereis a need to extend IPM methods to entire farmingsystems and for the conservation of China’s richagro-biodiversity.

Farmer research showed that Bt cotton reducesthe need for pesticide applications against bollwormand thereby complements IPM, but may notcontribute substantially to profitability due to itshigher seed cost. An independent study conductedin cooperation with Hannover University inGermany demonstrated the importance of seedquality for the benefits that can be achieved from Btcotton. The normal farmer practice of saving seed orpurchasing low-priced uncertified new Bt seed maylead to substantially reduced bollworm control. TheHannover study also showed that Bt varieties alone


33


33

without IPM did not always lead to a lower numberof sprays and that high quality seed with no spraysresulted in only average yields. Since the adoptionof Bt, farmers have reported the emergence ofpreviously unreported insects as new pest problemsand pesticide use appears to be on the rise again insome Bt cotton areas, signalling a sustained need forIPM despite the widespread adoption of Bt cotton.

Farmers’ perception on changes of

cotton insects since Bt adoption

COUNTRY PROFILE

% Rural poverty 4.6%


Cotton area 4,800,000 ha

Cotton farmers 10,000,000


PROJECT PROFILE


National Agro-Technical Extension and Service

Center (NATESC), Ministry of Agriculture

No. ToF / FToF 24


No. FFS / F2FS 1,061


DecreaseDecreaseDecreaseDecreaseDecrease IncreaseIncreaseIncreaseIncreaseIncrease

White butterflyWhite butterflyWhite butterflyWhite butterflyWhite butterfly

Lygus bugLygus bugLygus bugLygus bugLygus bug

7 spot lady bird7 spot lady bird7 spot lady bird7 spot lady bird7 spot lady bird

Small lady birdSmall lady birdSmall lady birdSmall lady birdSmall lady bird

Boll weevilBoll weevilBoll weevilBoll weevilBoll weevil

White flyWhite flyWhite flyWhite flyWhite fly

AphidAphidAphidAphidAphid

Cotton bollwormCotton bollwormCotton bollwormCotton bollwormCotton bollworm

Spider miteSpider miteSpider miteSpider miteSpider mite

N = 60N = 60N = 60N = 60N = 60

N = 100N = 100N = 100N = 100N = 100

N = 101N = 101N = 101N = 101N = 101

N = 62N = 62N = 62N = 62N = 62

N = 76N = 76N = 76N = 76N = 76

N = 66N = 66N = 66N = 66N = 66

N = 134N = 134N = 134N = 134N = 134

N = 137N = 137N = 137N = 137N = 137

N = 134N = 134N = 134N = 134N = 134

From: D. Pemsl, Productivity Analysis of Bt-Cotton-A case study from China, 2003


34


34

T he FAO-EU project had a remarkableimpact in the central Indian States ofKarnataka and Maharashtra and to a lesser

extent in Andhra Pradesh. In those states, farmerfield schools have been accepted as the model forgovernment-farmer interaction, and state fundshave been allocated to continue and expandproject activities. To secure the success of theseambitious plans, continued technical assistance isrequired, otherwise a decade of substantial IPMgains in India and the achievements of the FAO-EU Programme might become undone.

The project achieved its implementation targetsdue to the keen interest of the State governments andcooperating NGOs in sustainable rural development.A total of 26 ToF were conducted, as compared to atarget of seven, and 1,456 FFS compared to 1,220.State governments contributed significantly to thecontinuity of the IPM-FFS programme. Theyassigned 600 trained extension staff to promote IPM

in 2004 and allocated funds for ToF, FFS and F2FS,as well as for the support of 380 FFS alumni groups.State governments also contracted NGOs orindividual farmer facilitators (IPM entrepreneurs) toconduct FFS on cotton and other crops.

NGOs were significant partners in projectimplementation, especially on organic cotton and intheir support of farmer clubs. The project employed

Labour Distribution • Karnataka, IndiaKarnataka, IndiaKarnataka, IndiaKarnataka, IndiaKarnataka, India

Male Female & Children

Land PreparationLand PreparationLand PreparationLand PreparationLand Preparation

Weeding, etc.Weeding, etc.Weeding, etc.Weeding, etc.Weeding, etc.

Fertilizer, IrrigationFertilizer, IrrigationFertilizer, IrrigationFertilizer, IrrigationFertilizer, Irrigation

Pest ControlPest ControlPest ControlPest ControlPest Control

HarvestHarvestHarvestHarvestHarvest

MarketingMarketingMarketingMarketingMarketing

200200200200200 0 Person-Days0 Person-Days0 Person-Days0 Person-Days0 Person-Days 200200200200200

Male (Family/Hired)Male (Family/Hired)Male (Family/Hired)Male (Family/Hired)Male (Family/Hired)

Female (Family/Hired)Female (Family/Hired)Female (Family/Hired)Female (Family/Hired)Female (Family/Hired)

Child (Family/Hired)Child (Family/Hired)Child (Family/Hired)Child (Family/Hired)Child (Family/Hired)


35


35

a special officer in charge of NGO liaisons. A total of109 NGO staff were trained as facilitators andconducted their own FFS with financial support fromthe project or state governments. One NGO, whichwas also in charge of the impact assessment study,continued to develop sustainability and qualityassurance for its own FFS.

Women’s participation in FFS increased from7% in 2000 to 20% in 2004. This was particularlysignificant since a socio-economic and genderanalysis of cotton production showed that: womenprovide 64% of the work; the crop is oftencollaboratively managed by husband and wife;and 50 % of female-headed and marginal (women-run) households grow cotton. To stimulate women’sparticipation, 66 FFS were held exclusively forwomen (where husbands attended as ‘observers’),many of them illiterate. Exercises on pesticide

poisoning and the adverse effect of pesticides onthe environment and community health helped tostimulate the women’s interest in FFS andstrengthened their decision-making power andcontrol over resources.

COUNTRY PROFILE






PROJECT PROFILE


Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine and

Storage, Department ofAgriculture

No. ToF / FToF 37

No. IPM-FFS facilitators 1,106

No. FFS / F2FS 1,456



36


36

The FAO-EU Programme had perhaps itsgreatest impact in Pakistan. The countrydid not have previous experience with IPM

field schools, and yet, as of 2004, the two maincotton producing provinces, Sindh and Punjab,have embraced IPM farmer field schools as thedominant interface between government andfarmers. FFS fills a need that regular extensionapparently has not been able to satisfy. Seniorofficials have acknowledged IPM-FFS as anapproach that is able to enlist farmers in ruraldevelopment programmes. Therefore, SindhProvince has included FFS expertise in the jobdescription of its agricultural officers, and Punjabhas launched a major programme expansioninitiative to conduct 3,500 year-long FFS in cotton-wheat management over the next 4 years.Reduction of production costs through lowerpesticide use is recognised as an importantelement in the competitive position of Pakistanicotton in the world market.

In Pakistan, the FAO-EU Programme helpedestablish a strong National IPM Programme whichnot only became the joint implementing unit forthe EU and ADB funded projects, but alsoaddressed pesticide policy issues with ministerialdecision-makers. Despite a powerful pesticideindustry, the country has embarked upon its ownNational IPM Project that will cover four provincesand last five years. This project will be entirelyfunded from national and provincial sources.However, the young National IPM Programmerequires continued technical assistance in order tobecome a significant player in sustainable ruraldevelopment and poverty reduction. Impactstudies in Pakistan have shown that the numberof FFS farmers below the official poverty line wasreduced by 12% as compared to a control groupwithin three years.

NGOs and inter-governmental agencies suchas CABI Bioscience, World Wildlife Fund, Caritas,


37


37

Plan Pakistan, and local welfare associationsbecame active partners in the implementation ofFFS. To encourage women’s participation, anAGFUND initiated project on “Pesticide RiskReduction for Women in Pakistan” focused ontraining female facilitators to reach rural womenin the traditional, gender-segregated societythrough Women Open Schools. Emphasis was onthe toxicity and health risks of pesticides, but otherelements in the cotton-based farming systemswere also included. A total of 968 rural womenparticipated in this programme with additionalsupport from Programme funds.

Significant social mobilisation and empower-ment was evident from the formation of officiallyregistered farmer alumni associations and asso-ciations of IPM facilitators offering facilitationservices and farmer club support. In 2004, five ofthe latter organisations were contracted to imple-ment 80 FFS.

COUNTRY PROFILE






PROJECT PROFILE


National IPM Programme of the National

Agricultural Research Centre (NARC)

No. ToF / FToF 17


No. FFS / F2FS 525



38


38

O nly a few project activities wereimplemented in the Philippines due tothe minor importance of cotton in the

country. Increased production costs and very lowprofits received by Filipino farmers for their cottonhave led to a sharp reduction in the cotton areafrom 30,000 ha at the time of project formulationto 1,000 ha at project start. Even though there existsa strong National IPM Programme that has createda favourable policy climate for farmer fieldschools, cotton was no longer the crop to focuson.

Jointly implemented by the CottonDevelopment Authority (CODA) and the NationalIPM Programme, project activities focused onsupporting existing facilitators from localgovernment units in conducting FFS on cotton. Amajor problem encountered during the trainingwas identifying enough cotton farmers. In Luzon,over 40% of all cotton growers were educated in

FFS between 2001 and 2003. The Programme latershifted its attention to the cotton growing areas ofMindanao and Negros Oriental.

Cotton production is financed largely byprivate companies who contract with farmers fortheir output in return for seeds and other inputs(including pesticides) provided in kind. Under theproject, CODA made an effort to gain the supportof private companies for the FFS approach and


39


39

IPM in general. Acceptance of the project’s goalsby the private companies would seem to be keyfor sustained implementation of project activities.

Cotton is the primary source of fiber for thePhilippines’ important textile industry. It accountsfor about 53% of the total fiber requirements ofthe country’s spinning mills. Without a significantdomestic production of cotton, the country reliesheavily on imports, averaging 58,000 metric tonsvalued at US$ 47 million, from the major cottonexporters such as the USA, Australia, andPakistan.

Cotton production is potentially a technicallyfeasible and economically viable industry in thePhilippines, as proven by almost two decades ofexperience. In 1992, the cotton area reached over35,000 hectares distributed over 25 provincesnationwide. During those early years, supportservices were provided by the government

through PhilCotton. But when the governmentprivatised commercial cotton production, theprivate business sector could not sustain amutually profitable relationship with the cottonfarmers. The advancement of the industry wasconstrained by inaccessible credit, policiesfavouring cheap imports and inadequateextension assistance.

COUNTRY PROFILE


Annual pesticide use N. A.




PROJECT PROFILE


Cotton Development Administration (CODA)and

the National IPM Programme of the Department

of Agriculture

No. ToF / FToF 1


No. FFS / F2FS 43

No. FFS farmers 920


40


40

I n Vietnam, the FAO-EU project wasimplemented by the Vietnam CottonCompany (VCC) with some collaboration

from the National IPM Programme, which hasextensive experience with FFS in rice andvegetables. Every season, VCC signs contractswith growers under which it provides technicalsupport, seeds, and inputs - including pesticides -and buys the crop at an agreed price. However,from the farmers’ point of view, the economics ofcotton production has deteriorated since 2002. Inthis setting, FFS education in farmerempowerment and independent decision-makingappeared not to be well placed. Since pesticide usein rainfed cotton had already been reduced to 1-2sprays per season, there was little opportunity forsignificant pesticide reduction, and farmer benefitsfrom IPM-FFS came mostly from a better ecologicalunderstanding and increased confidence in fieldexperimentation and knowledge generation.

By the end of the project, a total of 122government facilitators from VCC and theNational IPM Programme were trained. By March2004, over 10,000 farmers had participated incotton IPM farmer field schools.

The project commissioned a number of specialstudies. These included a gender study conductedby the Vietnam Women’s Union; a study onbiological control-based integrated managementof sucking cotton pests; and an impact assessmentstudy. Both of the latter were conducted by theUniversity of Agriculture and Forestry in Ho ChiMinh City. Two students from WageningenAgricultural University in the Netherlands carriedout field research on predatory wasps that arenatural enemies ofcaterpillar pests incotton.


41


41

IPM is well established in Vietnam and FFSare conducted well. However, there was onlyminimal financial support for IPM-FFS fromnational sources. While Vietnam’s official policypromotes IPM, some of the operational aspects stillneed to be strengthened and defined.

COUNTRY PROFILE






PROJECT PROFILE


Vietnam Cotton Company (VCC) with support from

the National IPM Programme under the Plant

Protection Department

No. ToF / FToF 10


No. FFS / F2FS 428



42


42

The focus of the Programme ManagementUnit in Bangkok was to add value to thecountry projects through regional

workshops, exchanges and studies. Much of theProgramme’s success was due to its regionalcharacter that❏ accelerated implementation by promoting

competition❏ shared costs on common issues❏ enhanced sustainability through optimising

resources❏ shared experience and knowledge❏ avoided pitfalls❏ built a regional database and expertise on impact

assessment and❏ promoted a better understanding between countries

in Asia.

The following regional workshops and meetingswere held:❏ Cotton IPM Planning and Curriculum

Workshop, Bangkok, Thailand,28 February - 2 March 2000

❏ Regional Workshop on Helping Farmers toUnderstand Microbial Organisms Used toManage Pests, Chainat, Thailand,11 - 17 February 2001

❏ Regional Workshop on IPM ImpactAssessment Methods, Ho Chi Minh City,Vietnam, 25 - 31 March 2001

❏ International Meeting on Bt Cotton Studyin China, Bangkok, Thailand, 4 - 5 May 2001

❏ Regional Meeting on Planning andEvaluation, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam,10 - 15 September 2001

❏ Regional Workshop on FFS/ToF CurriculumEvaluation to Strengthen Farmer Education,Dhaka, Bangladesh, 11 - 20 March 2002


43


43

❏ International Course on Weed Ecology forCotton IPM, Pangasinan, Philippines,22-29 September 2002

❏ Programme Steering Committee Meeting,Chizhou, Anhui, China, 8-15 September 2002

❏ Regional Seminar of IPM ImpactAssessment, Ayutthaya, Thailand,30 March - 4 April 2003

❏ Regional Workshop on EnhancingFacilitation Skills of IPM Facilitators,Cebu City, Philippines, 14 - 23 September 2003

❏ Regional Workshop on IPM-FFS Impact,Bangkok, Thailand, 30 June - 3 June 2004

❏ Regional Policy Seminar on IPM-FFSImpact, Bangkok, Thailand, 4 June 2004


44



45

Cost-benefit analysis showed an internal rate ofreturn on investment of 16% for the period ofProgramme implementation and only three seasonsof project-funded farmer field schools. This confirmsthe high economic worth of investment in farmereducation. It was conservatively assumed that thebenefits from IPM-FFS would only occur with 80%of the project-trained farmers for a period of twoyears after training. Potential benefits from theProgramme’s substantial long-term investments intraining capacity were not included in thesecalculations.

Backed by credible evidence and convincingresults of having increased farmer income while low-ering environmental risks from pesticides, impactassessment also became a tool for policy discussionswith ministerial decision-makers. At a RegionalPolicy Seminar on IPM-FFS Impact in June 2004,results from the impact studies in five countries werepresented and discussed. It was concluded that theProgramme contributed to the Millennium Devel-opment Goals of reducing poverty, empowermentof women and environmental sustainability, and tointernational treaties such as the InternationalProgramme on Chemical Safety, the StockholmConvention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, theRotterdam Convention for Prior Informed Consentand the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Impact assessment was an integral part ofthe FAO-EU Programme, and it was usedas an instrument for strategic planning andorganisational development. In preparation

for the seven impact assessment studies conductedby independent investigators, each country’s projectstakeholders engaged in an intensive dialogue todefine the impact targets and to formulateobjectively verifiable indicators for successfulimplementation. This process was extended to FFSimplementation by engaging farmers in monitoringand evaluation. Thus, systematic progress andquality monitoring of the Programme supplementedformal impact studies in assessing the direction andsuccess of the Programme.

500500500500500

Higher Net IncomeHigher Net IncomeHigher Net IncomeHigher Net IncomeHigher Net Income

LessLessLessLessLess

PesticidesPesticidesPesticidesPesticidesPesticides

MoreMoreMoreMoreMore

PesticidesPesticidesPesticidesPesticidesPesticides

Reduced Net IncomeReduced Net IncomeReduced Net IncomeReduced Net IncomeReduced Net Income

$/ha$/ha$/ha$/ha$/ha

kg/hakg/hakg/hakg/hakg/ha1515151515 1010101010 55555

ChinaHubeiChina

Shandong

Pakistan

IndiaKarnataka China

AnhuiVietnam

Consistent Outcome: Less Pesticides and Higher Income


46


46

By targeting small-scale farmers and relyingon ecological processes rather thanexpensive inputs, the FAO-EU Programme

contributed positively to rural poverty alleviation.FFS graduates were shown to benefit fromsignificantly higher profits which could be usedfor better nutrition, child education or debtreduction, ensuring a brighter future for theirfamilies.

As a result of IPM-FFS, the gross marginincome (gross revenue from sales minus cashexpenditures) of FFS farmers increasedsubstantially by an average of $175 per ha or 23%relative to the control groups. This increase inincome came mainly from two sources: highercotton yields and reduced pesticide expenditures.While the average yield in the control groupdeclined by 5% between the sample years, FFSfarmers managed to increase their yields by 3%

over the same period giving them a significantadvantage of 8% more yield over control farmerswhile having reduced their pesticide costs by 46%or an average of $32 per ha.

Impact of IPM-FFS on Farmer IncomeGross margin increase relative to control(average of 1,060 farmers in 5 countries)

300300300300300

200200200200200

100100100100100

00000

Pre- Post-FFS Pre- Post-FFS

US$/haUS$/haUS$/haUS$/haUS$/ha

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

$ 51

$ 226

$ 43

$ 97

FFSFarmers

ExposedFarmers

$ 226

+ 23%

$ 67

+ 7%


47


47

Neighbours of FFS farmers also increased theirincome, though to a lesser degree. Compared tothe control group, their gain was only $57 or 7%.These results indicate that there is a slight diffusionof benefits from FFS farmers to their neighboursin the same village. However, the decisive skillsthat determine the full economic benefit were onlyacquired by FFS participants. While attitudes,some kinds of knowledge and simple skills mayeasily diffuse to non-FFS farmers, the morecomplex skills of ecology-based pest managementand informed decision-making that determinedhigher incomes was only found among FFSparticipants.

Since FFS participants were predominantlysmall-scale, poor and disadvantaged farmers, theirhousehold income increases contributed to poverty

reduction. Figures from Pakistan showed that beforethe FFS education 71% of the participants were belowthe poverty line. After the FFS, this number fell to55%, while it only fell by 4% in the control group.This 12 % net decline in poverty over three yearsdemonstrates the huge potential of IPM-FFSprogrammes to reduce rural poverty.

Impact of IPM-FFS on Poverty Reduction% farmers out of poverty relative to control

(average of 190 farmers in Pakistan)

00000

-10-10-10-10-10

-20-20-20-20-20

-30-30-30-30-30


% Out of Poverty% Out of Poverty% Out of Poverty% Out of Poverty% Out of Poverty

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

-18%

-30%

-14%-16%

FFSFarmers

ExposedFarmers

-12%

-2%


48


48

IPM significantlyincreased the bio-diversity in

agricultural fields byconserving naturalenemies and maintainingsound ecological balances.By having observed andunderstood ecological

interactions through self-discovery exercisesduring FFS, farmers became highly motivatedguardians of natural enemies in their fields andavoided using pesticides out of conviction ratherthan because they were instructed to do so.

By targeting the crop that receives the biggestshare of pesticides in Asia, the Cotton IPMProgramme helped reduce environmental risks

from toxic chemicals and improved biodiversityin large rural areas.

Overall results from the impact studies showedthat after attending FFS, farmers reduced theirinsecticide use by an average of 43% relative tocontrol farmers, who in some cases had evenincreased their usage. In addition, there was anoticeable effect on the entire village, as the FFSneighbours also reduced their insecticides by anaverage of 34%. After having heard about the badeffects of pesticides, these farmers simply followedtheir FFS neighbours, but without having gained thelatters’ decision-making skills. The accumulatedannual pesticide reduction is estimated at 1,800 tonsfewer pesticides used on about 250,000 ha.

Impact of IPM-FFS on Pesticide Reductionkg/ha decrease relative to control

(average of 1,060 farmers in 5 countries)

5.05.05.05.05.0

2.52.52.52.52.5

00000

-2.5-2.5-2.5-2.5-2.5


% Out of Poverty% Out of Poverty% Out of Poverty% Out of Poverty% Out of Poverty

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

+3.8 kg

-2.2 kg

+4.4 kg

-0.6 kg

FFSFarmers

ExposedFarmers

-6.0 kg

-43%

-5.0 kg

-34%


49


49

More differentiated analyses arrived at bycomputing the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ)for the pest control practices of FFS participants,suggested that the reduction in terms ofenvironmental risk exceeded that of the pesticideamount. This indicates that FFS farmers selectivelyreduced the most harmful products because theyunderstood their effects on the natural enemies inthe environment.

Positive effects of IPM on the biodiversity incotton fields were evident from data collectedduring FFS. Results consistently showed morenatural enemies and higher species diversity inIPM plots as compared to the farmer’s fields. Thiswas confirmed by post-FFS observationsconducted in China which found that the late-season populations of spiders andladybird beetles increased two to threefold. In Pakistan, the average predator-pest ratio increased from 0.72 in farmerfields to 1.06 in IPM plots. A comparisonstudy in Bangladesh and India showedthat the total number of insect speciesfound in cotton fields increased by 45%in IPM fields. This increase was foundto be mainly due to natural enemies,namely predators and parasitoids,which were almost absent in theconventional farmer practice plots.

FFS Impact on Predator-Pest RatioPakistan, 92 IPM and Farmer Practice (FP) Plots

22222

1.81.81.81.81.8

1.61.61.61.61.6

1.41.41.41.41.4

1.21.21.21.21.2

11111

0.80.80.80.80.8

0.60.60.60.60.6

0.40.40.40.40.4

0.20.20.20.20.2

00000

Pre

da

tor-

Pe

st R

ati

on

Pre

da

tor-

Pe

st R

ati

on

Pre

da

tor-

Pe

st R

ati

on

Pre

da

tor-

Pe

st R

ati

on

Pre

da

tor-

Pe

st R

ati

on

FP Average0.73

IPM Average1.06

Predator-Pest Ratio at IPM PlotsPredator-Pest Ratio at IPM PlotsPredator-Pest Ratio at IPM PlotsPredator-Pest Ratio at IPM PlotsPredator-Pest Ratio at IPM Plots Predator-Pest Ratio at Farmers Plots Predator-Pest Ratio at Farmers Plots Predator-Pest Ratio at Farmers Plots Predator-Pest Ratio at Farmers Plots Predator-Pest Ratio at Farmers Plots

CESA 1

CESA 1

CESA 1

CESA 1

CESA 1

CESA 2

CESA 2

CESA 2

CESA 2

CESA 2CESA 3

CESA 3

CESA 3

CESA 3

CESA 3

CESA 4

CESA 4

CESA 4

CESA 4

CESA 4CESA 5

CESA 5

CESA 5

CESA 5

CESA 5

CESA 6

CESA 6

CESA 6

CESA 6

CESA 6CESA 7

CESA 7

CESA 7

CESA 7

CESA 7

CESA 8

CESA 8

CESA 8

CESA 8

CESA 8CESA 9

CESA 9

CESA 9

CESA 9

CESA 9C

ESA 1

0

CES

A 10

CES

A 10

CES

A 10

CES

A 10

CES

A 11

CES

A 11

CES

A 11

CES

A 11

CES

A 11

CES

A 12

CES

A 12

CES

A 12

CES

A 12

CES

A 12

CES

A 13

CES

A 13

CES

A 13

CES

A 13

CES

A 13

CES

A 14

CES

A 14

CES

A 14

CES

A 14

CES

A 14

CES

A 15

CES

A 15

CES

A 15

CES

A 15

CES

A 15

CES

A 16

CES

A 16

CES

A 16

CES

A 16

CES

A 16

CES

A 17

CES

A 17

CES

A 17

CES

A 17

CES

A 17

CES

A 18

CES

A 18

CES

A 18

CES

A 18

CES

A 18

CES

A 19

CES

A 19

CES

A 19

CES

A 19

CES

A 19

Other positive environmental effects from IPMcome from a reduction of nitrogen fertilizer and arational “intercropping” with weeds, as a sourceof fodder for the animals or as herbs for humanconsumption. Though minor, the increase in plantbiomass in IPM fields positively contributes to theabsorption of carbon from the atmosphere.

FFS Impact on Species Diversity

4040404040

3030303030

2020202020

1010101010

00000

Farmer IPM Farmer IPM Practice Practice

No. ofNo. ofNo. ofNo. ofNo. ofSpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpeciesSpecies

Cotton fields nearHyderabad, India

Cotton fields nearJessore, Bangladesh

Herbivores Parasitoids PredatorsHerbivores Parasitoids PredatorsHerbivores Parasitoids PredatorsHerbivores Parasitoids PredatorsHerbivores Parasitoids Predators


50


50

Impact study data from countries with smallplot sizes such as China and Vietnamindicated few poisoning cases. However, in

India and Pakistan, where farmers spray two tothree hectares, an average of three to eightworkdays per season was lost due to poisoning,and medical expenditures of $14-36 per householdwere reported.

A detailed study in three Indian villagesrevealed that the incidences of pesticide poisoningwere far more frequent than commonly reported.A group of 97 male and female farmers self-monitored for poisoning signs and symptomswithin 24 hours after spraying pesticides for aperiod of 4 months. Of the 325 records, severepoisonings (seizures, unconsciousness) happenedin 6% of cases; 38% recorded moderate signs suchas nausea, tremors or blurred vision; and 39% hadmild signs and symptoms such as dizziness,burning eyes, skin rashes or excessive salivation.

Only in 16% of the sprays were no signs orsymptoms recorded. Results showed that womenfarmers were also exposed to pesticides, as theyfrequently helped with the mixing of the pesticidesor worked in the field during spray operations.


51


51

Consequently they were as often affected as malefarmers who actually carried out the spraying.Surprisingly, low income marginal farmers with lessthan two hectares were found to be ten times moreoften subject to severe poisoning (10.2 %) thanlandlords (1.0 %) with more than eight hectares ofland, showing that it is the poor who bear most ofthe burden from pesticide poisoning. The study alsorevealed that farmers sought medical treatments orstopped working only in severe cases — which arethe only ones that enter official statistics.

Studies conducted in Pakistan showed that notonly pesticide applicators are affected by pesticidepoisoning, but also the thousands of farm workers- mostly women and children - who pick thecotton. Of the sample investigated, almost all(87%) women reported pesticide related sickness

during the picking season and an average loss offive workdays, which is considerable as cottonpicking may be the only opportunity for them toearn some cash during a year. The investigationsshowed that cholinesterase, an enzyme necessaryfor the proper functioning of the nervous system,was reduced to hazardous levels among 42% ofsuch women. Results from these studies becamethe basis for a documentary film titled “HandsPicking Poison”.

IPM-FFS not only aims to eliminateunnecessary pesticide applications, it also aims todetoxify the farming environment by specificallyremoving highly toxic WHO Class I compounds.In Pakistan, for example, FFS farmers reduced theuse of this class by 54%, while it more thandoubled in the control group over the same period.

Pesticide Poisoning Incidences in IndiaPercent cases among 97 male and female farmers

after 325 pesticide applications over 4 months

100100100100100

8080808080

6060606060

4040404040

2020202020

00000

Pe

rce

nt

Pe

rce

nt

Pe

rce

nt

Pe

rce

nt

Pe

rce

nt

10.2

41.6

37.3

10.8

Signs andSigns andSigns andSigns andSigns and

SymptomsSymptomsSymptomsSymptomsSymptoms

1.6

32.8

49.2

16.4

1.0

36.5

36.5

26.0

Marginal/Small Medium Large

SevereSevereSevereSevereSevere

ModerateModerateModerateModerateModerate

MildMildMildMildMild

NoneNoneNoneNoneNone


52


52

FFS empowers farmersto create a safer work-ing environment for

themselves and theirfamilies. By becomingaware of negative healtheffects and ways to reducepesticide applications,farmers can live without the

fear of becomingpoisoned, endangering theirfamilies and communities, or consumingcontaminated farm products.

By improving their observation skills andanalytical capacities through self-discoverylearning exercises (e.g. ecosystem analysis andinsect zoos) farmers enhance management skills,which can then be applied to many aspects of life.

Pre- and post-FFS ballot box tests generallyshowed a 20-30% increase in scores. The impactstudies verified that FFS farmers retained theirknowledge and skills, and results showed that FFSgraduates had higher levels of pest recognition,

knowledge of natural enemies, improvedobservation, record keeping and decision-makingskills than non-FFS and control farmers. There waslittle diffusion of newly gained knowledge andskills to exposed farmers in the same village,confirming that - contrary to information andrecommendations - skills have to be individuallylearned and practiced, and do not diffuse toneighbours.

Social recognition was used in Pakistan as anindicator of the organisational capacities of FFSfarmers. It measured the degree to which FFSgraduates were consulted by fellow farmers. Thescore increased significantly for FFS graduates, butnot for exposed farmers and control farmers.

Recognition of Natural EnemiesTotal score increases relative to control

(average of 287 farmers in India and Pakistan)

2020202020

1515151515

1010101010

55555

00000


Test ScoreTest ScoreTest ScoreTest ScoreTest Score

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

FFSFarmers

ExposedFarmers

+ 16.9

points

+ 2.3

points


53


53

Interestingly, not only the educated farmersenjoyed increased social recognition, but alsoilliterate farmers.

By encouraging women to attend FFS, theproject provided new learning opportunities towomen and increased social awareness of genderroles. The average female participation in FFS was21%, ranging from 2% in Pakistan to 33% in China.Because mixed FFS groups are culturallyunacceptable in certain societies, special FFS forwomen were set up in India, Pakistan andBangladesh.

FFS graduation ceremonies were to mark thebeginning of a learning process, not its end.Though this could not be followed up in the course

of the Programme, experience has shown thatthrough it farmers have been enabled to generatenew knowledge, conduct field experiments andorganise themselves better. In 2004, the PakistanNational IPM Programme organised three farmercongresses for representatives from 180 alumniFFS who decided to organise themselves into anational organisation. By the end of theProgramme there existed on village and districtlevels 56 registered FFS-alumni chapters that weredevoted to continuing farmer education on a self-help basis. In India, the Governments of Karnatakaand Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh providedfinancial support for 380 alumni groups tocontinue knowledge generating and communitydevelopment.

Increase in Social RecognitionScore increases relative to control

(average of 190 farmers in Pakistan)

2020202020

1515151515

1010101010

55555

00000


Test ScoreTest ScoreTest ScoreTest ScoreTest Score

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

Re

lati

ve to

Co

ntr

ol G

rou

p F

arm

ers

FFSFarmers

ExposedFarmers

+ 12

points

- 2

points

Diffusion to Exposed Farmers

Knowledge/SkillsKnowledge/SkillsKnowledge/SkillsKnowledge/SkillsKnowledge/Skills

Income IncreaseIncome IncreaseIncome IncreaseIncome IncreaseIncome Increase

Insecticide ReductionInsecticide ReductionInsecticide ReductionInsecticide ReductionInsecticide Reduction

FFSFarmers

ExposedFarmers

Gains of exposed farmers in % of the gainsGains of exposed farmers in % of the gainsGains of exposed farmers in % of the gainsGains of exposed farmers in % of the gainsGains of exposed farmers in % of the gainsachieved by FFS farmersachieved by FFS farmersachieved by FFS farmersachieved by FFS farmersachieved by FFS farmers

0% 50% 100%


54



55

Once again, farmer field schools andintegrated pest managementhave proven to be a powerfulcombination for achieving

comprehensive sustainable development forsmall- scale farmers who are searching for away out of the vicious cycle of increasing costsand reduced profits. These result from thedisrupted ecological processes in their fieldswhich are caused by excessive use of pesticidesand other agricultural inputs. In the shortperiod of implementation, the FAO-EUProgramme has demonstrated that thisapproach not only increases the income of poorfarmers, it also enables them to conserveagricultural biodiversity, improve communityhealth, become better managers of theirresources and work more effectively withfellow farmers in a self-reliant manner toimprove the livelihoods of their families andcommunities.

The achievements of the Programme wereconfirmed during two independent reviewmissions that were carried out in 2002 and 2004:

A mid-term review took place from27 October to 18 November, 2002.Jeff Waage - Team Leader, IPM specialistRobert Moore - Evaluation specialist

(FAO Evaluation Service)Marc Debois - Environment specialist

(EU representative)Lawrence Shaw - Agricultural economistEdith van Walsum - Rural development/

gender specialistPiao Yongfan - Representative of member

countries

A final project review took place from13 August to 3 September, 2004.Niels Röling - Team Leader, Agricultural

Knowledge and Information SystemsRobert Moore - Evaluation Specialist

(FAO Evaluation Service)Sandhya Chatterji - Rural development/

gender specialistAlida Laurense - IPM specialistJosef Margraf - Environment specialistIftikhar Ahmad - Representative of member

countries


56


56

T he mid-termreview teamconcluded that

the Programme waswell on track tomeeting its objectives.There was strongevidence of post-FFSchanged farming prac-

tices, farmer engagement and enthusiasm, andgovernments were committed to supporting andco-financing training activities. Convincing plansto realise the targets of 21 TOF and at least 3,800FFS were in place, as well as a system for impactanalysis. The review team strongly supported thenew emphasis by the Programme on the trainingand evaluation of farmer facilitators as a basis forpotential Programme expansion and intensification.

In view of this good progress, the review teamrecommended that the country projects place moreemphasis on building collaboration (i.e. withNGOs, researchers, and the private sector) andsupporting policy change, particularly withrespect to national IPM initiatives and pesticideregulation. With such an emphasis, promisinginitial steps in certain countries could be sharedacross the Programme.

The review team examined several specificactivities. Studies undertaken by farmers andfacilitators in China on IPM and geneticallymodified Bt cotton have shown the critical rolewhich IPM education plays in the success ofbiotechnology for development. The Programmehas made a concerted and valuable effort tounderstand the role of women in cotton IPM, and


57


57

now should act on this to increase theirinvolvement in training and other projectactivities. Information coordination anddissemination within the Programme should nowalso include outward communication. Health,specifically pesticide effects, and pesticideregulation were identified as emerging issuesdeserving more attention by the country projectsin future.

The review team paid particular attention tothe challenging issue of the spread andsustainability of IPM. It concluded that thisrequires exploration of scaling-up models forfarmer education, action at the national level toreduce pesticide use on cotton, and steadyengagement of the research community andNGOs. It was recommended that the Programme

make importantsteps in this direction(e.g. increasing FTOF),even though a full evaluation ofthis potential would not be achievedin the Programme period. The reviewteam therefore recommended that anidentification mission be made in 2003to explore opportunities for extendingthe Programme to more countries and,perhaps, to other farming systems withunsustainable and unhealthy pesticidedependency.


58


58

The final review team concluded that theFAO-EU Programme has had a significantimpact in participating countries where

cotton is an important crop (i.e. China, India,Pakistan), in terms of uptake of results by nationalgovernments. In countries where cottoncultivation is a minor activity, such as Bangladesh,the Philippines and Vietnam, the farmer fieldschool approach has demonstrated the rigour ofthis approach in enhancing skills of farmers toimprove their livelihoods in a cotton-basedcropping system.

Overall, the Programme has been especiallysuccessful in China, India and Pakistan. Thisimpact has convinced the review team that farmerfield schools should receive high priority, also interms of awareness raising. Major donors such asthe EC and many staff within the FAO itself are

familiar with IPM as a technical subject, but notof the farmer field school as an essentialcomponent of it.

It was recognised that the Programme hasmade a major contribution to the development ofthe IPM-FFS approach. This was mainly due tothe fact that the Programme had built in impactassessment and quality monitoring from the start.These activities have led to new and useful insightsinto the risks and vulnerabilities of the field schoolapproach that should be actively pursued tofurther develop the approach.


59


59

The success of the Programme in convincinggovernments of major developing countries of itsvalue, led the review team to the conclusion thatFAO should move away from its emphasis oncrops, IPM, pesticides, etc., and towards a newframing of the farmer field school within theinternational donor community. This reframingshould emphasise biodiversity, poverty reduction,the education of rural people, water managementand other Millennium Development Goals inwhich field schools have a proven track record.


60


60

Recognising the achievements made and thelessons learned, the potential for a majoractivity on rural poverty alleviation would

be a natural follow-up. This environmental riskreduction activity would improve the livelihoodsof millions of small-scale cotton farmers resultingin protecting the agro-biodiversity of cotton-basedproduction systems. By fully exploiting the FFStraining capacity of more than 50,000 farmers peryear and supporting partner countries in theirefforts to expand and integrate this approach intotheir rural development and extension reformstrategies, a target of improving the livelihoodsof 3-5 million small-scale farmers is within reach.

The commitments by provincial and localgovernments in China, India and Pakistan are atrisk of falling apart or being sidetracked. Failuresof the ambitious expansion plans could seriouslythrow back IPM-FFS promotion in Asia.In order to secure the investmentsmade by the FAO-EU Programme,several critical issues andopportunities remain forthe countries, wherethe Programme hashad a significantimpact:

China

❏ Cotton IPM needs to be extended to Western Chinaand to include other crops, and should also addressconservation of China’s precious agro-biodiversity.

❏ Additional impact assessment studies involvingmore villages and ecological conditions and long-term data are necessary to give a more comprehen-sive picture.

❏ Genetically modified Bt cotton is of concern due tothe apparent emergence of new pest problems anda rise in pesticide uses. Lessons learnt from Chinaare relevant to India and Pakistan.

Cotton Production Zones in Asia

FAO-EU Cotton IPM Member CountriesFAO-EU Cotton IPM Member CountriesFAO-EU Cotton IPM Member CountriesFAO-EU Cotton IPM Member CountriesFAO-EU Cotton IPM Member Countries

Pakistan

India

Bangladesh

China

VietnamPhilippines


61

FAO-EU Programme

Government

scaling-up

plans

Utilization of

training

capacity


61

India

❏ The planned rapid expansion of FFS by StateGovernments requires investments in qualityassurance, follow-up and refresher training ineducational and empowerment aspects which arenot yet in place.

❏ A national IPM Programme could facilitateexpansion into other states

❏ Umbrella FFS alumni organisations could provideimportant incentives for group sustainability,especially for rural women.

❏ Impact assessment studies should investigate thelong-term impact on the farmers educated in 2001.

❏ Experiences in organic cotton cultivation, genderissues and health monitoring as follow-ups to IPM-FFS should be shared with other countries.

Pakistan

❏ The locally-funded National IPM Project faces risksrelated to organisational aspects such as inflexiblerelease of funds for FFS implementation.

❏ The rapid expansion of IPM-FFS planned byPunjab demands exceptional attention to qualityassurance and improved facilitation skills.

❏ The newly formed local and regional associationsfor FFS alumni farmers and IPM facilitators riskdisillusionment without start-up assistance and asupporting umbrella structure.

❏ Impact assessment studies should be expanded andshould investigate the long-term (3-4 years afterFFS) impact.

Potential for Major Impact on Small-scale Farmer Livelihoods

4,000,0004,000,0004,000,0004,000,0004,000,000

3,500,0003,500,0003,500,0003,500,0003,500,000

3,000,0003,000,0003,000,0003,000,0003,000,000

2,500,0002,500,0002,500,0002,500,0002,500,000

2,000,0002,000,0002,000,0002,000,0002,000,000

1,500,0001,500,0001,500,0001,500,0001,500,000

1,000,0001,000,0001,000,0001,000,0001,000,000

500,000500,000500,000500,000500,000

00000

Programme FFSProgramme FFSProgramme FFSProgramme FFSProgramme FFS Government FFSGovernment FFSGovernment FFSGovernment FFSGovernment FFS

Government

scaling-up

plans

Utilization of

training

capacity

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

FAO-EU Programme


62

fao-eu integrated pest management (ipm) programme for ... · integrated pest management (ipm) has...

Documents