Letter

A number of points came to mind during the meeting: First, there is indeed a divergence of thought about the nature of IPM that is mainly concerned with the role of pesticides. Here is a definition honed during many years of working with farmers, NGOs, and scientists in developing and developed countries: IPM consists of management activities carried out by farmers that maintain the intensity of potential pests at levels below which they become pests, without endangering the productivity and profitability of the farming system as a whole, the health of the farm family and its livestock, and the quality of the adjacent and downstream environments. This definition does not preclude the inclusion of pesticides in an IPM strategy; rather, it defines the way they should be used. It also places the focus on the farm family and the sustainability of its farm.

Second, we learned that 50 percent of the world’s food production is lost to pests. So why is the CGIAR focusing (1) on soil and water research, a topic that has, for the most part, remained impervious to progress during the life and in the context of the CGIAR, and (2) on biotechnology/breeding, where progress can normally only be measured in 1 or 2 percent increments per year? The CGIAR will only be able to demonstrate impact if it attacks the most important constraints to production (which differ considerably from crop to crop) and leaves the peripheral issues to location-specific enterprises, where there is a history of success.

Third, the CGIAR was moving toward a proactive approach to IPM by promoting systemwide projects. However, with the focus on soil and water management and biotechnology, a partial vacuum has been created. New partnerships need to be formed if national programs are to receive the kind of help they need to solve their pest problems in an effective and sustainable manner. This can best be done by the formation of new partnerships between (1) bilateral technology development organizations, (2) private sector concerns with their sights set on promoting sustainable solutions to pest problems, (3) NGOs with their fingers on the pulses and technological needs of farming communities, and (4) a coordinating organization. The World Bank fits the role of coordinator well because of its global purview and the recent restatement of the pivotal role it can play in promoting international research on agriculture, and on IPM in particular.

Dr. John A. Wightman
International Pest Management
Springfield, Virginia, U.S.A.

Next article