Integrated Pest Management in Nepal

Integrated Pest Management in Nepal Lekhnath Kafle1,*, Yubak Dhoj GC2, Jeng-Tze Yang3, Shankar Bhattarai4, Sundar Tiwari5 and Mandira Katuwal2 1

Chung Hsi Chemical Plant, Hsinchu, Taiwan

2

Nepal Government, Department of Agriculture, Kathmandu, Nepal

3

National Chung Hsin University, Taichong, Taiwan

4

Caritas Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal

5

Agriculture and Forestry University, Chitwan Nepal

*

Correspondence to “[email protected]”

Abstract Nepal became a part of FAO’s Community Integrated Pest Management Program (CIPM) in Asia after the outbreak of Brown Plant Hopper (Nilaparvata lugens Stal) in 1997 in central Nepal. Farmer’s Field School (FFS) was the tool to spread location specific IPM technology there. After lunching three projects supported by FAO, Norway, Nepal Government and other agencies from 1998 to 2014, over one hundred thousands of farmers have been graduated from FFS and 2700 trainers are actively facilitating IPM process across the nation. The IPM practicing farmers have reduced pesticide application by 36% over non-practitioners. The FFS famer’s are also getting more yields of crops, more annual income and they had developed better leadership than the nonpractitioners. IPM-FFS has been a widely accepted technology transfer platform for the policy makers, academicians, technicians and farmers in Nepal. Key words: Nepal, IPM, FFS, Pesticides, Farmer December 6, 2014 NPUST, Pingtung, Taiwan

113

1. Background In Nepal, agriculture shares major part of the GDP and also provides major job opportunities for local workforces. For the last 3 decades, cultivation of improved crop varieties is getting popular in Nepal. Among those, vegetables are the major crops. But those varieties are more sensitive to the insect pests and diseases and about 35% of crops in Nepal are damaged only by insect pests (Palikhe, 2002). Mostly high input demanding crops are getting more polluted due to high doses and frequencies of pesticide applications. The recent pesticide residue test reflected that the major vegetables from commercial production areas were more pesticide polluted than from other areas in Nepal. In 1990, Nepal Government accepted IPM as a part of plant protection program but due to the lack of trained manpower and budget, IPM program was not lunched in the farm level till 1998. In 1997, Nepal adopted the Community IPM (CIPM) and first project of that was implemented in 1998 as Farmer’s Field School (FFS) in rice (Westendorp and Biggs, 2002). As Nepal government started IPM-FFS other I/NGO also started programs in coordination with central and local government. Similarly, academic institutions also started teaching IPM-FFS for their graduate and undergraduate students. 2. IPM Farmer’s Field School (IPM-FFS) A Farmer Field School is also called a school without walls, which taught basic agro-ecology and crop management skills. A group of farmers gets together in one of their own field where real field problems are observed, recorded and analyzed from planting to harvest of the crop. Participants set up numbers of comparative studies and other supportive trials in the field. Participatory discussions, group decisions and agro-ecosystem analysis (AESA) are the fundamentals of IPM-FFS. The FFS was developed to help farmers adopt their IPM practices to diverse and dynamic ecological conditions (FAO, 2014).

December 6, 2014 NPUST, Pingtung, Taiwan

114

FFS is based on the concept of participatory extension approach (Hagmann et al., 1999) and relies on discovery learning techniques (Miagostovich et al., 1999) which is a different paradigm than that of the top-down model of technology development and transfer. In 1989, 200 IPM-FFSs were first started in Indonesia to reduce farmer reliance on pesticides in rice. By 1990, Indonesia launched 1,800 rice IPM-FFSs and in 1991, IPM-FFSs for rotation crops, mainly in soybeans were initiated while the FFS spread out to different countries in Asia. FFSs were established in Vietnam (1992), China (1993), Lao PDR (1993), Bangladesh (1994), Cambodia (1996), Sri Lanka (1997) and Nepal (1998). From 1993 Farmer-to-Farmer FFS was started in Indonesia. Now, farmer-led FFS is a standard element in most FFS programs around the world (Braun and Duveskog, 2008; FAO, 2014). FFS are now active in Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe and USA, reaching a total of 87 countries. It has also been modified and applied in vegetables, cotton, potato, tree crops (cocoa), fruits, maize, tea and coffee. Recently, modified FFS also include soil fertility management, land and water management, groundwater management, conservation agriculture, land degradation, agroforestry, seed production, marketing, food security, nutrition, fishing, biodiversity, climate change and animal (goat FFS in Nepal) husbandry (Braun and Duveskog, 2008). 3. IPM-FFS in Nepal 3.1. Implementation of IPM in Rice (1997/1998) In Nepal, FFS was adopted in 1998 in early rice (spring rice) after the outbreak of Brown Plant Hopper (Nilaparvata lugens Stal) of rice in Kumroj and Kathar area of Chitwan district in 1997. This program was started as a pilot project through FAO Technical Cooperation Program (TCP/NEP/6712) under "Implementation of Integrated Pest Management in Rice" (FAOIPM, 2014). From the 9th Five Year Plan (1997-2002), Nepal Government has listed IPM-FFS on the top priority (PPD, 2014).


115

3.2. Community IPM (1998 - 2002) After successful completion of pilot project on rice IPM-FFS Nepal received additional financial support from the Norwegian Government under the technical support of FAO Regional Community IPM (CIPM) of Asia for 1998 - 2002 (Tiwari, 2009). In 1999, one year after the first IPM-FFS lunched, two INGOs (CARE and World Education) also joined the CIPM program in Nepal. And from 2000, Farmer to Farmer IPM-FFS started to organize FFS and follow up activities. National Agriculture Extension Strategy (2006) of Department of Agriculture (DOA) has also given priority to IPM-FFS model. In the CIPM project period (1998-2002), all together 104 officers, 35 junior officers (JT/JTA) and 415 farmers’ level FFS trainers were developed covering 54 districts (out of 75 districts) of nation. Additionally, 700 IPM-FFSs in rice and vegetables were established and ~20,000 farmers participated in the FFS trainings (PPD, 2008). In Nepal, vegetable IPM-FFS was started in 2001. 3.3. National IPM Program (2003) After completion of CIPM project, there was bilateral negotiation with Norwegian government to continue the IPM-FFS on Nepal but that negotiation took almost a year. During that one year period, Nepal Government continued the IPM-FFS program under regular plant protection program, supported by Central Government. At the same time, I/NGOs executed numbers of IPM-FFS in local level with their own resources. 3.4. Support to National IPM-FFS Program (SNIPM) Phase-I (2004 - 2007) To spread the IPM-FFS nationwide, Nepal Government and Norwegian Government signed an agreement for the period of 2004 -2007 as “Support to National IPM-FFS Program (SNIPM)”- First phase to augment coverage of IPM-FFS spatially and conducting FFS in various high value crops. The SNIPM was focused to, i) institutionalize the IPM-FFS approach in the community level, ii) mainstream the FFS approach in the government and other private organizations’ system and, iii) to December 6, 2014 NPUST, Pingtung, Taiwan

116

develop the collaboration among the stakeholders for the promotion of FFS approach in Nepal (GC, 2011; Esser et al., 2012). 3.5. SNIPM Phase-II (2008- 2012) After successful completion of first phase, second phase of SNIPM was lunched for the period of 2008 - 2012 in support of Norwegian Government. The second phase was implemented for consolidation, intensification and institutionalization of the outcomes of the first phase of SNIPM. The second phase SIPM was divided mainly into two categories and lunched in different areas, i) intensification and institutionalization program in total 12 districts (Jhapa, Bara, Kapilvastu, Banke, Kailali, Ilam, Kavre, Syangja, Surkhet, Dadeldhura, Mustang and Jumla) and ii) regular IPM program in remaining 63 districts. Similarly, IPM-FFS academic curriculum was developed and formal courses were lunched in Agriculture and Forestry University (AFU), Institute of Agriculture and Animal Sciences (IAAS), Himalayan College of Agriculture and Animal Science and Technology (HICAST), Council for Technical Education and Vocational Training (CTEVT) and Secondary Education Board. IPM-FFS internship opportunities (12 persons), refresher courses for technicians and farmers, 10 IPM-FFS post graduate funding, 16 research studies and numbers of national and regional meetings, workshops and exchange visits were supported during this project. IPM products market was also established in 10 different districts. The numbers of graduate and undergraduate students of IAAS, AFU started doing their thesis and projects on IPM-FFS and IPM related topics. During this period, IPM program has covered all the 75 districts of Nepal. The IPM was not taken only as pest control measure but also applied as a holistic and sustainable management approach for food security; poverty reduction, safeguarding environment and climate change adaptation. During the project, major focuses were to develop and spread successful IPM technologies, increase agriculture production and promote marketing of IPM crop products (GC, 2011; Esser et al., 2012). December 6, 2014 NPUST, Pingtung, Taiwan

117

Until the end of 2014, total of one hundred thousand farmers had been trained; among those 60% were females and total 2780 master trainers were prepared in which 1083 trainers belonged to I/NGOs and other agencies like:Caritas, World Education, IPM Trainers Association, Nepal (TITAN), Love green, IAAS, HICAST. Total 3,767 FFS in 75 districts of Nepal were implemented. IPM-FFS was conducted successfully in rice, vegetables, potato, tea and citrus. The IPM-FFS offered farmers a good understanding of ecology based crop production (GC, 2011; FAOIPM, 2014). 4. Impacts of IPM-FFS Program in Nepal 4.1. Change in cultivation practices Most of the IPM-FFS trained farmers (88%) had changed their cultivation practices. Major changes were observe in the use of improved seeds, use of mixture of organic and inorganic fertilizers, reduction in use of chemical pesticides, applying right pesticides at right time, applying right seed rate, crop rotation, proper irrigation and fertilizer application (Bhandari, 2012). After successful implementation of FFS, farmers knew the ecosystem more than ever and they started to use nature based pesticides (GC, 2011; Esser et al., 2012). Numbers of nature based pesticides were also formulated and applied in the field (Katuwal et al., 2012). 4.2. Changes in pesticide use Jha (2008) found that IPM-FFS trained farmers used 36% lesser amount (1.82 kg / ha) of active ingredients of pesticides than the non-trained farmers (2.85 kg / ha). Similarly, another report (GC, 2011) stated that the pesticide application reduced up to 40% in FFS implemented areas as compared with non-FFS areas. Paudel (2012) reported that IPM farmers spend nearly 3.2 times lesser money for pesticides than non-IPM farmers. Non-IPM famers spend about 96%, 87 % and 82% more money for the pesticides than IPM-FFS farmers for paddy, potato and vegetables, respectively.


118

4.3. Perception about pesticide effects Most of IPM-FFS trained and non-trained farmers had similar perception that pesticide affects human health but only 53 % of non-participants perceived the negative effects of pesticides on beneficial organisms of agro-ecosystem (Jha, 2008). 4.4. Change in crop diversity Before participating in IPM-FFS, farmers used to grow only four types of vegetables (Broad leaf mustard, Radish, Local cucurbits, Beans) and after joining IPM-FFS they started growing seven different types (Cauliflower, Cabbage, Beans, Potato, Tomato, Cucumber and Pumpkins). As they knew crop diversification even within vegetables will result in better economic return (Bhandari, 2012). 4.5. Changes in cultivation costs and farmer’s income Average income of IPM-FFS farmers increased due to higher yield following IPM practice (GC, 2011; Esser et al., 2012). About 71 % of farmers reported that cultivation cost has been increased after practicing IPM techniques. The reasons behind the cost of production increased were due to higher price of better seeds, fertilizers costs, labor costs, farm tools as well as the facilities (Bhandari, 2012).

Although, the cost of production increased, 76 % of farmers declared that their income also has been increased accordingly. Most of the IPM-FFS farmer’s yields of cereals and vegetables were increased by 35% because of better seeds and better farm practices (Bhandari, 2012). Similarly, GC (2011) reported that IPM farmer’s rice and vegetable production was increased by 15-25% and 32-48%, respectively than non IPM farmers. 4.6. Change in the leadership capacity About 80 % IPM-FFS famers felt they were empowered and have developed leadership capacity after the participation in IPM-FFS. During the IPM-FFS, farmers involve in regular discussions, December 6, 2014 NPUST, Pingtung, Taiwan

119

discovery based learning and presentation, which not only develop their self-confidence but also built better decision-making capacity. Many of IPM farmers expressed about the knowledge gained and increase in self-confidence in managing their fields, taking pest control decisions and participating in community developmental programs. Women farmers also felt their self-confidence has increased much more than before (Bhandari, 2012). 4.7. Involvement in developmental activities Because of their developed leadership capabilities, ~82 % IPM-FFS farmers have joined in local farmer groups and cooperatives. After joining the IPM-FFS rural women are also actively participating in the planning, implementation as well as management of local development programs. Such changes have transformed the role of rural women within the household. The positive impact of women’s empowerment can also be seen in reduced social issues as well (Bhandari, 2012). 4.8. Other impacts Over 80% of the IPM farmers agreed having a better health condition with less doctor visits and reduced medical costs. In the policy level, the linkage, coordination and collaboration between farmers and local government and I/NGOs have shown higher enthusiasm in IPM program (GC, 2011). The IPM-FFS has becoming one of the important training courses among the agriculture based organizations. The IPM-FFS has been widely accepted by many Government agencies, I/NGOs and Academic institutions. 5. Other IPM supportive programs in Nepal 5.1. Mobile plant clinic IPM-FFS could not reach to all farmers and crops. Therefore, Mobile Plant Clinic (MPC) was designed to help such farmers with their field problems onsite. As a pilot phase of the program, Plant Protection Directorate (PPD) has been running this program in certain districts. Farmers get December 6, 2014 NPUST, Pingtung, Taiwan

120

specialist’s recommendation for the control measures of the biotic or abiotic problems. Thus, the unnecessary and unwanted use of pesticide will be reduced to a great extent (GC, 2012). Recently, plant clinic has been one of the popular and effective programs that have been carried by DOA, I/INGOs at community level. Plant clinics are jointly organized and supported by CABI south Asia, Plantwise, PPD and local agriculture offices. In addition, plant clinic has become one of the regular activities of the plant protection programs in district level. Lack of well-equipped laboratories and enough expertise in different fields of plant doctors such as virologist, nematologist mycologist, entomologist, and weed botanist has been felt while conducting plant clinics. 5.2. Pesticide residue analysis Rapid Bioassay of Pesticide Residue (RBPR) technology to analyze the pesticide residue was developed in Taiwan in 1985 and has since been successfully adopted in Taiwan and other countries. Recently, Nepal also had set up one RBPR laboratory in Central Vegetable and Fruit Whole sell Market, Kalimati, Kathmandu to check the pesticide residue level of vegetables and fruits sold in the market. The products with pesticide residues above acceptable level are being removed from the market and destroyed. After establishing the RBPR laboratory, healthier products are getting in the market. So, with the positive impact of the technology among consumers, Nepal Government is planning to extend more such laboratories in other places of the country. 5.3 Regulatory controls Plant Protection Directorate (PPD) under the Ministry of Agriculture Development is the official agency in Nepal responsible for implementing all the plant protection policies and programs. National IPM Program in Nepal was also established under PPD to manage all the IPM programs in Nepal. PPD is controlling plant protection activities in Nepal by Plant Protection Act 2029 (1972) and Regulation 2031 (1974) and Pesticide Act 2048 (1991) and Regulation 2051 (1994). December 6, 2014 NPUST, Pingtung, Taiwan

121

5.6. Nepal Agriculture Research Council Entomology, Plant pathology and other laboratories of Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) are conducting several studies to solve farmer’s field problems and also supporting National IPM Program. 5.7. I/NGOs CARE

International,

World

Education,

CARITAS-Nepal,

Helvetas-Nepal,

Development

Enterprises (iDE), Center for Agricultural and Environmental Policy, Nepal Public Health Foundation, Research and Development (CEAPRED), Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LIBIRD), Federation of Community Forestry Users, Nepal, TITAN, Coffee Promotion Project, Love green, AFU, IAAS, HICAST are the major partners in Nepal for IPM-FFS program. Furthermore, USAID funded, IPM Innovation Lab (IPM IL) project, implemented by Virginia Tech in partnership with iDE, CEAPRED and NARC was designed in response to the increased use of pesticides, which seeks to promote IPM practices in selected horticultural crops. 6. Conclusion A significant difference has been found in the amount of pesticide used by FFS participant and nonparticipant farmers. The FFS has been an effective tool to increase IPM knowledge and techniques of ecological pest management among the farmers. The IPM through FFS approach has not only been a means to sustainable management of pests thereby ensuring sustainable yield of crops but also the IPM based crop management has positive effect on food security, income, empowerment of farmers and minimize pesticide residue to the ecosystem. Those are making IPM-FFS one of the demanding programs among Nepalese farmers. Acknowledgement We greatly thank to Mr. Ram Krishna Subedi (PPD), Ram Ghimire (NARC) and Mr. Nilakantha Sharma for their kind help during information collection for this report. December 6, 2014 NPUST, Pingtung, Taiwan

122

References Braun, A. and D. Duveskog. 2008. The farmer field school approach - history, global assessment and success stories. Paper commissioned by IFAD (Draft 2008). Bhandari, P. S. 2012. Farmer’s perception about gains from Integrated Pest Management Farmer Field School. Intl. J. Agrl. Sc., Res. and Tech. 2: 137-142. Esser, K. B., M. G. Sæthre, N. Pradhananga and H. Ojha. 2012. Midterm review of the national integrated pest management program in Nepal, phase ii. Noragric Report No. 67. Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric. FAOIPM. 2014. Retrieved from http://www.vegetableipmasia.org/Countries/nepal1.html on 28 October 2014.

GC, Y. D. 2011. Status of plant protection activities in Nepal. Conference on Capacity building in use of the International Phytosanitary Portal and APPPC website for information exchange. 4-9 July 2011, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia GC, Y. D. 2012. Status of pesticide use in Nepal and future strategy for their safe and alternative uses. Retrieved from http://ppdnepal.gov.np on 28 October 2014. Hagmann, J., E. Chuma, K. Murwira, M. Connolly. 1999. Putting process into practice: operationalising participatory extension. Network-Paper-Agricultural-Research-and-ExtensionNetwork,-ODI (UK). Jha, R. K. 2008. An assessment of farm-level use of bio-pesticides in Nepal: A case study based on IPM Farmers' Field Schools of Bhaktapur District. Paper presented in 3rd annual meeting of Plant Protection Society of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.


123

Katuwal, M., L. Kafle, C. K. Mandal, Y. D. GC, S. Tiwari. 2012. The Efficacy of bio-rational compounds against the Diamondback Moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) in Nepal. Formosa Entomol. 32: 289-296. Miagostovich, M., J. Anderson and S. Sukwong. 1999. Farmer Field School in integrated crop management. Rural Learning Networks. Regional Community Forestry Training Center. PPD, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.ppdnepal.gov.np/index.php?option=cms&id=19 on 28 October 2014 Palikhe, B. R. 2002. Challenges and options of pesticide use: In the context of Nepal. Country report. Landschaftsökologie und Umweltforschung. Braunschweig, Germany. Tiwari, 2009. Institutionalization of Farmer Field School (FFS): A Farmer-centred learning and new paradigm of innovation, case study of Nepal. Master’s Thesis. Dept. of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, the Netherlands Upadhyaya, N. S. 2002. Experience of community IPM in Nepal. Country report. Landschaftsökologie und Umweltforschung. Braunschweig, Germany. Westendorp, A. and S. Biggs, 2002. Strengthening social capital in agricultural and natural resources innovation. Systems: Community IPM Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) in Nepal.


124