Evaluating the IPM Implementation Process

Abstract

Integrated pest management (IPM) was defined by R. F. Smith & Reynolds (110) as pest population management system that utilises all suitable techniques in a compatible manner to reduce pest populations and maintain them at levels below those causing economic injury. IPM has received widespread acclaim since the 1950s as the only rational approach to providing long-term solutions to pest problems (e.g. 65,72). Yet as early as 1965 (120) the proponents of this concept began commenting on the slow rate of adoption of IPM by farmers. This concern has continued to increase (15, 21, 23, 26, 36, 39, 42, 50, 51, 60, 73, 76, 81, 84, 87, 121, 125, 129, 130, 132). Problems with the transfer of IPM technology are today identified as a principal bottleneck limiting progress with IPM worldwide (18, 21, 29a, 47), despite rising pesticide costs (103) and resistance problems (71). There have been very few reviews of IPM implementation (129, 130). Until recently there were also few papers that focused on the implementation process (e.g. 31, 36, 55, 95), despite the fact that implementation has been an acknowledged problem. Some authors have recognized that the complexity of IPM will delay its adoption (60,75,87,96). This complexity also demands that considerable attention and resources be devoted to implementation. Recognition of the true scale of this need has been slow, and has elicited some severe and lucid criticism of the present direction and organization of IPM (36) and calls from a number of authors for the allocation of greater resources for implementation (31-33, 36, 42, 75, 96, 125). In response to these issues, I undertook a questionnaire and interview survey of the process of IPM implementation with more than 150 research and