7. Is IPM making a lasting difference? How can you tell?

It is indeed making a lasting difference—to the tune of millions of dollars of extra income for developing countries each year! The adoption of eggplant and tomato grafting in Bangladesh, the Philippines and Indonesia has increased production several-fold. Based on the success of this practice in these countries, Nepal, Uganda, Mali and other countries are in the process of adopting this technique. The early harvest technique for olives developed by the IPM CRSP program in Albania has resulted in increased production and in the export of this crop, thereby adding several millions of dollars to Albania’s GDP. GIS monitoring of a pepper pest in Jamaica aided in meeting the USDA APHIS regulations and allowed export of this crop to the United States.

We assess the impact of IPM by noticing increased production, less use of pesticides, people in better health, and greater exporting of crops.

TOP OF THE PAGE

8. Why does IPM need to continue to be funded? Haven’t you made your program self-sustaining by now?

In the past two phases (1993-2004), IPM CRSP was involved in one country in each of six regions of the developing world (South Asia, Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, East Africa, West Africa, and Eastern Europe). In the current phase (III), an additional region has been added—Central Asia. The program has been regionalized and is extending the technologies developed to several countries in each region. Also, six cross-cutting programs that cover all regions have been implemented. These require additional time and funding to be successful. To feed an increasing world population with limited arable land, per acre yield needs to be increased. People also expect healthy food to be produced with minimal or no adverse impact to the environment. IPM plays a major role in increasing crop productivity, improving the quality of produce, and in maintaining environmental standards.

Furthermore, in recent years, several invasive species of insects, disease agents and weeds have been spreading throughout the world causing serious damage to the environment, health and the world economy. Developing countries need IPM now more than ever before.

TOP OF THE PAGE

9. Why include gender in your program?

Everything we do in life, whether we are aware of it or not, is gendered. Keeping this in mind in developing countries is especially important as access to resources, use of time, and ability to take certain actions are governed by gender considerations. In many countries, the “farmer” is thought of as male even though in practice, a majority of women work the land. Without ensuring that women participate and have access to information, IPM programs can reinforce the marginalization of women. A focus on men’s crops in IPM may inadvertently create livelihood hardships for women.

Women’s important role in decision-making and allocation of household finances in many cultures alone warrants targeting them in IPM research and training. What we know is that men and women spend money differently based on their different interests, risk exposure, and perceptions. Yet there are many obstacles to incorporating women in IPM programs around the world, ranging from traditional culture to the fact that gender influences access to resources such as land, labor, education and credit—all important to the adoption of IPM.

Farm tasks are often gendered, with some carried out exclusively by women and others by men. Crops too are gendered, with peanuts or groundnut considered a women’s crop in some places, and men’s in others. These can change as migration, market forces, the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and other factors alter labor patterns, sometimes leaving women in charge of farm tasks that were previously men’s responsibilities and for which they are not prepared.

In Albania, men spend the summer as migrant laborers, leaving the women behind to look after the farms. In Bangladesh, women may not work in open fields, but do cultivate vegetables and care for animals. Agricultural knowledge is also gendered. For instance, in the Kumi district of Uganda, men told IPM CRSP researchers that women did a better job of identifying an indigenous weed that looks very similar to finger millet at the seedling stage.

Studies conducted across all IPM CRSP sites show that women have an important role in pest management. When scientists fail to take women’s knowledge into consideration, they lose vital information and even reduce their chances of success. In Mali, for instance, one approach to combating the white fly that is destroying tomatoes is applying a “no-host period.” This means that farmers wait a couple of months before planting in order to reduce opportunities for the fly to reproduce. Yet if only men (and men’s fields) participate in IPM projects while women and their home gardens are ignored, the “no-host period” does not work, as the white fly can happily reproduce in women’s gardens and then come out in full force to munch away on men’s tomatoes!

TOP OF THE PAGE

10. If it so important that women be a part of IPM projects, how do you ensure that?

IPM projects must begin by identifying women’s needs and interests and not assuming they are the same as men’s. For instance, sometimes the crops or varieties men consider to be a priority do not even register in women’s rankings of key crops. Therefore, the first thing is to be sure women are included in the project from the start and that the obstacles to their participation and benefits are recognized and addressed. Women and men alike must be interviewed, and education about IPM should be provided to male and female farmers in various accessible formats, and women’s networks, literacy, mobility, and cultural constraints taken into account. Women have multiple roles beyond agriculture that include care-giving and household chores, so their responsibilities must be accommodated. Sometimes, this means childcare must be provided and IPM activities timed to fit into women’s schedule of daily obligations. In some settings, cultural sensitivities require that women interview women, or that women be interviewed separately from men and participate in training and other activities in women-only groups. It also makes sense to target farm decision-makers and farm families, rather than male farmers.

As with everything else in IPM, the specifics of gender issues, gendered knowledge and gendered crops and tasks relevant to IPM are site-specific; a high degree of variability may exist within a single region and even between households. Additionally, changing demographics due to AIDS, migration, and other factors mean that any given site may be subject to new gender dynamics from one agricultural season to another. Stereotyping “men,” “women,” “Africans,” “Muslims,” etc. with fixed characteristics or assuming that “gender” can be learned once and for all is underestimating the complexity of culture and the human experience and will not help achieve IPM goals.

TOP OF THE PAGE