190 Agroecology and Sustainability
to seasonal changes. Latitudinal studies (comparisons across sites) are also difficult
due to the fact that finding an identical IPM and non-IPM control is rarely pos-
sible given the diversity of ecological and social conditions. Nonetheless, such evi-
dence as does exist indicates considerable benefits for rice IPM farmers.
The first, and perhaps strongest indicator, is the greatly reduced incidence of
brown planthopper. Wide area outbreaks accompanied with massive losses have no
longer been experienced during the past 15 years since IPM programmes have
become widely implemented in both policy and field training. In most cases,
changes in policy involved the removal of pesticide subsidies, restrictions on out-
break-causing pesticides, and investment in biological research and educational
programmes for decision makers, extension workers and farmers. These policy
changes most often came about as a result of successful small-scale field trials. The
FAO Inter-Country Programme for Rice IPM in South and South-East Asia,
headed by Peter Kenmore, brought policy makers in contact with researchers and
farmers who could explain from their own experience the ecological basis of farm-
ing with IPM methods. The banning of 57 pesticides and removal of pesticide
subsidies known to cause brown planthopper outbreaks in 1987 in Indonesia by
the former President Suharto came about after cabinet officials were brought into
a dialogue with both senior Indonesian and IRRI scientists and farmer groups who
had shown the outbreak effects of the pesticides and their ability to produce high
rice yields without these pesticides (Eveleens, 2004).
The second indication comes from case study literature (FAO, 1998). Table 9.1
gives a typical result found across hundreds of communities surveyed in rice IPM
programmes. This shows the key changes in practices, especially the common out-
come of investing less in pesticides and more in fertilizers (including P and K).
Other large-scale studies provide similar data, although a recent study in Vietnam
notes an increase in the use of fungicides. The authors have noted that with higher
levels of fertilizers (as would be found in Vietnam) such increases in fungicide are
predictable. This data also reveal the multidisciplinary aspect of rice IPM in that it
encourages farmers to look beyond the pest complex into the multiple parameters
for achieving a profitable high yielding crop.
Getting IPM into the Hands of Farmers
‘IPM is not for farmers but is by farmers’ is often noted in IPM programmes. Get-
ting IPM into the hands of farmers, however, is not always easy. Several methods
have been developed with various levels of information and completeness. Most
agricultural extension services now recognize the importance of natural enemies
and are quick to point out the need to conserve them, even though their co-
promotion of various insecticides, fungicides and herbicides is at odds with this
apparent awareness of natural enemies. Work by Heong and others from the Rice
IPM Network (Heong et al, 1998; Heong and Escalada, 1999; Huan et al, 1999)