Background| Mission and work programmes |
| Membership | Development investors

Background:

The SP-IPM is a inter-institutional partnership program of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). The SP-IPM was established in 1996 as part of the CGIAR response to Agenda 21 action plan formulated by the United Nations 'Earth Summit', convened in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 identified integrated pest management (IPM) as a key element in sustainable agricultural development. The SP-IPM defines IPM as:

“Integrated Pest Management is an approach to enhancing crop and livestock production, based on an understanding of ecological principles, that empowers farmers to promote the health of crops and animals within a well-balanced agro-ecosystem, making full use of available technologies, especially host resistance, biological control and cultural control methods. Chemical pesticides are used only when the above measures fail to keep pests below acceptable levels, and when assessment of associated risks and benefits (considering effects on human and environmental health, as well as profitability) indicates that the benefits of their use outweigh the costs. All interventions are need-based and are applied in ways that minimize undesirable side-effects.”


Source: IITA


IPM development and promotion requires better understanding of farmers’ perceived needs and applying participatory approaches to elucidate the biological, ecological, and sociological processes that underpin agriculture, and then using this understanding to solve the problems that arise when these processes are disrupted. The SP-IPM embodies the determination of the International Agricultural Research Centers and their partners to promote this new approach as the preferred crop protection strategy of farmers in the developing world.

Top

Mission and work programmes:

The SP-IPM mission is to increase the quality and usefulness of IPM research and outreach for higher productivity and sustainable profitability of cropping systems and improved livelihood of people, particularly in the developing world

The SP-IPM activities are in pursuance of the CGIAR mission and in full accord with the articles of UNCED Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The CGIAR Mission is "through research and related activities,...to contribute to sustainable improvements in the productivity of agriculture, forestry and fisheries in developing countries in ways that enhance nutrition and well-being, especially of low-income people."

To achieve its mission, the SP-IPM gives priority to areas where inter-institutional and inter-regional collaboration could make a decisive contribution to finding a solution. There are five work programmes:

  • Work programme 1: Promote inter-institutional partnerships (break isolation barriers) for increased effectiveness of IPM research and outreach
  • Work programme 2:Develop/promote holistic and ecological approaches/methodologies for IPM technology development and harmonize these across localities
  • Work programme 3: Develop/promote effective communication and learning models for informed IPM decision making leading to higher, sustainable and healthier harvests
  • Work programme 4: Promote policy environment more favorable to the development and application of IPM strategies for sustainable agriculture
  • Work programme 5: Foster broader awareness of the impact and benefits of IPM leading to the wider adoption of more sustainable crop protection strategies

While the principles of IPM are universal, the needs of farmers are individual and location specific. SP-IPM therefore implements its activities with a diverse range of NAREs to bring the benefits of IPM to farmers. Currently, the major operational sites for the SP-IPM are tropical highlands of Latin America; tropical mid-altitude zones in Africa; tropical lowlands of Central America; dry and semi-dry areas; sahel zones in Africa; and humid and sub-humid tropics

Top

Membership
The SP-IPM membership has broadened from an early focus on the international agricultural research centers to include other institutions that are active on the international IPM research ‘scene’. The recently enlarged SP-IPM comprises representatives of CIAT, CIMMYT, CIP, ICARDA, ICRISAT, IITA, IPGRI, IRRI, WARDA, ICIPE, AVRDC, CABI Bioscience, FAO/Global IPM Facility, International Association for the Plant Protection Sciences (IAPPS); CropLife International (representing private sector crop protection industry) and World Bank (Department of Agriculture and Rural Development). Additionally, the SP-IPM contributes to raising the income and living standards of farmers largely through strategic alliances with inter-governmental and sub-regional organizations which guide the agricultural development agenda in member countries. Collective ownership of the program by these partners promotes transparency in decision-making to further increase the quality and usefulness of IPM research.

Top

Development investors:
The SP-IPM is supported by the CGIAR and the governments of Switzerland, Norway and Italy. The first set of SP-IPM pilots site activities were initiated with funds from the World Bank. The activities of the farmer-participatory research and learning project were co-sponsored by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, the Global IPM Facility, the Systemwide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA). Additional support for the global Tropical Whitefly IPM project has been provided by Danish International Development Assistance, the Department for International Development of the United Kingdom, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the United States Agency for International Development and the United Sates Department of Agriculture.

The SP-IPM gratefully acknowledges the support of these donor partners and the assistance of all institutions and persons who continue to provide advice, information and materials in the execution of planned activities.

Top

Highlights
  • Inter-institutional agreements on guiding principles on IPM; inclusive partnerships; governance and coordination; research strategy; position on use of synthetic pesticides; implementation strategy; and partnership workshops
  • Field diagnostic methodologies are available to assess diversity, distribution, economic importance of whiteflies and associated natural enemies, pathogenic viruses in a wide range of cropping systems
  • Diagnostic survey data compiled on the tropical whiteflies and whitefly transmitted viruses in Latin America, Asia and Africa (Tropical Whitefly IPM project)
  • Guidelines on the principles and practices of FPR/FPL that underpin successful IPM developed for IPM practitioners (being developed as an IPM research brief)
  • Pilot sites on parasitic weed IPM in Africa
    a) Farmers in Kenya gained 20% more maize by intercropping KSTP-94 maize with Desmodium to suppress Striga in plots surrounded by Napier grass to trap stemborers

    b) F
    armers in Nigeria suppressed Striga emergence by 63% using maize variety Acr.97TZL Comp.1-W; and in rotation schemes for Striga suppression were soybean TGX-1448-2E/maize > cowpea IT-93K-452-1/maize > groundnut RMP 12/maize  > maize/maize

    c) Farmers in Egypt gained 60% more faba bean by combining Orobanche tolerant Giza 429 or Giza 83 varieties, good seed rate plus timely planting against the parasitic weed.

    d) F
    armers in Morocco attracted government attention by doubling bread wheat and chickpea yields by combining host plant resistance, fertilizers and timely planting against Hessian fly in wheat and fungal blight in chickpea
  • Inter-institutional policy statement on pesticide use to exclude persistent organic pollutants and other hazardous synthetic pesticides from all IPM research and outreach activities conducted by SP-IPM partners.
  • Increased global visibility of IPM through partnership workshops e.g., SP-IPM symposium at 15th International Plant Protection Congress (IPPC) May 2004, Beijing, China featured 10 papers; UNIDO/SP-IPM consultative workshop on search for alternatives to banned/restricted POPs
  • A common framework and methods for impact assessment, taking into account the economic, environmental, human-, and social-capital aspects of IPM
  • IPM research brief series launched to discuss challenges posed by target pests to productivity and sustainability of production systems and present ecologically sound IPM options against the pests
  • IPM projects database developed to publicize IPM activities at IARCs and NARES