Inter-institutional agreements

Guiding principles on IPM

The guiding principles on IPM was developed by the Inter-Center Working Group on IPM meeting at IRRI, March 2000.

The Program’s guiding principles are:

• IPM research is inter-disciplinary and pursues a holistic approach to management of agricultural and natural ecosystems.
• IPM maintains and utilizes biodiversity as the natural foundation for pest management in the context of sustainable agricultural development.
• IPM development is guided by farmer participation, from problem diagnosis, through component research, to on-farm validation.
• IPM adoption depends on the ability of farmers to make informed decisions, based on an understanding of ecological and economic principles. Farmer empowerment is achieved through participatory research and training methods that encourage the integration of traditional and 'science-based' knowledge.
• Success in implementing IPM is contingent on a favorable public policy environment.

Inclusive partnerships

The SP-IPM is a global partnership comprising international and national agricultural research and training institutes, plant protection associations; specialized IPM promoting agencies, biodiversity networks, NGO networks, farmer support groups, plant protection associations, and plant protection industry dedicated to sustainable plant protection of primary food crops. The Program’s stakeholder groups are:

International Agricultural Research Institutes (IARCs)
Collectively, AVRDC, CIAT, CIMMYT, CIP, ICARDA, ICIPE, ICRISAT, IPGRI, IITA, IRRI, and WARDA have a shared mission to alleviate hunger and poverty in tropical developing countries by generating appropriate technologies that benefit the poor and enhance productivity while preserving the natural resource base. CABI Bioscience is the applied research division of CAB International, an inter-governmental agency dedicated to knowledge-based sustainable development. CABI Bioscience’s research agenda includes work on managing agrobiodiversity and developing biologically-based pest management strategies.

Specialized IPM promoting agencies, plant protection associations and biodiversity networks
The Global IPM Facility (GIF) assists Governments and NGOs to initiate, develop and expand IPM programs that aim to reduce pesticide use and associated negative impact on health and environment, while increasing production and profits.

The International Association for the Plant Protection Sciences (IAPPS) is an independent umbrella organization established in 1999 to encourage information exchange among plant protection practitioners and so to promote integrated and systems approach to agroecosystem management in the control of pests, plant diseases, and weeds. IAPPS offers opportunities for scientific exchanges and IPM advocacy through its information outlets: International Plant Protection Congresses, Crop Protection journal, and newsletter.

BioNET INTERNATIONAL is a global taxonomic network dedicated to helping developing countries overcome the “taxonomic impediment” by becoming self-reliant in taxonomy, mostly within the work program of the Global Taxonomic Initiative (GTI) of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

NGO networks
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) covers over 600 NGOs, institutions and individuals in over 60 countries working to replace the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound alternatives in Africa, Asia/Pacific, Europe, Latin America and North America. PAN represented the NGO Committee of the CGIAR (NGOC) on the SP-IPM. The NGOC sought to create conditions for producer organizations and NGOs to engage productively and constructively with researchers around issues of farmer-led and ecologically sound agricultural research.

Plant protection industry
CropLife International is the world-wide representative of the crop protection industry, dedicated to promoting environmentally sound use of crop protection products for the profitable production of safe, high quality, and abundant food, fibers and other crops.

Governance and coordination
The SP-IPM works through the following structures:

Inter-Institutional Working Group (IIWG): IIWG comprises institutionally designated representatives of partner institutions and coordinators of SP-IPM projects and thematic working groups. IIWG meets annually to discuss and agree on policy and vision, identify problems for which an inter-institutional effort could make a difference, set priorities, agree on contractual obligations, program, process and budgetary issues to strengthen collaboration, promote networking, and review progress. Occasionally, special interest groups are invited to IIWG workshops where the meeting agenda require additional expert advice.

Steering Committee (SC): The SC is the decision making body comprising institutionally nominated representatives of partner institutions who elect a Chair from/at any of the participating institutions. The SC ensures that proposed work plans and budgets guarantee inter-institutional collaboration, multidisciplinary approaches, use of appropriate scientific methodologies, and that the activities complement existing efforts, and respond to clearly identified felt needs. The SC endorses amendments to the SP-IPM mission and policy statements and approves financial plans and statements. The Chair provides overall leadership, promotes collaborative linkages, advocacy/public relations, and fund raising.

Coordinating Secretariat: The SP-IPM Secretariat is managed by a Coordinator who serves as the global contact point to catalyze and facilitate approved activities, mobilize and disseminate resources, and facilitate communication between stakeholder groups and with donors. The coordinator serves as ex officio member of the Steering committee, assists in fund-raising, participates in planning and review meetings of thematic working groups, manages the program’s budget as approved by the Steering Committee, prepares financial reports, and organizes external evaluation of the program in consultation with the Steering Committee. Any CGIAR Center qualifies to host the Coordinating Secretariat. The Secretariat is currently hosted by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) at its Biological Control Center for Africa in Cotonou, Republic of Benin, West Africa.

Thematic Working Groups (TWGs): TWGs have primary responsibility for scientific quality of SP-IPM projects and special initiatives. Seven TWGs are established and functional. TWGs are on Alien invasive and beneficial species (IITA-led), Crop loss and IPM impact assessment (CIP-led), Farmer participatory research and participatory learning for IPM (CABI-led), IPM policy research (FAO/Global IPM Facility-led), Leaf miners (ICIPE-led), Soil biota (CIAT/ICARDA- led), Tropical whiteflies and viruses (CIAT-led). TWGs are multi-institutional in membership and include representatives of key stakeholders in national and international research and development organizations. TWGs examine and analyze priority problems, develop coherent responses, and provide advisory services. Peer review by TWGs ensures that recommended responses complement existing efforts, promote synergy of efforts and respond to farmers’ felt needs. TWGs assist to link national institutions to crop germplasm, biological control agents, specialized information, expertise and other relevant resources available from other institutions.

Research strategy

The IPM research strategy was developed by the Inter-Center Working Group on IPM meeting at IRRI, March 2000

• The research partners will further develop their existing comparative advantage in researching pest problems, developing IPM components, implementing pilot projects and assessing impact.
• The research partners will maintain and expand their effective partnerships with NARS, NGOs, and other appropriate national, international and bilateral organizations to promote IPM research and implementation.
• In full-scale IPM implementation, the research partners will play a supporting role to organizations such as national extension services, NGOs and IGOs.
• The research partners will promote more effective communication between farmers, extensionists and researchers to ensure that research efforts are clearly focused on farmers' needs and provide direct support to implementation efforts.
• The research partners will engage in direct dialogue with policy makers and provide information to the general public to raise awareness of the benefits of IPM and promote a policy environment more favorable to IPM implementation.
• The research partners will collaborate with the private sector in developing biopesticides, semiochemicals, drugs and other products which can be used in an economically-sound and environmentally-responsible way within an IPM framework.
• The research partners will explore the full potential of biotechnological tools (including tissue culture, marker-assisted selection, diagnostic tools and gene transfer) in developing IPM tactics. Genetically-engineered products will be evaluated for their non-target effects before deployment within an IPM framework appropriate to the biophysical and socioeconomic environment.

Position on use of synthetic pesticides

The position on use of synthetic pesticides was developed by the Inter-Institutional Working Group on IPM meeting (report), CIP, Quito, Ecuador, 3-6 April 2002.

In recognition of the international limitations on pesticides provided in projects supported by the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organisation;

In recognition of the socioeconomic limitations of small-scale farmers, farm workers and households to avoid exposure to pesticides or gain access to appropriate protective gear;

In recognition of the significant dangers involved in transport, storage, formulation and application of toxic products in the agricultural sector;

In recognition of harmful productivity, environmental and health impacts of the most toxic pesticides, and

With the goal of moving towards cleaner production systems, including IPM research and practice, the Systemwide Program on Integrated Pest Management strongly urges its partners that:

Implementation strategy

A major role of the governance mechanism is to oversee the SP-IPM implementation strategy comprising the following elements:

Stakeholder ownership: The Program promotes strategic alliances with sub-regional organizations, national programs and farmer-support organizations and farmers’ groups to specify end-user needs and priorities, and strengthen collaboration in diverse localities. The Steering Committee ratifies agreements on policy and vision, and work plans to address problems for which inter-institutional efforts are required to make a difference.

Partnership workshops: The SP-IPM organizes and participates in partnership workshops in collaborative efforts to bring the benefits of scientific information and expertise to address IPM problems for which no single organization has the full capacity to solve effectively.

Global initiatives for local solutions: The Program harmonizes Concepts and methods, tools, and protocols, tools, and protocols for location-specific problem diagnosis, activity planning, implementation, and impact assessment. This increases access of beneficiaries to technical resources that have been developed elsewhere, and allows for valid comparison, exchange of information and extrapolation of results across diverse production ecologies.

Sustainability of processes: The Program’s exit strategy for projects and special initiatives centers on capacity building to increase IPM literacy and stakeholder awareness and encourage partners to raise the profile of IPM, scale out/up IPM gains, and influence policies that promote IPM as an integral component of agricultural production in the countries, regions and localities.

Accountability to clients: Periodic reviews by externally commissioned advisory panel of experts assess the effectiveness of the program to increase nutritional, economic, social and environmental benefits, and create favorable environments for sound IPM policies. External reviews are conducted in collaboration with national and local authorities.

Partnership workshops

The SP-IPM organizes and/or participates in partnership workshops to bring the benefits of scientific expertise to address IPM problems for which no single organization has the full capacity to find an effective solution; e.g.:

• IPM Communications Workshop for Eastern & Southern, ICIPE, Nairobi, Kenya, 1-6 March, 1998: Within the framework of the “IPM Information Partnership” formed in 1996 between the Consortium for International Crop Protection (CICP), IPMForum, and IPMEurope. Immediate outcomes of the workshop were Africa IPM discussion groups at the Afrik IPM Listserve, and the web based IPM Africa. The workshop was funded and supported by the SP-IPM, CTA, USAID, Global IPM Facility, ICIPE, ICRAF, CABI, and various USAID-funded entities such as IPM CRSP, Africa IPM Link, AfricaLink, and the Leland Initiative.
  
• Towards more effective implementation of IPM in Africa, IITA, Cotonou, Benin, 1999: In collaboration with the CGIAR-NGO Committee, the SP-IPM co-organized the international workshop (report) at which participants advocated concerted efforts by agricultural development agencies and research institutes to lobby governments to adopt IPM as a national policy. The immediate outcomes of the NGO-IPM workshop included NGO-IPM list serve for Africa; French language of four cassava IPM extension guides to facilitate farm-level understanding; and training of NGO agents in IPM.
  
• International workshop on assessing the impact of participatory research and extension methods in IPM, ICIPE, Nairobi, Kenya, 15 - 17 March 2001: The workshop (report) initiated inter-institutional collaboration to harmonize approaches about impact evaluation of IPM and drafted a common framework and mechanisms for impact assessment considering economic, environmental, human and social capital aspects of IPM.
  
• Global learning workshop on Farmer Participatory Research and Learning for IPM, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 4-8 September, 2001: The workshop (report) developed a vision for a longer-term orientation of stakeholder groups and institutional change to promote more effective FPR and PL approaches in current and future IPM projects. Workshop participants outlined what would need to be done differently at the level of farmers and community organizations, extensionists, national and international researchers, and policy makers if FPR and PL were to be successful in IPM.
  
• International workshop on soil biota, fertility and plant health, CABI Bioscience, Egham, UK, 6-8 February 2002: The workshop (report) initiated consultations to assess soil biota and develop long-term strategies to manage the worldwide soil-borne pest problems and associated declining soil fertility.
  
• IAPPS Governing Board meeting, Miami, USA 18-23 February 2002: The inaugural GB meeting reviewed implementation status of IAPPS, updated planning of the 15th International Plant Protection Congress (Beijing, PR China, July 2003), developed a strategic plan to enhance programmatic objectives and promote integrated and systems approach to agroecosystem management in the control of pests, plant diseases and weeds.
  
• PASCON Steering Committee Meeting, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria, 26-28 June 2002: Following consultations between major stakeholders PASCON, the SP-IPM, FAORAFA, Inter-African Phytosanitary Council, and AU/SAFGRAD agreed to develop an inter-institutional framework for a new partnership to promote IPM of parasitic weeds in cereal-legume cropping systems in Africa.
  
• BioNET INTERNATIONAL, 3^rd Global Taxonomic Workshop, CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa, 8-12 July 2002: The workshop planned for operational partnerships to develop taxonomic capacity, products and services for sustainable development. The discussions and decisions were largely within the need for partners (including CG/IARCs) to implement the work program of the Global Taxonomic Initiative (GTI) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
  
• Africa-wide IPM partnership workshop (report) on parasitic weed control in cereal-legume cropping systems IITA, Cotonou, Benin, 29-31 October 2002: The SP-IPM, PASCON, FAO Global IPM Facility, and AU/SAFGRAD agreed to develop a common field program attracting a broad range of national programs to control Striga and Orobanche in cereal-legume systems in Africa.
  
• Integrated Management of Orobanche and viral diseases of faba bean, El-Fayoum Governorate, Egypt, September 20-21, 2003: The SP-IPM pilot site on parasitic weeds in Egypt hosted the regional workshop.
  
• The search for alternatives to banned/restricted POPs in Africa, February 9 – 13, 2004, IITA-Benin, Cotonou, Benin: SP-IPM partnered with UNIDO and IITA to organizer of the workshop and worked with UNIDO to develop two project concept notes based on the workshop proceedings (report).
  
• 15th International Plant Protection Congress, 11–16 May 2004, Beijing, China: SP-IPM was co-organizer of the Congress and convened a symposium of IPM research and outreach (SP-IPM abstracts at 15th IPPC).