Capacity building and short term training for IPM in Latin America and the Caribbean

1
Capacity building and short term training for
IPM in Latin America and the Caribbean
Paul Backman, Penn State University

• Memphis, TN
• 27 March 2012

2
Objectives

• Discuss challenges associated with building
  capacity for IPM programs in LAC
• Discuss different approaches to short- and
  long-term training and how these approaches vary
  according to local conditions
• Identify unique challenges associated with
  training for IPM packages (with an emphasis on
  integrated)
• Describe training efforts for IPM in Latin
  America and Caribbean Region promoted by a
  specific projectthe IPM CRSP.

3
IPM and technology diffusion

• Standard extension models involve training
  farmers about new production processes,
  techniques, etc. The model is one of technology
  transfer
• IPM is different because it involves knowledge
  about pests and their life-cycles, can include
  multiple practices (e.g. IPM packages), multiple
  disciplines, enhanced decision makingit is
  knowledge intensive and not easily transferred
• IPM research is often participatory, recognizes
  farmer needs, and brings farmers into the
  processit is a people-intensive process
• However, for IPM to have an impact, widespread
  adoption has to take place
• Public agricultural extension budgets have been
  cut and often there are few incentives for
  private sector involvement
• Conundrum difficult to train, few agents
  involved in dissemination, dissemination needed
  to ensure impact
• Solution innovative diffusion mechanisms

4
Country examples

• Two countries where IPM research is
  well-established Ecuador and Honduras
• Key pests/complexes identified
• IPM components tested
• Some solutions are available, and are being
  tested and disseminated
• Different challenges for short-term training
• Scientist training
• Access to extension and outreach systems
• Generating buy-in
• Engagement of women and other stakeholders

5
Challenges

• Research prioritization (objective) crops
  (economic importance versus food security) and
  pests/diseases
• Secondary data to identify most important in
  terms of food security and exports
• Stakeholder assessments (producers, extension
  agents, scientists) to identify major pest
  problems
• Research prioritization (subjective) scientist
  preferences/training pet pests/diseases
• Need to resolve differences possibly build
  capacity to address objective priorities
• Building collaboration across disciplines
  systems approach versus discipline-centric
• Moving from laboratories to farmer field
  experiments
• Publications few incentives to publish in
  developing-country institutions

6
Overcoming the challenges Short-term training

• Scientist training (early in process)
• Participatory methodsbuild stakeholder support
• Train scientists in multi-disciplinary
  partnershipsinvolve pathologists, entomologists,
  and others
• Social science inputs (i) prioritize research
  (according to objective criteria) (ii) gender
  training (especially important for IPM and
  participatory research)
• Moving from laboratory science to farmer fields.
  Bigger problem with university scientists than
  with NARS scientists
• Scientist training (through project)
• Participation with US scientists on identifying
  research themes, designing the research,
  analysis, and writing
• International short-term training IPM CRSP has
  provided several opportunities, mainly through
  its global themes

7
Short-term training for scientists

• Regional virus workshop in Honduras, trichoderma
  workshop in India, virus workshop in India
• Permit CRSP-affiliated scientists to learn state
  of the art techniques
• Low-cost means of building capacity
• Visits to US universities
• Examples (i) annual visit to Purdue University
  for work in entomology and weed science (ii)
  impact assessment at Virginia Tech (iii) Penn
  State
• Strengthen long-term linkages
• Build correspondence between field research and
  that in US
• More likely to publish

8
Short-term training for project stakeholders

• First principle is to include stakeholders in
  research planning participation builds
  ownership
• IPM CRSP has evaluated a number of
  training/dissemination measures
• General lessons
• Farmer field schools are effective, but expensive
  and generally do not reach many people
• Field days are effective (and inexpensive) means
  of disseminating one or two practices, but not
  for complete IPM packages
• Extension visit are effective, but relatively
  expensive
• Mass media can work for simple messages, but not
  complex packages
• Broad participation by farmer groups in research
  helpstraining as a form of learning by doing
• No silver bullet need to combine methods

9
Example Honduras Gender Workshop

• 22 farmers(14 women and 8 men) from the area
  around La Esperanza, Honduras participated in a
  gender workshop (March 2012).
• Women and men were split into two groups to
  perform activities (using the Harvard Analytical
  Framework) to identify
• Activities they performed on a daily basis
  Agricultural activities they performed throughout
  the year Resources and benefits they controlled
  or had access to IPM technologies they adopted
  why or why not and, Other factors that affected
  their roles in agriculture and in the household
• The IPM-CRSP objective of identifying gendered
  adoption rates for various technologies was met
• Workshop Perspectives
• The workshop was productive and fairly efficient
  in obtaining necessary information in a short
  amount of time.
• All of the above tasks were accomplished in
  approximately 4 hours.
• Several more workshops should be completed to
  obtain information that is more representative of
  and consistent with Honduran agriculture as a
  whole.
• Workshop approach represents model to
  simultaneouslu conduct research and disseminate
  IPM practices to farmers

10
Short-term training and dissemination

• Dissemination is most effective when private
  sector is involved
• Honduras combine IPM training with program to
  link farmers to high-valued market
• Produce purchaser has incentive to train and
  monitor
• Producer has economic incentive to learn methods
• Ecuador grafted naranjilla is sold by private
  company
• Company provides technical assistance to ensure
  that product (fusarium-resistant naranjilla) is
  properly managed

11
Challenges to long-term training

• Mismatch between host-country institution needs
  and US scientist interests
• Social scienceslittle interest in training
  economists, gender specialists, and other among
  NARS directors
• US scientists focus their research on US-specific
  problems and applicability to developing
  countries is often difficult to communicate
  (example naranjilla research in Ecuador)
• Preparation of host-country scientists is limited
• Language and the TOEFL
• GREschallenge to get students who meet US
  university standards
• Expensive to train degree students at US
  universities
• Sandwich type programs have not been successful
  in LAC
• Training at regional (LAC) universities is less
  expensive, but at cost of limited linkages with
  US scientists

12
Solutions

• Focus on US scientists with a commitment toward
  service to host-countries (Rachel Melnick,
  others)
• Build pipeline earlyidentify students and get
  them prepared do not be shy about evaluating
  quality
• Build wide pipelineidentify several options for
  one or two positions
• Language training can be built into degree
  training program

13
Summary
14
Acknowledgement
This presentation was made possible through
support provided by the Agriculture Office within
the Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture, and
Trade (EGAT) of the U.S. Agency for International
Development, under the terms of the Integrated
Pest Management Collaborative Research Support
Program (IPM CRSP) (Award No. EPP-A-00-04-00016-00
). The opinions expressed herein are those of the
author and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the U.S. Agency for International Development.