Memphis, TN 27 March 2012 Paul Backman, Penn State University

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 project—the IPM CRSP.

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 making—it is knowledge intensive and not easily transferred; IPM research is often participatory, recognizes farmer needs, and brings farmers into the process—it 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

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

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

Overcoming the challenges: Short- term training Scientist training (early in process): Participatory methods—build stakeholder support Train scientists in multi-disciplinary partnerships—involve 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

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

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 helps—training as a form of learning by doing No “silver bullet”: need to combine methods

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

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

Challenges to long-term training Mismatch between host-country institution needs and US scientist interests Social sciences—little 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 GREs—challenge 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

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

Summary

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 ). The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development.