1. Comparison of Food security and Agriculture Sustainability in Nepal – Adopters of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) verses Non-adopters Amir Poudel Graduate Student

2. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) - IPM is a system that controls pests and contributes to long-term sustainability by minimizing the risks of pesticides to human health and the environment (Sorensen, 1994). - Uses local resources and knowledge Background Farmers’ Field School (FFS) FFS are schools where Integrated Pest Management technology is taught to the farmers IPM in Nepal National plant protection strategy of Nepal since 1997 implemented in 64 out of 75 districts. In only 2006/07 400 total (221 for vegetables, 131 for rice, 48 for coffee and rest for other crops) - Usage of already banned pesticides such as DDT in Nepal - Significant use of other pesticides in areas nearby cities poses greatest risk to public health - Economic cost associated with pesticide and fertilizer uses is high Pesticide Use in Nepal

3. Research objectives to study the level of reduction in input of chemical pesticides and fertilizers due to IPM to investigate the effect of IPM adoption on household food security to investigate the contribution of IPM on agricultural sustainability Methodology District selection Household section Consultation with local stakeholders Review Household survey + Government publication Study reports District profile Other publication Kavrepalanchok Bhaktapur Chitwan Kaski Kanchanpur Civil Society Organization (NGOs, Academic, INGOs etc) Community based organization Youth clubs Local leaders IPM Adapters (160) Non – Adapters (157) Data Collection Data Analysis Before and After With and Without Reporting PRA and RRA Semi-structured Interview Seasonal calendar Sharing of the results

4. Study findings – Socio-economic EXPENDITURE IN AGRICULTURE : Average annual expenditure on agriculture for non-adapters ($661.56 ) is higher than adapters ($ 420.03). EXPENDITURE IN PESTICDES : Adapters spend nearly 3.2 times lesser than non-adapters EXPENDITURE IN EDUCATION: Adapters spend 1.7 more on education of family members than non- adapters Reduction of 92.90 percent in Oilseed, 95.83 percent in potato, 90.20 in other vegetables and 82.22 percent in wheat after adapting the technology Non-adapters used more pesticides than adapters: 95.84 percent more for paddy, 86.63 more for potato and 80.86 more for other vegetables Pesticide use

5. ResponseTotalPercentage Decreased12691.97 Increased10.73 No Change42.92 Stopped32.19 Grand Total13497.81 Change in pesticide use (Subjective) Food security Food Availability and sufficiency Adapters reported increase in the production of agricultural commodities which increased the quantity of food availability to households Number of food available months from self production was nearly same between adapters and non- adapters Adapters reported increase in the number of food available months but the change was not remarkable Food access Both adapters and non-adapters have easier access to food Majority of the samples belonged to upper caste households who have better income, asset value and near proximity to market Average distance to nearest road was 250 meters – better access to food

6. Food Utilization - Among the three aspects of food security considered, IPM had slightly more positive impact on the food utilization aspect - Adapters have better nutrition distribution for children and pregnant women in the household compared to non-adapters - Adapters took more variety of food products for lunch and dinner during both summer and winter compared to non-adapters - Adapters were more aware in the need to produce better quality food products compared to non-adapter Improved quality of water consumption after adoptionNumberPercentage Absent3222.86 Present10877.14 Total140100.00 Indoor air pollution after adaptationAdapter% Absent10876.60 Present3323.40 Grand Total141100 Social impacts Increased social networking due to IPMNumber Percent Not Observed4330.71 Observed9769.29 Total140100.00 Increased decision making power due to IPMNumber Percent Not observed1711.49 Observed13188.51 Total148100.00 Type of membership Non- adapter%Adapter% Executive2517.88334.3 General11582.115965.7 Total140100242100 Increased EmploymentNumberPercentage Not Observed7249.7 Observed7350.3 Grand Total145100.0

7. Agricultural Sustainability Ecological – reduced use of chemicals during farming enhanced the status of agro-biodiversity of the farming communities Economic: Increased production after adoption, no significant changes in the income from agriculture, enhanced socio-economic status Social and political : Increased level of social networking, increased decision making capacity esp. of women, increased employment opportunities, wider political acceptance of the programs (64/75 distrits of Nepal) Agricultural Sustainabilit y Ecological EconomicSocial and political Agricultural sustainability was assessed on the basis of the model postulated by (Cernea, 1991) and (DFID, 2002)

8. Conclusion Adapters significantly reduced the quantity of pesticide and fertilizer use after switching to the technology Households reported satisfaction with the agricultural practice upon adapting the technology IPM had several positive impacts on the food security situation of the households especially on the food utilization aspect Economic costs associated with agricultural production was decreased after adoption IPM positively contributed to the social development of the adapters Sustainable agriculture was being practiced by the adapters of the technology Recommendation The IPM program should be replicated in many other places of the country and the region Access of the IPM to ethnic minority and socially deprived population should be addressed properly

9. Sampling was not possible in the Eastern development region (EDR) of the country due to political unrest Household selection depended upon households with FFS (which mainly included areas with highest usage of chemical pesticides) Limitation of the study IPM Health benefits from reduced exposure to chemicals Positive impact on agro-biodiversity Healthier food production system Use of local resources and knowledge Increased demand for adoption IPM in CLF Model

10. Acknowledgement Dr. Birendra B. Basnyat Dr. Shannon Doccy Dr. Eileen Mcgurty Dr. David Elbert NARMA CONSULTANCY Pvt. Ltd Other friends, colleagues and organizations who directly and indirectly helped the research

11. Thank you Questions ?

12. Accompanying slides

13. Crop Average Quantity ((mg/ml)/ ha % change BeforeAfter Maize423.75461.258.85 Oilseed1901.25135.0092.90 Paddy12087.958282.4131.48 Potato304959.412724.5595.83 Vegetable676640.666279.5090.20 Wheat8438.71500.6082.22 Crop Average quantity (mg/ml)/ha Non-adaptersAdopters Maize209.37230.62 Millet150.000 Mustard73.7533.75 Paddy3209.6133.58 Potato2505.38334.85 Vegetable3763.34720.42 Wheat396.24500.20

14. Available months Non- adapters %Adapters% <342.5500 3-63019.112214.86 6-995.732013.51 > 911472.6110671.62 Grand Total157100.00148100 Food sufficiency Before IPMAfter IPM Number% % 3-6 months3423.292214.86 6-9 months2315.752013.51 >9 months8960.9610671.62 Grand Total146100 148100

15. Winter Nutrients Non- adapters%Adapters% Carbohydrates12034.112032.8 Fat7922.56517.8 Minerals and Vitamins8223.38021.9 Protein7019.910027.4 Total351100365100 Summer nutrients Non- adapters%Adapters% Carbohydrates10045.4120 32.1 Fat4018.148 12.8 Protein6027.2110 29.4 Vitamin and Minerals209.095 25.4 Grand Total220100.0373100 Extra nutrition for childrenNon-adaptersAdapters NumberPercentNumberPercent Absent15789.2012482.12 Present1910.802717.88 Grand Total176100.00151100.00 Extra nutrition for pregnant womenNumberPercentNumberPercent Absent16292.0512984.87 Present147.952315.13 Grand Total176100.00152100.00