Integrated pest management (IPM) with an increased used of ecological farming methods and less and safer use of pesticides offers solutions to reduce risks of developing pest resistance, human poisoning, and environmental pollution. Despite being promoted by Food and Agriculture Organization and others, it has not spread readily in low-income countries. This article presents the opinions of Bolivian farmers and agronomists on perceived obstacles and opportunities for a diffusion of IPM. Focus group discussions revealed an increased workload without certainty of higher yields or better prices for products grown with IPM compared with traditional agriculture being hindrances for a spread of IPM. Moreover, IPM requires some new practices not that easy to learn by farmers. In favor of IPM was an increasing awareness of the importance of a healthy and sustainable food production, easiness to try out without expensive investments needed, and a higher quality of the products. A healthy and sustainable agricultural production should be promoted by support to farmers through IPM training, a certification, and better prices. Finding allies to such a promotion is not easy, though, according to both farmers and agronomists.
Introduction
Pesticides can reduce crop losses in farming, but improper use of pesticides can result in the development of pest resistance and have negative impacts on human health and the ecosystem.1234–5 To confront the negative effects, hundreds of thousands of farmers have been trained in integrated pest management (IPM) on Farmer Field School (FFS) by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development, and a range of others.456–7 Integrated pest management is generally defined as farming methods where pesticides are used to a minimum without hampering the harvest. The training has most often been on specific crops and typically taken place during a growth season using interactive and locally adapted learning processes.456–7
Most case studies and reviews found significant positive effects of IPM training such as improved knowledge and adoption of good agricultural practices, increased use of ecological methods for pest control, reduction in the amount of pesticides used, and increase in the yields and profits,4,678–9 whereas a few others did not find such positive effects over time.10,11 Several surveys found positive health outcomes when farmers adopt IPM with fewer reports of symptoms of poisoning after pesticide handling,121314–15 whereas a recent comprehensive review showed no convincing evidence of positive health outcomes.8
Despite these mainly positive outcomes, IPM is not mainstreamed as could have been expected. One reason is the difficulties of diffusion of IPM knowledge from trained farmer to neighboring farmers where surveys have shown mixed results.8,15161718192021–22 Possible explanations for the low diffusion rates of IPM are many, such as “a lack of local leadership,” “no supporting policy for IPM diffusion,” “insufficient training and technical support to farmers,” “farmers’ low level of education and literacy,” “IPM too difficult to implement,” “powerful influence of pesticide industry,” “benefits of pesticides are much more apparent than their negative effects,” “shortage of funding for IPM,” and “IPM requires collective action within farming communities.”7,8,23242526–27 It is argued that IPM knowledge is too complicated to diffuse compared with traditional agriculture that tends to focus on simple messages and practices such as adoption of improved seeds and application of pesticides and fertilizers.8,28,29
Drivers for the seemingly ever-increasing pesticide use are many, eg, growing crops highly susceptible to pest attacks, monoculture on big fields, high pest incidences due to climate, development of pest resistance, aggressive marketing by pesticide companies, a growing informal market for discounted pesticides, lack of extension services, lack of knowledge of alternative methods for pest control, and political priorities such as subsidies for pesticide use and loans for agricultural inputs tied to purchase and use of pesticides.25,3031–32
The Bolivian context
Pesticides were introduced in Bolivia in the 1960s among big-scale farmers in the tropical areas with the implementation of the political plan “Colonization of the East” and were later taken up by small-scale farmers.33,34 During the period 1990 to 2012, the import of agrochemical products multiplied in value from US $6.4 to US $185.1 million according to FAOSTAT (FAO statistical department).
The amounts of pesticides imported are seen from Figure 1.
Bolivia has shown the same picture as other low-income countries with the use of very toxic pesticides, inadequate use of personal protective equipment, and insufficient hygiene leading to frequent acute self-reported poisonings among farmers when handling pesticides.35 Integrated pest management in Bolivian agriculture was introduced in the late 1990s through the International Potato Center and its partners focusing on research on potatoes and quinoa, with training and extension services in certain areas of Bolivia.4,28,36
From 2001 to 2013, the Bolivian nongovernmental organization Fundacion Plagbol promoted IPM by training smallholder farmers on alternative ecological farming methods to reduce the use of pesticides and to introduce the use of less toxic pesticides and an improved personal protection. The project also achieved a change in curriculums to mainstream IPM training in Bolivia’s technical agricultural schools and at the faculties of agronomy.34 The project facilitated a change in the policy of the Ministry of Agriculture from relying only on pesticides and having farmers trained by the pesticide industry to the actual focus on IPM training of smallholder farmers by the Ministry’s operative branch National Service in Agricultural Health and Food Safety.34
The present survey explores the possibilities for IPM diffusion in Bolivia through focus group discussions (FGDs) with IPM farmers and agronomists. As a guide for the FGDs, the Rogers theory on “Diffusion of Innovations” was adapted.37 This theory offers tools to describe how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technologies spread, including 4 elements of importance for a diffusion: the virtues of the innovation itself, the communication channels, a time factor, and the social system.
For this study, the theory was adapted to focus on IPM as the innovation and the possibilities to make alliances for the spreading of IPM.
Methods
Study area
Eleven farmers from villages in the municipalities of Caranavi (La Paz County) and Comarapa (Santa Cruz County) were included. First group consisted of coca and coffee farmers, the second group of vegetable farmers, and the third group of strawberry farmers. Two agronomists from the Faculty of Agronomy in La Paz and 3 from the Technical School of Agriculture in Caranavi took part in the study. In each group, some of the participants already knew each other, belonging to the same municipality or teaching institution.
The municipalities are located in the subtropical zone on the eastern slopes of the Andes Mountains in Bolivia and can be hard to access due to the mountainous areas and during the rainy season. Apart from the mentioned crops, a wide variety of subtropical crops are grown including maize, rice, and citrus fruits, among others.
Design
The study is based on the information gathered from 3 FGDs with farmers and 2 FGDs with agronomists. The Plagbol personnel invited participants with IPM experience from training and practice.
The FGDs were conducted by 2 agronomists—of whom one who was not part of the project but experienced in facilitating FGDs acted as facilitator in the discussions and the other recorded the discussions, observed and helped with practicalities. The FGDs took place in September and November 2013. The discussions were held in Spanish, tape-recorded, and shortly thereafter transcribed and systematized.
As we found that farmers often do not distinguish between IPM and ecological farming, this survey included farmers implementing only some IPM techniques as well as pure ecological farmers. Our experience is that many farmers trained in IPM switch to ecological farming in all or part of their production according to the market possibilities or their personal interest.
The FGDs included but were not restricted to the following themes as given by the Rogers theory for Diffusion of Innovations: (1) comparative advantage—evaluated by comparing IPM and traditional agriculture on the need of investments, labor demand, size, and value of the yield; (2) compatibility—evaluated by how well IPM fits into “preservation of Mother Earth” (local synonym for the environment), agricultural practices in use and norms and regulations given by the state for agricultural production; (3) complexity—evaluated by the ease of understanding the innovation and the complexity of the new method; (4) trialability—evaluated by the cost of trying out IPM, the ease of using the practices, and the ease of detecting short-term results; (5) observability—evaluated by the perceived size of the yields and the quality of the products; (6) reinvention—evaluated by the ease to improve IPM methods by adapting new ideas and experiments and trials; and (7) the creation of alliances—evaluated based on the ease to build relations and share the IPM experiences with others.
Each focus group (FG) was told to come up with 1 joint rating on each of the themes discussed, choosing between the following: (1) as advantageous in itself or compared with traditional practices (recorded as “higher,” “high,” or “easy”); (2) equal to traditional practices (recorded as “equal”); (3) less advantageous in itself or compared with traditional practices (recorded as “medium”); or (4) definitely less advantageous in itself or compared with traditional practices (recorded as “difficult” or “low”). In total, 80 scorings were recorded. To support the ratings, the groups were asked to provide arguments to support their rating, and 156 unique statements came up.
Results
Ratings of IPM of the farmers and agronomists are shown in Table 1. All arguments made to support the ratings are available in Appendix 1 from where some arguments are cited below.
Table 1.
Focus groups’ ratings of IPM according to the Rogers theory for Diffusion of Innovations.
Comparative advantage of IPM in relation to traditional farming
The overall evaluation showed no big difference in comparative advantage between IPM and traditional agriculture when including all FGs and their ratings (see Table 1).
There was agreement among the 5 groups on IPM but being more labor-intensive compared with conventional agriculture. They found the direct costs to be lower in IPM—“as local inputs (materials and plants from the villages and surroundings) are used, these would have to be collected, prepared and applied; in the case of chemicals, however, they would only have to be bought and applied.” One of the farmers’ group found IPM to be more expensive, though, as they included the value of the extra labor needed to practice IPM.
Regarding the size of the yield, farmer FGs rated the yield “lower” to “equal,” whereas the agronomist FGs rated the yields “equal” to “higher.” The arguments forwarded by the farmers were “at the beginning, it is hard to produce and the yield is lower, but it becomes equal in time” and “the size of the fruit is smaller than the conventional one.” The agronomists found that “the good fertility of the soil is a consequence of the IPM, which is why the harvests are more regular related to yields and more sustainable.”
The value of the harvest was rated “higher” to “equal” depending on the type of crop grown by the farmers, where ecological coffee and strawberry apparently have better markets than vegetables. Coffee and coca farmers argued that “consumers pay for the quality of organic coffee and coca, they even look for them at the small farms.” A problem is the certification of the products grown ecologically or using IPM, as stated by the group of agronomists “there is no certification that guarantees the quality of the product, which is why the consumers do not feel confident to pay more.”
Interestingly, the influence of the products on health and environment also matters as stated by both farmers and agronomists: “The yield is important, but it is more important that the product is healthy, so we do not get poisoned when producing and consuming it.”
Compatibility with existing values, regulations, and practices
There was agreement on rating the compatibility of IPM as “high”: “Because it gives recognition to the ancient practices of respect to the Pachamama (Mother Earth)” and “in the past we took care of the soil, the water and the environment, but then we started producing only with chemical products. We realized that it was not good, that everything was receiving damage. Now we look for saving the environment, not damaging it” as expressed by the farmer groups.
Regarding compatibility with national regulations, the ratings varied. Those rating it “low” found that although regulations were in place, missing implementation and control make the regulations useless.
The compatibility of IPM with the practices that farmers commonly followed was rated as “equal” to “high.” Farmer groups still found it demanding to practice IPM stating that “the practices are the same but IPM requires more knowledge on the root of the problems and how these can be overcome. Study, experimentation and tests are required to be sure of its usefulness” and “almost everything of conventional agriculture is useful, but IPM improves the agriculture a lot, although it is not so easy to put into practice, it is necessary to learn a lot of things and make decision to do things well.”
Complexity to understand and use
The agronomist groups rated the understanding of IPM as “easy” while farmer groups found IPM more complex to understand.
It is not easy to identify pests, to diagnose, know how to control them and dose pesticides. Because of our low educational level it is hard for us to memorize, we do not read much - that is why practice helps.
There was agreement of categorizing the IPM practice as “medium” complex. The arguments for this from the farmer groups were “The IPM activities take time, new complementary techniques are required. One activity is a precondition to the next, and isolated practices do not work” and “It is not complex but you should be dedicated, it is necessary to do things well and in due time.” The agronomists were aware of the necessity to create awareness of the benefits of IPM regarding health and the environment and to use appropriate educational material accompanied by practices to overcome the difficulties in use of IPM.’
Trialability—easy and not too costly in time and money to try out
The ability to test the IPM methods was judged “easy” to “medium.” All but one FG found no major economic obstacles to try out IPM. The FG indicating “medium” difficulty to test IPM argues
The costs are low considering that all the required material is close (in the community), but it takes time and is laborious. Testing is cheap, because almost everything you need can be found in the field, but you should be strict, do things well and on time to see results.
Similarly, there was consensus between all but one FG about the easiness of testing the IPM techniques in a practical way. One agronomist FG found it “medium” difficult to test, stating that “Sometimes, making a necessary product takes 3 months; that is why the producers should anticipate the situations and be prepared.”
The capability of the IPM techniques to show results in a short time was rated from “medium” to “easy.” “There are quick results in some cases, but the final result is only known when the harvest is obtained and that takes time,” as stated by the vegetable farmers’ FGDs. Similarly, “In the cases of light and color traps, the results are immediate. However, results take place based on the sum of the actions or techniques applied,” as stated in the agronomists FGDs.
Observability—immediate and visible positive effects
The size of the yield observed with IPM was rated as equal to lower among the farmer FGs and equal to higher among the agronomist FGs.
The farmer FGs stated that “it takes time and effort to apply the IPM and the yield is not always higher” and “the yield is lower but it can be compensated with the longer useful life of the plants.” The agronomist FGs found “an interesting yield is achieved if there are good conditions, that is, if there is a good start of having soil with good characteristics.”
Again, the size of the yield was argued not to be the only thing that matters, as a healthy production avoiding environmental damage matters as much.
Regarding the quality of the products, the FGs said that the product attributes were “easy” to notice, most of them could be perceived through the taste and texture of the product. Several FGs pointed out that the size and visual quality of IPM products were not always the best compared with traditional agriculture.
Reinvention—the possibility of incorporating new elements based on practical experience
All FGs found it “easy” to add their own ideas and experiences, and most felt that they had contributed in some way to the adaptation and improvement of the IPM techniques in their local setting. The following opinion supports this: “New experiences are made available for technicians and farmers, they test them and in this way they are disseminated. We are always trying new things. The good results are shared with the promoters and everyone gets to know them.”
Alliances—support and relations that can be created to promote the dissemination of the innovation
It was rated as “difficult” to create alliances to diffuse IPM by all FGs due to lack of support from the local political systems:
It was difficult to find allies. The Mayor’s office which is supposed to care more about these subjects, has not done much in the last two years, and now it is worse because it is not working for two months already.
and “the Mayor’s office only contributes to the training of other farmers. It does not provide enough support to the strengthening of the association of organic producers.” Experiences with relations to authorities were mixed, sometimes good and sometimes without results in spite of good intensions. The agronomist FGs stated that
Discussion
In summary, there was full agreement among the 5 FGs on IPM as being more labor-intensive, not always compensated by higher yields and requiring extra knowledge to practice compared with conventional agriculture—all issues talking against diffusion of IPM. Moreover, finding allies to spread IPM was seen as difficult.
However, IPM was found to give products of a higher price (for some products), to be in line with traditional culture conserving the environment, to be cheap to try out, and to give products of a higher quality regarding smell and taste.
However, the question remains with what weight the various aspects contribute to the decision of a farmer whether or not to adopt IPM strategies.
An apparent major obstacle for adopting IPM is the extra workload required by IPM techniques. Most farmers are looking for farming techniques that give them less workload with more time to cultivate more land and increase their income or to dedicate some of their spare time to other income-generating activities.
The growing industrial production in low-income countries, making people move to the cities, leaving fewer hands to cultivate the land and still feed an increasing population, is not favoring the introduction of more labor-intensive agricultural practices with lower to equal yields.
In Bolivia, the demand for higher food production has increased the size of cultivated land especially in the tropics where large areas of virgin land are taken under the plow these years.30 This picture might be different in countries with little arable land and could be one of the reasons why there is apparently more success with IPM in Asia.
The finding of a lower to equal yield in our study is not what is seen in most other studies generally reporting a higher yield after training in FFS.4,678–9 The difference might be due to the type of crops grown, as many of the positive reports stem from rice farming in Asia, having seen massive pest resistance to pesticides from the late 1980s and where IPM was found to be a very valuable tool.5,20 Other factors responsible for the increased yield reported could also be due to climatic differences, variance in pest resistance, and a better conduct of FFS.
A higher price of IPM products can compensate for a more labor-intensive production and a lower yield, but it depends on market demands and the vicinity to the markets of the big cities, and customers requiring ecological products are crucial for IPM to become a success.
In our study, the type of crop seemed to be important, as indicated by coffee farmers, coca farmers, and strawberry farmers who reported better prices for their ecological products. The vegetable farmers complained of a lack of awareness of the quality of their products among consumers and a lack of a certification that made it difficult to charge consumers a higher price for their products.
In a master thesis from the University of La Paz, a study was set up comparing the input and outcome of traditionally grown cabbage.38 This study confirms the findings from the FGDs showing that more labor was needed with IPM farming and that the harvest was not as big as with conventional farming. The input for the IPM farming, however, was much less costly due to the need for pesticides in conventional farming.38 An initiative to improve the chances of farmers making economically sound choices in their farming would be the introduction of a more complete accountability, as most smallholders do not calculate the value of hours spent in the field, the price of agrochemical inputs purchased, and their income when selling the crop.
On the Plagbol project, studies have shown variable results comparing profits by IPM farming sometimes surpassing conventional farming and sometimes not when including relevant variables such as purchased input, hours spent farming, and value of crop (O. Huici, personal communication, 2015).
The techniques of IPM were found not to be that easy to learn, although some are quite similar to conventional and ancient farming techniques, whereas others may require new skills as reported from various field studies.5,7,8,16,23,26 Regarding this, the lack of sufficient extension services for farmers in general and especially on IPM issues is a hindrance for the diffusion of IPM. Challenges are the general low educational level of the farmers that must be addressed by having good facilitators, producing adequate training materials and practical learning in the fields.4,8,23,24,27
One way of diffusing knowledge is to use IPM-trained farmers to train other farmers, and the farmers trained by Plagbol are found to be playing an active role in spreading IPM among their fellow farmers by taking part in certifying IPM and ecological products in the municipalities. They also conduct courses financed by the municipalities, thus extending IPM to other farmers.34
It seems difficult to find allies who can support the diffusion of IPM, and this is critical because the existence of government policies to support an innovation by taxes, prices, quotas, and other regulation factors is crucial for the diffusion of an innovation.23,31
In Bolivia, several policies and activities for mainstreaming IPM and ecological production have been initiated during the past years, but although there are laws and regulations in favor of IPM, these have to be followed up by sufficient control and support if positive results are to be seen.
Awareness about health and environmental issues is of increasing importance, and in this respect, IPM products have an advantage as they are found healthier and better for the environment as mentioned by the FGs. In Bolivia, certain segments of the population, mainly from the big cities, are now looking for alternatives to conventional farm products, probably influenced by the international trend in consumer attitudes with increased awareness of pesticides’ harming effects on health and the environment favoring ecological products.34 This trend can be reinforced through communication of market development of IPM products, where it is argued that once convinced that IPM products are better, consumers will be willing to pay a premium price, and this could be one of the most important tools for a massive diffusion of IPM.39
Another hindrance for diffusion is the lack of a clear definition of IPM, and this makes it difficult to distinguish IPM products from conventional ones, in contrast to ecological products having a stronger brand by the right to claim “zero pesticides.” As it is now, even the pesticide industry can claim they promote IPM although they often pay their salesmen according to the amount of pesticides sold, which is in clear contradiction to the intention of IPM strategies to reduce the amount of pesticides.25,40
The fact that there are no actual incidents of pests becoming resistant to pesticides may also be a hindrance for spreading IPM. Farmers, agronomists, and politicians do not see any drastic decrease in productivity and so have no urgent need to change current practices. Radical changes in pest control practices are much more likely to come about and can happen quickly when there is an urgent need if such a resistant pest seriously damages the harvest.41
In the Code of Conduct by the United Nations on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, several important articles relate to the promotion of IPM and emphasize the responsibilities of stakeholders including governments, pesticide manufacturers, farmers, researchers, consumer groups, and donor agencies. In this Code, the main message is that every effort should be made to promote IPM, and activities leading to increased and unjustified use of pesticides are not acceptable. If the Code of Conduct were taken seriously by especially Governments and Pesticide Companies, the increasing health and pollution threat from pesticides would not be such a serious issue.
Strengths and weaknesses
This study is one of very few that actually asked the local farmers and agronomists on their view on IPM and its possibilities for diffusion, a perspective missing in most discussions on problems with IPM diffusion.
The Plagbol project has worked in the area for many years and this has created a local confidence giving way to easier access and more honest answers to survey questions in a closed native culture.
But when interpreting results, the weaknesses of this survey must also be kept in mind. First of all, the number of participants is small and more participants could have given a broader picture and/or a better basis for drawing conclusions. Therefore, generalization of the results is difficult.
We think that the labor required to do IPM, the size of the harvest, and the income generated are issues of major importance for a farmer when he has to choose farming method, but we might be wrong as stated by one of the FGs that “health and preservation of nature” might be more important for some farmers. This weakness could have been solved by asking the FGs to prioritize the different factors according to their importance.
The farmers and agronomists taking part in the study were not randomly selected but invited by the Plagbol project as they were known to have IPM knowledge and ability to reflect on complex issues. This lack of representativeness is usual in qualitative studies using FGDs and key informants but still a weakness and especially in the actual study due to the small number participants.
Conclusions
The most important issues that might explain a lack of diffusion of IPM have to do with the “comparative advantage” of IPM with conventional agriculture where the extra workload and the equal to lower yields not always compensated by higher prices of the products seem to be major hindrances. The “complexity” of understanding and practicing IPM techniques is less pronounced hindrances but still of importance as long as efficient extension services do not exist in most low-income countries.
The creation of “alliances” to spread IPM such as government institutions and pesticide companies seems to be lacking. The reason for this might be the mentioned lack of comparative advantage and complexity that conflicts with the current demand for increased agricultural productivity by many governments. The conflict of interest with the pesticide companies is obviously making them difficult allies in a spread of IPM.
In favor of IPM diffusion is the “compatibility,” “trialability,” and possibilities for “re-invention” together with an increasing demand for healthy and sustainable products creating a higher value of certain crops.
After more than 30 years with training on IPM in various parts of the world without being able to spread on a large scale, it seems obvious that diffusion must be politically driven. This can be done by investing in adequate national extension services and introducing a certification system for IPM and ecological products. An effective control with imports and the sale and banning of the most toxic pesticides must be a national priority and would also promote IPM as an alternative sustainable farming method.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the participants in interviews and the PLAGBOL staff for making data collection possible. They also thank Dialogos for facilitating contacts.
REFERENCES
Notes
[1] Five peer reviewers contributed to the peer review report. Reviewers’ reports totaled 669 words, excluding any confidential comments to the academic editor.
[2] Financial disclosure The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was funded by the Clinic of Occupational Medicine Odense University Hospital and by the Civil Society in Development through Danish foreign aid.
[3] Conflicts of interest The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
[4] EJ, AA, and OH conceived and designed the study. EJ and AA analyzed the data. EJ wrote the first draft of the manuscript. EJ, AA, OH, GG, and FK contributed to the writing of the manuscript and agree with manuscript results and conclusions. EJ, AA, and GG jointly developed the structure and arguments for the paper. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
[5] As a requirement of publication, authors have provided to the publisher signed confirmation of compliance with legal and ethical obligations including but not limited to the following: authorship and contribution, conflicts of interest, privacy and confidentiality, and (where applicable) protection of human and animal research subjects. The authors have read and confirmed their agreement with the ICMJE authorship and conflict of interest criteria. The authors have also confirmed that this article is unique and not under consideration or published in any other publication, and that they have permission from rights holders to reproduce any copyrighted material. Any disclosures are made in this section. The external blind peer reviewers report no conflicts of interest.
