THE IPM PHILOSOPHY AND THE CHALLENGES OF THE UPLAND-LOELAND CONTINUUM OF RICE

ECOLOGIES

K.P. SIBUGASokoine University of Agriculture

Department of Crop Science and Production

Morogoro, Tanzania

Africa Rice Congress

31 July – 4th August, 2006. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Outline

• IntroductionRice production ecologiesGeneral overviewProduction constraints• Pests • The IPM philosophy• Conceptual framework for IPM • Challenges• Opportunities• The way forward

Introduction• The rice continuum - Five main

ecosystems in Africa

• Upland dominant (55%) cf. 11% for irrigated

Implications on productivityImplications on pests (eg weeds)

Rice in Africa: Area

• West Africa leads the way

Rice area by region (Oteng &SantAnna, 2003)

Rice in Africa:Volumes

Rice production by region (Oteng &SantAnna, 2003)

West Africa leads the way

Trends in rice grain yields in Africa

• Little change 1990-1996

• Situation likely

to change in 2000s

Oteng and SantAnna, 2003

Production constraints

De Datta, 1981)

Pest manag.

Pests – Insects, diseases, nematodes, weeds, birds, rodents contribute to yield gap type II

AGM

AGM damage

Pest variability exists in the continuum:

Occurrence (by species)

Season

Severity of damage caused

General crop management practices

Control practices

Pest management???

Other options exist!!

The IPM philosophy • IPM – Utilizing all suitable techniques and methods

in a compatible manner (FAO, 1967)

• Initially developed for high input systems to counter extensive use of pesticide (insecticides*)

• First developed in the USA (1960s), transferred to Asia (1970s) then Africa (1980s)

• Initially IPM = Integrated management of insects

• Current definition of PEST is more inclusive

Conceptual framework for IPM

Pest identification

Prioritize-farmer perception

Control options available?

Appropriate IPM combinations

Apply IPM technologies

M & E for effectivenessand/or modification

What should constitute an effective IPM strategy for rice

• Deliberate efforts to minimize pest occurrence (crop management)

• Rational use of pesticides (if absolutely necessary)

• IPM packages for specific situations (No universal IPM prescriptions!)

The challenges

• Reliable inventories for cause & effects of pests down the continuum RESOURCES

• Defined IPM goals for specific ecosystems

• Farmers/E able to recognize pests/symptoms (training)

• Technology options within farmers’ reach/capability

• User-friendly decision making tools developed and disseminated to relevant stakeholders

The opportunities

1. IPM is widely endorsed as official philosophy by governments, researchers, NGOs’ donor agencies in SAA (Orr, 2003)

Resources required to turn policies into activities:

- human - financial - physical

The opportunities

2. Change in farmers’ attitude towards commercialization of rice

Eager to share/learn new ideas

Participatory learning and tech. Dev. (FFS model)

HH labour available(?)

The opportunities

3.Tougher regulations on pesticides

Concerns on E & NRM ( soil, water, beneficials )

High pesticide prices

The opportunities

4. Organization and partnership: WARDA, ECARRN, NARS, Universities, NGOs, Farmers

NERICAs – a breakthrough vs pests?

Can IPM contribute to the ‘African Green

Revolution’ – Way forward

– Bottom up – based on real pressing pest problems as per farmer perception

– Science led IPM through partnership (Incorporating molecular techniques)

– Participatory – making use of farmers’ IK (where appropriate)

Research

Communication

Food for future Africans

IPM as part and parcel of ICM

Acknowledgement

• WARDA

• ECARRN

• GoT (MAFC)

• SUA