Irene Vänninen Agrifood Research Finland MTT John Sanderson, Univ. of Cornell, U.S.

1. Factors affecting the success rate of IPM implementation in ornamentals – are there any common patterns to discern? Irene Vänninen Agrifood Research Finland MTT John Sanderson, Univ. of Cornell, U.S.

2. 1. Why are we asking this question?

3. “Ultimate” success indicator of implementing IPM in ornamentals? • Efficacy of IPM programs (IPM should give consistent and sufficiently effective control of pests)… • Cost of IPM per unit area/plant in comparison to conventional pest management… • Number of pesticide sprays per crop cycle… • Proportion of growers continuing real IPM independently after the implementation project

4. A pattern appeared in articles on IPM project of ornamentals: • proportion of growers that continued real IPM independently after having participated in an implementation project seemed to stick around20-30 % • why not more?

5. - what level of success can we really expect of IPM in ornamentals eventually?- what kind of goals are realistic to expect from a project designed to implement IPM in greenhouse ornamentals? goals dictate how much money you should (and dare) ask from a funding body and how the project should be designed

6. REAL Integrated Pest Management (Kogan 1998) Levels of IPM integration (Kogan 1998) Level III Level II Level I threshold of IPM IPM. Range of tactical components & strategies same as prev. +multipest interactions Habitat mngmt. Expert systems Dynamic cropping/ pest models. Community level processes same as pre- vious+DD based models. Biocontrol (mass releases). Plant resistance. Cultural controls. Biorational pesticides same as prev. +multicrop interactions agroecosystem level processes trmt by calendar date or crop phe- nology. Broad spectrum pesticides field scouting thresholds pesticides (op- tion for selectives) field scouting (pest+nes). Inaction thresholds. Crop rotations Selective pesticides

7. any chance of standardizing the success measurement of IPM in ornamentals implementation projects conducted by different persons and in different countries?

8. 2. Framework for asking the question:Approaches to agricultural extension

9. Two main reasons for IPM project failure (reference) • Research failure: R & D is aimed at the wrong questions or at developing inappropriate practices • Implementation failure: Despite R & D being well targeted, the results are not getting through to be implemented by pest managers (a problem of delivery) http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/IPM/keyconcepts/

10. INFORMATION AND SKILLS GROWERS NEED RESEARCH GAP SYNTHESIS/INTERPRETATION GAP DISSEMINATION GAP RECEPTION GAP INFORMATION GAP KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS THAT GROWERS ACTUALLY HAVE

11. Approaches to agricultural extension • technology transfer model • ”grower first” model • participatory model

12. Approaches to agricultural extension • technology transfer model • researcher/scientist driven • ”top-down” approach

13. Approaches to agricultural extension • grower first model • Researchers do not drive the process; they interact with and assist growers • “bottom-up” process with emphasis on bringing about changes that growers want. http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/IPM/approachesipm/ApproachesIPM.htm

14. Approaches to agricultural extension • participatory model • Research, development, and extension processes are seen as iterative and interactive • emphasis on involving key stakeholders in a cooperative process with active participation of those having an interest in the outcomes (Foster, Norton and Brough, 1995). http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/IPM/approachesipm/ApproachesIPM.htm

15. Interest groups usually involved in IPM implementation projects: - growers - researchers - (governmental) extension personnel - commercial consultants - insectary suppliers - pesticide industry - crop buyers, marketers and/or consumers - social scientists (!) = IPM projects operate within a dynamic environment of socio-political, institutional, technical, economic, and personalinteractions (Vickers, 1983) and should take all these factors into consideration http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/IPM/approachesipm/ApproachesIPM.htm

16. Approaches to agricultural extension • participatory model • success often requires of social scientists becoming more actively involved in developing and facilitating effective co-operation and participation. • especially appropriate when dealing with bundles of technologies rather than single innovations = IPM http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/IPM/approachesipm/ApproachesIPM.htm

17. 3. Questionnaire on factors affecting the success rate of IPM implementation projects in ornamentals • Project characteristics • quantitative inputs (person years total, lenght of project, grower participation fees/direct economic support to participants, total budget  cost per ha or greenhouse operation) 2. Cooperation between stakeholders in the planning and execution phase (communication and networking) 3. Ways of disseminating information (communication aspects) 4. Proportion of research and implementation in the project

18. 4. Receptiveness of growers to changeover 5. Existing incentives (technical, political, social, environmental)

19. 14 responses from 9 countries; 4 projects involved research in addition to implementation • crops (many projects included more than one crop species): • All protected ornamentals & herbs, pot andbedding plants, hardy nursery stock • All ornamentals • Spring annuals • Various ornamentals & vegetables (2 x) • Rose (4 x) • Gerbera • Greenhouse ornamentals in general (2 x) • Poinsettia (3 x) • Chrysanthemum • Potted flowering plants

20. Definition of project goals (quantitative or qualitative) • quantitative/semiquantitative 7 projects: • 90 % of growers use IPM (”ultimate” success measurement) • others: no explicitly defined quantitative goals (in the response), but quantification was involved: ”comparable costs and quality””cost-effective control””measurable progress””benchmark and milestone data was collected at various stages”,”decrease the use of pesticides””increase the use of beneficials”

21. Definition of project goals (quantitative or qualitative) • qualitative 7 projects: • Inform • encourage uptake of IPM • train growers in IPM • implement biological methods • develop solutions • promote IPM at a large scale • introduce best pest management practices • knowledge transfer

22. Input of resources • lenght of projects: 1 – 17 years • work force: • full time employees: 0-7 • part-time employees: 0-8 • collaborators: 0-36 • budget per ha per year:375 - 33 750 euros

23. Communication and involvement of stakeholders 0 0 1 2 3

24. project characteristics attitude/knowledgde ”environment” (! evaluation of grower attitude/receptivity!) reasons to change (incentives)

26. Factors negatively affecting successful outcome of implementation projects 1. The efficacy of (real) IPM in ornamental crops is not consistent + complexity of IPM: “Lack of consistent success in biocontrol programs is probably the single best hindrance to greater acceptance and adoption.” “Key pests not adequately controlled by existing biocontrol agents” “Thrips have remained as the most difficult of the major pests to control. New and effective biocontrol agents for thrips are desperately needed.” “Lack of comprehensive IPM technologies for ornamentals” “The complexity and high costs of the biological system in the beginning, while the demands of the market in quality increase but prices decrease” “The grower has to believe in the biological system. If he clings too strong to simple chemical methods, he is usually not the right one to take part in such a project” “High pest levels in the crop” Arrival of secondary pests (for which no IPM programs available) (2 resp.)

27. Factors negatively affecting successful outcome of implementation projects 2. Lack of work force, time & money: - lack of hands-on regular assistance (I.e. lack of work force) - too many different crops (I.e. in respect to work force and time) - too little time to evaluate reasons if IPM trials failed (I.e. lack of work force) - the personnel in the extension services is cut down (I.e. lack of work force) - lack of funding did not allow us to visit nurseries using IPM Are we trying to do too much in respect to resources available? Or the resources just aren’t there?

28. Factors negatively affecting successful outcome of implementation projects 2. Suspicions/wrong beliefs: • Grower suspicions concerning the purpose of the project (stricter regulat-ions of pesticide use if some succeed with IPM, although others don’t) • “ IPM = just biocontrol, right?” (misconception of the content of IPM) (which can seriously affect growers’ agreeing to be persuaded to start implementation of IPM • Finland: we emphasize integrated control, not biocontrol, whenspeaking about the modern pest management strategy

29. “Ultimate” success indicator • Proportion of participating nurseries continuing real IPM (including use of beneficials) independently after an implementation project: Various ornamentals: 25-30 % (note: a study not included here) Ornms+veggies: 10 % Various ornms: 50 % Cut roses: 65 % Cut roses: 50 % Spring annuals: 25 % poinsettia: 25-30 % poinsettia: 100 % poinsettia: 30 % (whitefly control), 80 %? (sciarid control!)

30. CONCLUSIONS IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS ARE GETTING BIGGER, MORE FOCUSED AND ALSO MORE COMPEX (CANNOT START FROM ZERO LEVEL ANYMORE)  EXPLICITLY QUANTITATIVE GOAL SETTING WILL BE MORE FREQUENT AND EASIER? A RANGE OF DYNAMIC FACTORS INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME AND IMPACT OF IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS, BUT EFFICIENT COMMUNICATION BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS AND THE RECEPTIVENESS OF GROWERS TO CHANGEOVER SEEM TO PLAY THE MOST CRUCIAL ROLE FOR PROJECT SUCCESS

31. CONCLUSIONS IT PAYS TO MEASURE THE GROWER RECEPTIVENESS TO CHANGEOVER AT THE START OF PROJECT GROWER RECEPTIVENESS TO CHANGEOVER IS LIKELY TO BE HIGHLY CORRELATED WITH THE SUCCESS RATE OF PROJECT (GROWER MOTIVATION) AND THE DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECT CAN BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY TO END WITH: a case story to be remembered...