Comparison of Food security and Agriculture Sustainability in Nepal – Adopters of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) verse

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

2. Background Pesticide Use in Nepal - 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 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 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)

3. Review Consultation with local stakeholders District selection • 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 Household survey PRA and RRA + Household section IPM Adapters (160) Non – Adapters (157) Semi-structured Interview Seasonal calendar Data Analysis Data Collection Reporting Sharing of the results Before and After With and Without 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

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 Pesticide use 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

5. Food security Change in pesticide use (Subjective) 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 Social impacts

7. Ecological Agricultural Sustainability Economic Social and political Agricultural Sustainability Agricultural sustainability was assessed on the basis of the model postulated by (Cernea, 1991) and (DFID, 2002) Ecological – reduced use of chemicals during farming enhanced the status of agro-biodiversity of the farming communitiesEconomic: Increased production after adoption, no significant changes in the income from agriculture, enhanced socio-economic statusSocial 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)

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

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