Março, 1999 An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 28(1) 1

FORUM

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT: A GLOBAL REALITY?

MARCOS KOGAN AND WAHEED I. BAJWA

Integrated Plant Protection Center Oregon State University 2040 Cordley Hall, Corvallis Oregon, 97331, USA

An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 28(1): 1-25 (1999)

Manejo Integrado de Pragas: Uma Realidade Mundial?

RESUMO - A expressão “Manejo Integrado de Pragas” (MIP ou Integrated Pest Management - IPM - em inglês) está completando 28 anos desde que apareceu impressa pela primeira vez. Desde então manejo integrado ou controle integrado de pragas tornou-se o paradigma preferencial para as atividades que visam a atenuar o impacto de pragas – doenças de plantas, ervas daninhas e animais vertebrados ou invertebrados – na produção agrícola, na saúde humana e veterinária, e nas estruturas urbanas e rurais. Apesar da aceitação quase uni- versal do conceito de manejo integrado, sua aplicação prática é ainda restrita variando grandemente de acordo com a região geopolítica, a natureza do cultivo agrícola e, principalmente, com o empenho e apoio governamentais a programas que visam a estimular a adoção do manejo integrado. Uma avaliação objetiva do sucesso da incorporação de programas de MIP nas práticas agrícolas é difícil devido a: a) falta de critérios rigorosos que distinguem um programa de MIP de quaisquer outras atividades tradicionais de controle de pragas, b) falta de um consenso universal sobre uma definição de MIP, e c) carência de levantamentos quantitativos de áreas de cultivo sob programas de MIP. Em alguns círculos, a medida do sucesso do MIP tem sido a porcentagem de redução no uso de pesticidas. No entanto, essa medida, na ausência de outros critérios, é inadequada pois, em algumas partes do mundo a introdução do MIP pode acarretar o aumento, não a diminuição no uso de pesticidas. Após procurar avaliar a expansão de programas de MIP no mundo, é essencial que se chegue a um consenso sobre critérios para medir a natureza do programa. De forma geral esses critérios dependem do nível de integração do programa, da natureza das pragas, do valor do cultivo, da disponibilidade de tecnologias alternativas e dos riscos econômicos, ambientais e sociais. Em vista da atual carência de dados e falta de critérios objetivos de avaliação, nós optamos por usar o titulo, não como uma afirmação, mas como uma asserção a ser questionada: é o Manejo Integrado de Pragas uma realidade mundial?

PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Histórico, base ecológica, proteção vegetal, táticas de controle, implementação.

ABSTRACT - The expression “Integrated Pest Management” (IPM or MIP in 2 Kogan & Bajwa

Portuguese) is completing 28 years since it first appeared in press. Since then integrated pest management or integrated has become the paradigm of choice for activities that aim at attenuating the impact of all pests – plant diseases, weeds, and invertebrate or vertebrate animals – in agricultural produc- tion, in human and animal health, and in urban or rural structures. Despite the nearly universal acceptance of the concept, its practical application still is rather restricted, varying considerably among geopolitical regions, the nature of the crop, and, mainly, with the commitment and support of responsible governmen- tal entities for programs dedicated to promote adoption of IPM. An objective assessment of the successful incorporation of IPM in agricultural practices is difficult because: a) lack of rigorous criteria to distinguish an IPM program from other traditional pest control activities, b) absence of a broadly based con- sensus on a definition of IPM, and c) paucity of reliable quantitative surveys of the agricultural area under IPM. Some have used the percentage of use reduction as a measure of the success of IPM. This measure, however, in the absence of other criteria, may not be appropriate for in some parts of the world introduction of IPM may lead to an increase in pesticide use, not a reduc- tion. In our search to assess the expansion of IPM programs in the world, we concluded that it is essential to first achieve a consensus on the criteria to meas- ure the nature of the program. In general these criteria depend on the level of IPM integration, the nature of the pests, the value of the crop, the availability of alternative control technologies, and the associated economic, environmental, and social risks. In view of the small volume of available data and in the ab- sence of objective measurements of performance criteria, we opted to use as title for this paper an assertion to be questioned: is indeed IPM a global reality?

KEY WORDS: History, ecological basis, plant protection, control tactics, im- plementation.

This paper is a summary of a plenary ad- little room to expand on our thoughts. Indeed, dress presented by one of us (MK) on the we found many tangible indicators that Inte- opening day of the XVIIth Congress of the “ grated Pest Management (IPM) has achieved Sociedade Brasileira de Entomologia” or international recognition and widespread (glo- “SEB” (the Brazilian Entomological Society) bal?) acceptance. For example: a) there are held in Rio de Janeiro Brazil, August 9-14, several international scientific journals exclu- 1998. The letter of invitation for this plenary sively dedicated to IPM, e.g., International address suggested for its title the central theme Journal of Pest Management, Integrated Pest of the entire Congress, i.e., the affirmative Management Reviews, and many others, in- sentence: “Integrated Pest Management: A cluding these Anais da SEB, in which IPM, Global Reality”. In the weeks preceding the or IPM related articles, constitute 25% or event, we carefully considered the implica- more of the contents; b) a search in “Agricola” tions of this theme and concluded that, upon covering the period of 1987-1997 yielded agreeing on a categorical affirmation, we had 3,070 papers published on IPM worldwide, Março, 1999 An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 28(1) 3 exclusive of those articles in the popular press; validity of the theme: is IPM indeed a global c) in 1998, IPMnet** tabulated 49 major sci- reality? To answer this question we must sur- entific meetings on all continents (exclusive vey what is the level of IPM adoption world- of the hundreds of local or regional meetings wide. Such a survey, however, does not nec- dedicated to the training of IPM practition- essarily provide a firm basis for an evalua- ers); d) “IPMnet NEWS” the electronic news- tion because there are no established perform- letter of IPMnet, in addition to being accessi- ance criteria uniformly adopted to assess the ble via the World Wide Web (WWW), is status of IPM around the world. More im- posted electronically to recipients in 109 portantly, perhaps, it must be made clear what countries; e) IPM has a vigorous presence on is the IPM concept used to select those per- the WWW, the “Database of IPM Resources” formance criteria. We, therefore, provide a (DIR http://ippc.orst.edu/dir), also a product brief historical assessment of the development of IPMnet, has links to over 5,000 web pages of the IPM concept and its multiple defini- worldwide, and DIR receives an average of tions, we discuss possible indicators of the 400 hits per day. Unquestionably, these are effectiveness of IPM programs and criteria to signs of the vitality of IPM and clear indica- evaluate IPM adoption, and, based on those tors of the global identification with the con- criteria we provide an assessment of IPM cept. around the world. This background will al- Conceivably, though, the Congress’s low us to more objectively address the ques- theme might have been instead an exclama- tion posed by the title of the paper. tory sentence: “IPM: A Global Reality!” In this case the organizers of the Congress would IPM Origins and Trajectory have been after a laudatory piece relating case histories that demonstrate some of the out- The full expression “Integrated Pest Man- standing achievements of IPM in many crops agement” (IPM) appeared in press, for the first around the world. Such a piece, however, time, 28 years ago (Kogan 1998). The scien- would offer little novelty or provide little ba- tific basis of “Integrated Pest Control” evolved sis for thoughtful debate, for case histories of over a period of about 10 years, mainly among successful IPM have been the object of at least researchers at the University of California, three books (Hansen 1987, Leslie and Cuperus Berkeley and Riverside campuses. The con- 1993, Persley 1996); numerous chapters in cept was explicitly defined in 1965 at a sym- IPM textbooks and related volumes (see http:/ posium sponsored by the Food and Agricul- /ippc.orst.edu/ipmtextbooks); and 34 chapters ture Organization (FAO), of the United Na- covering 28 crops, mostly with an IPM focus tions, held in Rome, Italy, with the participa- published in Annual Review of Entomology tion of 87 delegates from 34 countries and in the past 25 years. Again, these are clear seven international agencies (FAO 1966b). indicators of the global recognition of IPM Interestingly, there were seven delegates from as the fundamental paradigm for crop protec- Latin American countries (Argentina, Bolivia, tion in the last quarter of the XXth century. Cuba, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela), but We did not think, however, that we could de- none from Brazil (FAO 1966a). The concept velop a stimulating paper based on this ap- of “Integrated Control”, originally limited to proach. We decided, instead, to question the the combination of chemical and biological

*IPMnet is the trademarked electronic IPM information system of the Consortium for Interna- tional Crop Protection, developed in cooperation with the Oregon State University, Integrated Plant Protection Center and the North Carolina State University, National IPM Network. 4 Kogan & Bajwa control methods (Michelbacher & Bacon tion of multiple pests and controls within the 1952), was greatly expanded in that sympo- context of the regional cropping system and sium, and redefined to become synonymous surrounding natural vegetation. The opera- with what we presently consider IPM. Thus tional unit is the regional agricultural produc- the concept of “integration” stemmed from tion system and the ecological scale is the foundations established in the U.S.A. Con- ecosystem (Kogan 1988; Kogan et al. 1999). currently, however, the concept of “Pest Man- Prokopy & Croft (1994) suggested the need agement” that had been proposed by Austral- for a fourth level, socio-political integration, ian ecologists in 1961 (Geier & Clark 1961), but, in our view, regulatory and other issues started receiving greater recognition in the determined by societal demands and political U.S.A. Publication of Geier ’s Annual Re- actions permeate all three levels of integra- view of Entomology article in 1966 (Geier tion and thus should not be identified as yet 1966), a report by the US National Academy an additional level. of Sciences (NAS 1969), and the proceedings of a conference held in North Carolina which Crop Protection in the Second Half of included participation by the original propo- the XXth Century nents of pest management from Australia (Rabb and Guthrie 1970), provided the impe- Agricultural systems in Europe and Asia tus for that recognition. The convergence of at the end of World War II were severely dis- the concepts of integrated control and pest rupted. Total production in Europe in 1946, management, and the ultimate synthesis into one year after the end of the war, was 38 per- integrated pest management, opened a new cent below the production level of the pre- era in the protection of agricultural crops, do- war years. In 1948 production still was more mestic animals, stored products, public health, than 10 percent lower. In Asia, although de- and the structure of human dwellings against clines were not as profound, production in the attack of arthropod pests, plant and ani- 1948 was about eight percent lower than in mal diseases, and weeds. A more detailed ac- pre-war years. The war had left widespread count of the historical development of IPM is starvation and the need to restore and possi- found in Kogan (1998). bly exceed pre-war production levels was ur- Over the years the IPM concept evolved gent. Producers everywhere were ready to in diverse directions resulting in what appears apply all available technological resources to to be a lack of consensus of what IPM really meet the demands of peacetime markets. is. Perhaps the most controversial term of the A major technological breakthrough in expression is “integration”. It seems, how- crop protection was the discovery of the in- ever, that the controversy is reconciled if IPM secticidal properties of DDT by the Swiss is conceived at three levels of integration: chemist, Paul Müller, in 1939. The greatest Level I – is the integration of multiple control benefits of DDT in agriculture were in the tactics into a control strategy for individual control of the Colorado potato beetle, pest species or species complexes within the Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), and other same pest category, i.e., arthropods, patho- potato insect pests; the codling moth, Cydia gens, or weeds. The operational unit is the pomonella (L.), on apples; the cotton crop field and the ecological scale is the pest bollworm, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie), tobacco population. Level II – is the integration of budworm, Heliothis virescens (Fab.), and pink multiple and interactive impacts of all pests bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella on cot- within the crop community and the tactics for ton; and complexes of lepidopterous caterpil- their management. The operational unit is the lars on vegetable crops; as well as defoliating individual farm or multiple farms within a pests of forest trees (Ware 1986). Production region and the ecological scale is the crop for agricultural use started in 1943. Twenty biotic community. Level III – is the integra- years later production reached a peak at 99 Março, 1999 An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 28(1) 5 million kg and, until DDT was finally banned ery and use of new and more powerful insec- by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ticides leading to the selection of ever more in 1973, over 1.8 billion kg of DDT had been resistant strains of the target pests (leading to used throughout the world. The success of the super-pests of R.L. Metcalf) is described DDT was followed by a vigorous expansion in Figure 2. of the agrochemical industry and the registra- IPM appeared on the world scene against tion of hundreds of new (Figure 1). this backdrop of a mounting record of fail- Unanticipated problems following the ures of to control arthropod pests widespread use of insecticides soon flared up. that had become resistant, and of other real In 1947 resitance to DDT was first detected or potential environmental disasters. The first in houseflies and in the mosquito, Culex fundamental premise of IPM, and its most pipiens molestus Forskal, in Italy (Brown anticipated promise, was that as adoption of 1958). Thereafter, documented cases of the new IPM systems expanded, the overwhelm- ecological impact of the massive use of pesti- ing reliance on insecticides to control pests, cides accumulated at a rapid pace (Metcalf and consequently the use of insecticides, 1986, Perkins & Patterson 1997) and were would proportionally decrease. Thus, success compellingly dramatized in the books by of IPM began to be measured in terms of pes- Rachel Carlson (1962) and Robert van den ticide reduction. The inverse correlation be- Bosch (1978). The metaphor of the insecti- tween IPM adoption and pesticide use was cide treadmill was documented for cotton and not, however, the explicit goal of IPM. Un- other crops. The ascending spiral of discov- der certain unique circumstances. IPM may

30

25

20

15

10

1941-45 1951-55 5 1961-65 1971-75 0 Total 1981-85 Org.Phosphates 1991-95 Org.Chlorines Carbamates Organo Tins Pyrethroids Diphenyl Ureas & IGR’s

Figure 1. Dates of origin and relative number of compounds in the major classes of chemi- cal insecticides. 6 Kogan & Bajwa

“PESTICIDE SPIRAL”

Apply New Product

Insects are uncontrolable uncontrolable Apply more and m ore often

Insects become m ore resistant Apply more product

Insects become resistant Apply new product Process Stars

Figure 2. Figure 2. Adaptation of a graphic representation of metaphor of the pesticide treadmill (van den Bosch 1978). An ascending spiral seems to better illustrate the dynamics of this process. (Adapted from Thompson 1998).

lead to an increase in pesticide use because it fore we discuss this issue we need to estab- may reveal pest/crop/socioeconomic interac- lish common ground on the concept of IPM tions that, at least temporarily, are not ame- and its definition. nable to the application of control tactics other than insecticides. For instance, cowpea yields Definitions and Concepts in African traditional cropping systems are between 100 and 250 kg/ha. Yield increases To assess levels of IPM adoption it is nec- of up to 10 fold are obtained with the appli- essary to reach consensus on a definition of cation of insecticides (Jackai & Doust 1986). IPM. An ongoing search of the literature has Given the nutritional value of the crop and yielded 67 definitions, proposed between the economic conditions of large segments of 1959 (definition of integrated control) and the population that relies on cowpea as a 1998 (see Compendium of IPM Definitions source of protein, increased pesticide use, at http://ippc.orst.edu/IPMdefinitions). An until alternatives are found, is justified and analysis of the frequency of key words or ex- compatible with sound IPM principles. The pressions included in those definitions is sum- second fundamental premise of IPM was that marized in Table 1. losses to pests would tend to decline because The concept of decision making implic- IPM would lead to greater stability of the bi- itly permeates most definitions of IPM. In an otic crop community. A stable crop commu- attempt to reconcile those multiple definitions nity would keep pest population fluctuations as they evolved over the years, the following under economic injury levels, and risk of was recently proposed and serves as the basis uncontrolable outbreaks would be reduced. for the topic of this paper. How IPM has met these promises provides a “IPM is a decision support system for the good indication of its global reality. But be- selection and use of pest control tactics, sin- Março, 1999 An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 28(1) 7

Table 1. Frequency of occurrence of terms or expressions used in 67 definitions of IPM compiled in the Compendium of IPM Definitions (Bajwa & Kogan 1997).

Term or expression Referenced context Frequency (%) Economics Of the benefits to producers or users of the system 53.8 Environment Benign effects of control measures in IPM. Factor in computation of benefits and costs of the IPM system beyond the producer level 48.1 Pest populations Target for control tactics 40.4 Pest control Goal of the IPM system 38.3 Methods or tactics Components of the control actions 26.9 Ecology or ecological The conceptual foundation of IPM or the system impacted by IPM tactics 25.0 System Implementable program or ecological unit 24.2 Combination or multiple Tactics or control methods 19.2 Economic threshold/ Economic injury level Bases for decision making 17.3 Optimization/ Maximization Benefits to producers, society, environment 13.5 Social/ Sociological Factor in computation of benefits and costs of the IPM system beyond the producer level 9.6

gly or harmoniously coordinated into a man- tive, economic thresholds (Higley & Pedigo agement strategy, based on cost/benefit analy- 1996), as well as dynamic models that extend ses that take into account the interests of and these concepts); B) costs include all direct impacts on producers, society, and the envi- expenses with pest control actions (cost of ronment” (Kogan 1998). product, application costs, cost of scouting, etc.), as well as indirect costs to the environ- Pest Control Program or IPM System ment and to society; and C) benefits include the economic value of the results of the con- To measure IPM adoption, it is necessary trol action (crop loss that was prevented) and to identify the factors that determine whether the benefits to the environment and to soci- a pest control program qualifies as an IPM ety. In addition, there must be evidence that system. The measurement of IPM has been the system attempts to employ the fundamen- the subject of much debate in the U.S.A. ow- tal methodologies that are part of the IPM ing to the need to assess progress towards repertoire. Those methodologies are summa- achievement of the goals set by the National rized in the next section. IPM Initiative of 1996 of 75% of all crop acres under IPM by the year 2,000 (Day 1998). Indicators of an IPM System: Criteria used As defined above, IPM is essentially a to evaluate an IPM system include some of decision making process; consequently, to be the following. IPM a pest control program must provide that: A) control decisions are based on proper cost/ A) Use of appropriate sampling or monitor- benefit evaluations (the practical expression ing procedures Pests and natural enemy popu- for these evaluations is the concept of eco- lation levels are sampled to support decisions nomic injury level and its operational deriva- based on economic injury levels and for ini- 8 Kogan & Bajwa tialization of simulation models. The activ- ing) where applicable for invading pests of ity includes one or more of the following: foreign origin; ·Monitoring pest and natural enemy popula- ·Augmentative biological control (mass re- tion trends; leases) aimed at native pests that have escaped ·Pest phenology in relationship to crop phe- naturally occurring controls; nology; ·Biorrational pesticides, including botanicals, ·Incidence of entomopathogens; natural products (kairomones or allomones), ·Incidence of plant diseases; pheromones as well as microbials (Copping ·Assessment of weed infestation; 1998, Hall & Menn 1999). ·Surveying crop community biodiversity, in- ·Selective pesticides; chemical pesticides cluding actual and potential pests and their whose mode of action restrict their activity to natural enemies; well defined taxonomic groups of pests thus ·Developing historical records of pest inci- reducing risk to non-target species (Croft dence and severity. 1990); ·Broad spectrum pesticides (as a last resort). B) Access to appropriate information to sup- port control decisions The essential informa- D) Consideration of environmental impacts tion for decision making in IPM includes: of control actions The following are some of ·Established economic injury levels and eco- the environmental impacts that should be as- nomic thresholds for all major pests; sessed in the selection of a control tactic con- ·Information on the principal natural enemies sider for inclusion in an IPM strategy: and their role in regulating pest populations ·Impact on naturally occurring beneficial ar- (needed to apply the concept of inaction thropods, including natural enemies of the thresholds according to Sterling 1984); main pests; alternative hosts for these natural ·Weed incidence maps and history of patchi- enemies, or any species that plays a role in ness and intensity of weed infestations; community dynamics, beyond those previ- ·History of disease incidence; ously specified before; ·Predictive models for arthropod pest dynam- ·Effect on wild animals (including birds, ter- ics and phenologies, plant disease epiphytotic restrial vertebrates, and aquatic vertebrates), models; and native plants; ·Real time weather information to be used in ·Impact on soil health, including soil fauna; connection with predictive models. ·Contamination of ground and surface water; ·Additional pressure on the evolution of re- C) Selection of control tactics based on IPM sistance in arthropod, plant pathogen, and principles In the development of an IPM strat- weed populations; egy, control tactics are integrated in a manner ·Pressure leading to weed replacement or shift that optimizes their benefits avoiding, as pos- through continued use of certain sible, incompatibilities among the tactics. (Cousens & Mortimer 1995). Therefore, depending on their availability and reliability, the main control tactics in an IPM E) Consideration of the total ecosystem. Un- program are prioritized in an order that takes derstanding ecosystems level interactions is into account their relative environmental im- essential for the development of advanced (in- pact, compatibility with other tactics, and cost tegration levels II and III) IPM systems. Some effectiveness. That order for arthropod pest of these interactions involve the relationship management is: of the main crop or mix of crops within the ·Planting of resistant cultivars; context of the regional natural vegetation and ·Cultural controls, including habitat manage- successional dynamics (Kogan & Lattin ment to enhance natural enemy activity; 1999). Interactions among crops within an ·Classical biological control (self-perpetuat- agroecosystem, disturbance of natural nutri- Março, 1999 An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 28(1) 9 ent cycles that are managed to maximize pro- veloping countries in particular — pesticide duction and interference with floral and faunal consumption actually increased in the 1990’s. composition through pest management actions For instance, pesticide use has increased by a are equally critical to understand, model, and factor of 39 between 1950 and 1992 and the include in development of an advanced IPM developing countries now account for one strategies. quarter of the world’s pesticide use (FAO Sta- tistics). However, the industrial countries of Performance Criteria for the Effective- North America and Western Europe still ac- ness of an IPM System count for over one half of the world’s pesti- cide sales (Table 2). Pesticide use as meas- In addition to establishing clear indicators ured in tons of active ingredient seems to have that a pest control program is indeed an IPM leveled off in the U.S.A. in the decade of the system, it is also necessary to provide criteria 1990’s (Figure 3B). Use has generally de- to measure performance of the system. These clined in The Netherlands, Denmark, and criteria relate to the impact of the IPM sys- Sweden, and slightly increased in the U.K. By tem on the target pest or pests, effect on crop contrast, a sharp increase was recorded in yield and quality, economic feasibility, and Brazil (Figure 3A). These are all countries social and environmental impacts. The fol- with strong IPM programs, based on excel- lowing is a sample of the many criteria that lent research and outreach efforts. have been used. Problems with pesticide-intensive pest A) Ability of the system to maintain pest control programs (see above) are the driving populations below established economic in- force behind IPM adoption or at least consid- jury levels. As the stated goal of an IPM sys- eration for its adoption at the national or lo- tem is to eliminate or at least attenuate the cal level in most countries, and in many it has economic impact of pests, efficacy in the re- become official governmental policy. A duction of pest populations is a primary indi- worldwid survey (75 countries) by the United cator of effectiveness of the system. Nation Food and Agriculture Organization B) Measurable reduction of pest impact on (FAO 1993) revealed steady progress in de- crop yield and quality over a period of time velopment and promotion of IPM in all re- leading to greater stability in the productivity gions of the world. All countries acknowl- of the system. edged IPM as a desirable approach to pest C) Reduction in amounts of production and control even if it was not widely adopted. The protection inputs of non-renewable resource percentage of those reporting that IPM was origin (mainly pesticides) while maintaining still “at an early stage of development” was stable productivity levels for the region. reduced from 50 to 45 in developing coun- D) Level of adoption of the IPM system by tries and from 9 to 0 in developed countries producers. in 1987 and 1993, respectively. E) Preservation of environmental quality, as IPM is an information-intensive, site-spe- determined by measurable indicators. cific, multitactic approach to pest control. F) Increase in safety and comfort of rural Rates and levels of adoption of IPM are de- workers and their families. termined by the resultant interplay of a re- G) Increase in the level of consumer confi- gional producers culture and experience, in- dence in the safety of agricultural products. fluenced by promotional efforts of the agrochemical industry, moderated by public IPM Around the World educational and outreach efforts and availabil- ity of extension support. In contrast to the Nearly 30 years after introduction of IPM, rapid adoption of pesticide technology world- pest control is still largely dependent on the wide, adoption of a newly developed IPM use of pesticides. In many countries — de- approach or technology may take years. Ta- 10 Kogan & Bajwa

Table 2. World sales of agrochemicals in the major regions of the world.

World sales of agrochemicals per region 19901 19922 19963 Region US $ % US $ % US $ % (billion) share (billion) share (billion) share North America 5.4 21.9 7.3 29.2 9.2 29.4 Western Europe 6.6 26.7 6.7 26.7 8.2 26.2 Eastern Europe 1.9 7.7 1.2 4.6 na na Asia 6.8 27.5 6.1 24.4 7.7 24.5 Africa 1.2 4.9 na na na na Latin America 2.8 11.3 2.4 9.5 3.3 10.4 Rest of the World na na 1.4 5.6 3.0 9.5 Total 24.7 100 25.0 100 31.3 100 na= not available, 1. GIFAP, 1992. Asia Working Group. Publication of International Group of National Associations of Manufacturers of Agrochemical Products, Brussels. 2. Chemistry & Industry, 15 November 1993. 3. Agrow: World Crop Protection News, December 13, 1996, February 14 and February 28, 1997.

ble 3 provides a summary of possible reasons sistant crop varieties, mating disruption, ster- for the contrast in the rates of adoption of these ile insect release, etc., may be integrated into crop protection technologies. In addition to the system. Above a certain level of tactical the reasons suggested in Table 3, because of integration, a threshold is reached at which a differences in climate, pests, soil, variety and previously, pesticide-centered program, be- other factors, a well-developed IPM program comes an IPM system. At the other extreme for a crop in a particular location may not of the continuum, higher levels of integration necessarily work well in another situation. are reached including multiple pest impacts Farmers need site-specific information. Gen- and consideration of ecosystem processes. erally, they have to work with local IPM in- Eventually a stage is reached at which pesti- formation providers (research and extension cide use is minimized with a concurrent in- specialists, NGO’s, private consultants) to crease in the amount of time and management acquire the information and knowledge nec- skills that are devoted to IPM operations (Fig- essary for developing an IPM program suited ure 4). With its success in many parts of the to their needs. Thus, IPM is a diffuse tech- world, IPM is viewed as an ecologically be- nology not amenable to generalized prescrip- nign and cost-effective pest control strategy tions. Decisions must be made at the local, ideally suited for both small and large farm- or at best, at the regional level. ers around the world. Adoption of IPM can be viewed under a IPM has been adopted as the central para- continuum, starting with systems largely con- digm for crop protection by virtually all in- fined to using a single tactical approach such ternational agricultural research centers, the as using economic thresholds for better tim- FAO, and many governments in both devel- ing of pesticide applications. Along the con- oped and developing countries. Measuring tinuum, additional non-chemical tactics such IPM adoption, however, is a complex but as cultural controls, biological controls, re- much needed process because it provides in- Março, 1999 An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 28(1) 11

Figure 3. A- Pesticide use in Brazil, the U.K., Denmark, The Netherlands, and Sweden, 1980 - 1996. Source: FAO Statistical Division (1980 - 1996), FAO Yearbook - Production (1980 - 1996) and ANDEF 1991. B- Pesticide use on major crops in the U.S.A., 1964 - 95. Crops: corn, cotton, soybeans, wheat, potatoes, other vegetables, citrus, and apples and other fruits (about 67% of U.S. cropland). Source: Economic Research Service, USDA (1996 - 97) formation about the efficiency of an IPM pro- system. Such was perhaps the nature of the gram, identifies constraints to adoption, and most heralded IPM success in the world, the identifies areas in need of improvement. Re- control of the brown planthopper, Nila liable estimates of IPM adoption are not avail- parvata lugens, in Southeast Asia (Kenmore able presently for most crops. In fact, the 1996). measurement of IPM adoption depends In most countries, some form of IPM now largely on the definition of IPM (see above). exists with varying degrees of sophistication IPM is often viewed as a strategy to integrate and adoption. Major effort has been directed two or more control tactics. However, a de- to crops such as banana (Costa Rica), cotton cision to do nothing perhaps is the most de- (U.S.A., many Asian, African, and South sirable state of an IPM program in which American countries), rice (many Asian and forces of nature are identified as, per se, ca- African countries), soybean (U.S.A. and South pable of achieving adequate pest population American countries), maize (U.S.A., many regulation. Such a stage, what Sterling (1984) Asian and African countries), vegetables called the innaction threshold, requires no (most countries), pome fruits (Europe, Aus- integration of tactics, merely a profound un- tralasia, and North America), citrus fruits derstanding of the ecology of the agricultural (U.S.A. and Australia), and plantation crops 12 Kogan & Bajwa

Table 3. Contrasting features of pesticide technology and IPM as possible reasons to explain the fast rate of adoption of the former and the slow of adoption of the latter.

Pesticides IPM

Compact technology from acquisition to Diffuse technology with multiple application. Easily incorporated into components. At times difficult to reconcile regular farming operations. with normal farming operations. Promoted by the private sector. Promoted by the public sector. Strong economic interests. Large budgets for Budgets extremely limited for R&D. R&D. Aggressive sales promotion supported by Promoted by Extension personnel usually professionally developed advertising trained as educators not as salespersons. campaigns. Skillful use of mass communications media. Limited support of trained communications media personnel. Educational programs of restricted scope. Capable of providing incentives to Technical support usually provided, but “adoption” (free advise, slick publications, limited by inadequate staffing. No material bonuses and small gifts). incentives. Results of applications usually immediately Benefits often not apparent in the short run. apparent. Some difficult to demonstrate (e.g., results of biological control). Consequently: Pesticide technology was Consequently: Adoption of IPM rapidly adopted. technology has been slow.

(Malaysia) (Tables 4-8). Several regional In 1994 the U.S. Department of Agricul- IPM programs have successfully been imple- ture estimated IPM adoption for field crops, mented on crops such as cassava (mealy bug fruits, nuts, and vegetables. These estimates in Africa), coconut (rhinoceros beetle in Asia/ were based on data gathered through chemi- Pacific), crucifers (diamondback moth in cal use/cropping practices surveys carried out Asia), and rice (brown planthopper in tropi- from 1990 -1993 (Vandeman et al. 1994). The cal Asia) (Mengech et al. 1995, Soon 1996). surveys covered selected states accounting for Experience from these examples has shown most of the U.S. area in these crops. The es- that IPM can work very well in both devel- timates are given in Table 4. It was found oped and developing countries; however, suc- that 5-15 % of the area was under low level cessful implementation requires raising gen- (just scouting & use of economic thresholds eral awareness of IPM and training at the re- (ET) or at the level we call the IPM thresh- search, extension, and farm levels. In many old), 23 - 35% under medium level (scouting, developing countries, IPM was found eco- ET and one or two additional practices) and nomically more efficient than conventional 20 - 30% under a high level (scouting, thresh- pest control approaches based on intensive use old and three or more additional practices) of of pesticides. In these countries, a 50-100 % IPM. Overall, 50 % or more of the crop acre- reduction in pesticide use is possible with no age in fruits, nuts, vegetables, and field crops detrimental effects on yield (Soon 1996). was under IPM for at least one of the three Março, 1999 An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 28(1) 13

Figure 4. Continuum from conventional pest control to level III IPM, as exemplified by soybean IPM in Brazil. A minimum set of tactical components determines the “threshold of IPM”. major pest types: insects, diseases, and weeds. cording to Warner (1998), 100% of fruit grow- IPM was found to be more prevalent on grapes ers in Washington state (U.S.A.) are using (54% of reported acres), oranges (64%), and IPM to some degree. almonds (54%). Pesticides were applied with- In western Europe, 35% of the total area out economic thresholds (a non-IPM practice) (322,000 ha) of pome fruit production is un- on 60-90% of berry, cherry, and peach acres. der Integrated Fruit Production (IFP), an ap- Among fruit and nut crops where advanced proach in which IPM has a central role. The IPM programs were well tested, adoption was area has increased by 40% since 1991 higher, e.g., apples (27%), grapes (37%), or- (Schafermeyer, 1991). Area under pome IPM anges (26%), and almonds (32%). In vegeta- in western Europe is given in Table 5. Adop- bles, 52 % of the area was under IPM with tion of IFP over a large area has lead to pro- more than half classified as high-level IPM. motion of higher standards of integrated pest Among field crops, 74% and 72% of planted management, up to 30% reduction in pesti- area was under IPM for corn and fall pota- cide use, and use of environmentally benign toes, respectively. About 38% of the fall po- pesticides (Cross et al. 1995). IFP has re- tato acres was classified at high level IPM for ceived a warm welcome from developed insects. Lack of crop consultants to deliver countries in other parts of the world, e.g., IPM services and the higher managerial input U.S.A. [Massachusetts (Hollingsworth 1996), necessary for IPM implementation were the Oregon (Riedl personal communication), most frequent impediments to adoption. Ac- Washington (Reed & Nelson 1996)], and New 14 Kogan & Bajwa

Table 4. IPM adoption in field, vegetable, fruit and nut crops in major producing states of USA,1991-94.

Production area Planted hectares under IPM (%) Crop Total US Producing states (1,000 Ha) reporting % U.S Insects Diseases Weeds (1,000 Ha) Hectares Field Crops Corn 29,537 26,583 90 74 (22) na 53 (51) Cotton 5,484 1,584 29 71 na na Soybean 25,760 21,638 84 na na 59 (57) Fall Potatoes 482 453 94 72 (69) 63 (58) 66 (65) Vegetables 52 (43) 41 (29) 35 (33) Lettuce 108 105 97 81 (59) 80 (42) 41 (41) Melons 165 132 80 56 (48) 52 (34) 47 (47) Sweet corn 305 259 85 43 (34) 34 (25) 46 (46) Tomatoes 166 144 87 66 (55) 41 (36) (23) 23

All pests (insect, weed, disease) High IPM Total Fruits & nuts 31 50 (44) Almond 156 154 99 32 54(53) Apple 188 154 82 27 42(41) Grapes 299 296 99 37 54(48) Oranges 248 248 100 26 64(49) Pear 29 28 95 26 40(37) Walnuts 74 74 100 31 43(41)

Values in parenthesis are based on the IPM threshold concept by Kogan, 1998. na = not avail- able. Source: Cotton - Fernandez 1994 (Reporting States: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia and N. Carolina); All other Crops - Vandeman et al. 1994. 54 (53)

Zealand and Australia (Cross et al.1995). disseminate IPM information to their contract Implementation of IFP is not confined to west- growers. Several companies have hired IPM ern Europe or the developed world, it is specialists to conduct IPM research and de- spreading to many other fruit growing coun- velopment programs for their growers. Some tries, e.g., Poland (Zurawicz et al. 1996), companies help promote IPM by purchasing Hungary (Balázs et al. 1996), South Africa, products from IPM/IFP/Organic growers and Argentina (Cross et al. 1995) have re- (Sorensen 1998, Esbjerg personal communi- cently started initiatives to adopt IFP meth- cation). ods. In many developing countries, where IPM In the developed world (both in Europe is now governmental policy, pesticide usage and North America), the food industry (par- is being reduced. In these countries, regular ticularly baby food products) has recently use of pesticides is limited to high value (cash) accepted the concept of IPM and is actively crops and, as such, IPM adoption is largely encouraging its development and adoption. In centered on cotton, rice, soybean, and the last few years, food processors have helped sugarcane. Pest monitoring and warning pro- Março, 1999 An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 28(1) 15 grams have been established at the national practiced on about 6.6 million hectares out of and local levels in several countries like China, a total of 133 million ha in Asia. Information India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Korea, Pakistan, on IPM adoption is generally not available Philippines, and Thailand in Asia (Raheja for many countries where emphasis was given 1995). Estimates on IPM adoption in some to biological means of pest control as the crops are given in the Tables 5-7. These ta- major component of IPM. In these countries bles contain information on direct measure- mass production and release of several ment such as area under IPM or indirect meas- biocontrol agents have occurred without sub- urement such as impact on reduction in pesti- sequent study of the effect of the program. In cide use, application frequency, or treated China, where large-scale mass release of area. biocontrol agents has been adopted for many In Asia, various stages of IPM have been years, it was estimated that by the end of 1991, successfully adopted in Bangladesh (rice), the area covered under the mass release pro- China (cotton, fruit crops, maize, rice, gram was 25.8 million hectares and 2.2 mil- soybean, vegetables), India (cotton, fruit lion hectares were under microbial control crops, sugarcane, vegetables), Indonesia (Liu & Piao, 1992). (rice), Korea (rice), Malaysia (vegetables, In Southeast Asia, a major breakthrough plantation crops), Pakistan (cotton, mango, in IPM occurred in Indonesia in 1986-87 when sugarcane), Philippine (rice), Tadjikistan (cot- IPM was adopted as the national crop protec- ton), Thailand (cotton), Turkmenistan (cot- tion strategy. Fifty seven of 66 broad spec- ton), Vietnam (rice) (Tables 6 & 8, Ooi et trum pesticides used on rice at the time were al.1991, Raheja 1995, Morse & Buhler 1997). banned by presidential decree (Morse & In irrigated rice (Table 6), IPM is being Buhler 1997). This decree endorsed IPM as

Table 5. IPM adoption in Europe.

Area (1000 ha) Area Farmers Country/ under adopted Reference Region Crop Total IPM IPM Crop Ha (%) IPM (%) Western Europe Apple & pear - - 50 - Reed 1995 Western Europe Pome fruits 920 322 35 (1994) - Cross et al. 1995* Western Europe Fruit crops - - 29 - Reed 1993 Austria Pome fruits 5.83 4.77 82 51 Cross et al. 1995* Belgium Pear - - - 98% Schaetzen 1996 Belgium Pome fruits 20.00 4.51 23 31 Cross et al. 1995* Denmark Pome fruits 3.44 0.96 28 17 Ibid France Pome fruits 75.00 0.50 < 1 ~ 1 Ibid Germany Pome fruits 38.60 30.44 79 27 Ibid UK Pome fruits 17.00 13.00 76 77 Ibid Italy Pome fruits 71.24 38.00 53 47 Ibid Netherlands Pome fruits 21.00 14.80 70 57 Ibid Portugal Pome fruits 25.50 1.10 ~ 4 < 1 Ibid Spain Pome fruits 56.00 0.40 < 1 < 1 Ibid Switzerland Pome fruits 6.08 4.35 72 39 Ibid

*Values represent adoption of Integrated Fruit Production (IFP). 16 Kogan & Bajwa the official “strategy” for rice production. cent (Morse & Buhler 1997). In the first two Subsidies on pesticides were reduced from years alone the government saved US$120 75% in 1986 to 40% in 1987 and removed million that it would have spent subsidizing altogether by January 1989 (APO 1993). Five chemicals (Wardhani 1991, WRI 1994). The years later, rice yields increased by 15 per- overall economic impact of IPM has been cent, while pesticide use dropped by 60 per- estimated at US $1 billion (WRI 1994). This

Table 6. IPM adoption and/or its impacts in Africa, Asia and Australasia.

Area Area Farmers Reduction in Country/ (1000ha) under adopted pesticide usea, Reference region Crop Total IPM IPM IPM Afb or TAc/CCd crop (%)

Asia Rice 132,158 - - - 35 - 100b FAO 1994 132,100 4,900 3.71 - 28a (5 Y) Raheja 1995 133,000 6,600 4.96 - - Morse & Buhler 1997 Australia Cotton 270 - - 90 - Fitt 1994 Bangla- desh Rice 9,919 - - - 95 c (14 Y) Raheja 1995 China Cotton 5,200 15,00 29 - - Zhaohui et al. 1992 (1990) Cotton - - - - 85b (10 Y) Raheja 1995 Maize 20,350 2,000 10 - - Zhaohui et al. 1992

Rice 32,500 10,000 31 - - Ibid (1990) Soybean 8,000 1,500 19 - - Ibid (1990) Vegetables1 - - - - d Raheja 1995 Wheat 29,850 6,000 20 - - Zhaohui et al. 1992 (1990) India Cotton2 ----70b (15 Y) Raheja 1995 Indonesia Rice 10,734 - - - 60a Morse & Buhler 1997 (1994) Pakistan Mango3 13 3.3 25 - - Soon 1996 Sudan Cotton - - - - 50 a Pretty 1995, Morse & Buhler 1997 Tajikistan Cotton 300 - - - ~ 85 a (22 Y) Sugonyaev 1994

Turkmen- istan Cotton 620 - - - ~ 99 a, c (24 Y) Ibid a: Pesticide Use; b :Application Frequency; c: Treated Area; d: Pest Control Cost; Y: Year (s); M: Million; Reporting Area: The whole country except for 1: 200 cities in 22 provinces of China; 2: State of Andhra Pradesh, India ; 3: Province of Punjab, Pakistan. Março, 1999 An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 28(1) 17 is one of the best examples of successful IPM schools which allowed local farmers to har- in the world (Kenmore 1996, Morse & Buhler ness their indigenous knowledge of natural 1997). Part of this success came from field pest control to IPM (Morse & Buhler 1997).

Table 7. IPM adoption and/or its impact in the Americas (countries other than USA).

Area Farmers Reduction in: (1000 ha) adopted pesticide usea, Reference Country Crop Total IPM AFb or TAc/CCd crop IPM (%)

Argentina Soybean 5,935 - - 50b Aragon 1991 Canada Field crops, - - - 30 - 50a Surgeoner & fruits & Roberts 1993 Vegetables1 Brazil Cassava - 342 50 80 - 90d Braun, et al. 1993 Citrus 1,0003 -- 77b Campanhola et al. (1970 vs. 95) 1995 Cotton 222 4 - 70 - Ramalho 1994 Soybean 5,935 - - 85b (11 Y) Campanhola et al. 1995 11,100 - 40 60 - 80b (25 Y) Ibid, Iles & (1991) Sweetmore, 1991 10,728 - 40 60a Moscardi & Sosa-Gomez 1996 Sugarcane 4,183 150 - - Campanhola et al. 1995 Wheat5 -- -94c (5 Y, 1982) Ibid Chile Wheat - - - (Annual saving Ibid US$ 20 M)a Colombia Cotton 26 6 26 - 85 - 90b (1995) Ibid Cotton - 67 - 97 b (7 Y) Ibid Sugarcane 318 8 318 100 - Ibid, Escobar 1986 Soybean - - 80 - 90d Garcia, 1990 Tomato9 - - 70 100b Campanhola et al. 1995 Costa Rica Banana 10 - - - 100 a (1973) Soon 1996 Paraguay Cotton 454 - - ~ 80 a Servian de Cardozo 1990 19 11 -- 50 b Ibid Venezuela Sugarcane 111 50 - - Campanhola et al. 1995 a : Pesticide Use; b: Application Frequency; c: Treated Area; d: Pest Control Cost; Y: Year (s); M: Million; Reporting Area: The whole country except for 1: Province of Ontario, Canada; 2: State of Paraná , Brazil; 3 & 4: Sate of São Paulo, Brazil; 5: Wheat-growing areas of Rio Grande do Sul, Paraná and Santa Catarina, Brazil; 6, 8 & 9: Valle del Cauca, Colombia; 7: Municipality of Zarzal, Colombia; 10: Reduction in sprays; 11: By Cooperative Colonia Unidas, Paraguay. 18 Kogan & Bajwa

The schools were set up with the assistance soybean, sugarcane, tomato, wheat), Chile of the FAO. In these schools, more than (wheat), Columbia (cotton, ornamentals, 250,000 farmers received IPM training from soybean, sugarcane, tomato), Paraguay (cot- 1989 to 1994 (WRI 1994). This success story ton, soybean), Peru (cotton, sugarcane), and has proved instrumental for IPM adoption by Venezuela (cotton, sugarcane) (Table 7, rice farmers in other Asian countries. Indeed, Campanhola et al.1995, Soon 1996) such a mass scale IPM adoption has influ- IPM had a promising start in Africa in the enced and motivated farmers all across the late 1970s. In Sudan, IPM produced good globe. The technology has potential for Af- results with more than 50 percent reduction rica, which has largely bypassed the green in insecticide use (Pretty 1995, Morse & revolution and did not develop the extensive Buhler 1997). Introduction of a parasitoid agricultural extension systems found in Asia wasp, Epidinocarsis lopezi, spectacularly (Morse & Buhler 1997). According to controlled the cassava mealybug, Wardhani (1991), Indonesian Rice IPM pro- Phenacoccus manihoti, across the cassava gram represents a social movement. It links belt (Zethner 1995, Soon 1996). This pro- the scientific development of ecological con- gram started in 1979 and by 1990 E. lopezi cepts with intensive field training of farmers had become established in 25 countries where on ecologically sound field management tech- cassava is cultivated (Zethner 1995). Al- niques. It represents one of the first large- though credit for the initial success of the pro- scale examples of a technology which is com- gram goes exclusively to the application of patible with environmental conservation, pub- principles of classical biological control, pres- lic health, and farmer profitability. ervation of the natural enemies after introduc- In South America, IPM has been success- tion, and integration with other tactics must fully implemented in Argentina (alfalfa, cit- be credited to IPM. IPM has been success- rus, soybean), Brazil (citrus, cotton, livestock, fully used in South Africa on apple, Togo,

Table 8. Other examples of reported IPM Adoption.

Country (ies) Crop Impact - Reduction Reference in:/Comments

Argentina Citrus Pesticide use & application Campanhola et al. 1995 frequency Bangladesh, Burkina Rice Successfully implemented Pretty 1995 Faso, India & Sri Lanka

Egypt, Sudan, Togo, Cotton Successfully used Pretty 1995 Zimbabwe

Malaysia Plantation Pesticide use (+ Environ- Raheja 1995 Crops mental conservation) Vegetables Pesticide use Ibid Peru (Canete Valley) Cotton Pesticide use & control Boza-Barducci 1972, cost (1972) Soon 1996

South Africa Apple Pesticide use & application Nel et al. 1993 frequency Março, 1999 An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 28(1) 19

Zimbabwe and Egypt on cotton, and Burkina emphasis on IPM, the history of insecticide Faso on rice (Table 8). Ghana has recently use on cotton and corn is rather revealing (Fig- launched IPM as the national crop protection ure 5). During the 1960s and 70s over 30 strategy, which includes controls on the im- million kg of insecticides were applied to con- porting of chemical pesticides (Zethner trol cotton pests, or rates of 6 to 15 kg per 1995). Countries like Burkina Faso, Cote planted hectare. Total amounts and rates per d’Ivoire, and Kenya are currently focusing hectare dropped dramatically in the early more on capacity building as the initial step 1980s’ as IPM programs were promoted. This towards adopting IPM (Zethner 1995). Ta- drop, however, can not be solely ascribed to ble 8 provides a list of other IPM programs IPM adoption because many of the more mod- mentioned in the literature as successful, but ern pesticides are used at rates up to 80-100 with no indication of levels of adoption. times lower than pesticides of the decades of the 60s and 70s. Corn offered another sce- Concluding Remarks nario, as insecticide use was three times lower than in cotton in the 1960s and 70s, despite Despite recent advances in pest control the fact that the area planted to corn in the technologies and IPM developments, world U.S.A. was six to seven fold greater than the crops in the 1990s still suffer losses to the area planted to cotton. From the 1980s on, aggregate impact of pre-and post harvest pests however, corn surpassed cotton as the largest similar to those suffered in the beginning of consumer of insecticides, mainly due to the the century. Table 9 provides estimates of increased infestations of rootworms losses that lead us to make this assertion. (Diabrotica sp.) in the Midwestern corn belt. These losses continue to occur even while In the U.S.A., after a sharp increase from the pesticide use continued to rise worldwide (see 1960s through the early 1980s, overall pesti- Table 3 and Figure 3). cide use has stabilized between 240 and 280 In the U.S.A., where there is considerable thousand tons of active ingredient per year

Table 9 . Estimates of crop losses due to pests (Adapted from Pimentel 1986, and Schwartz & Klassen 1981).

Percentage of crop losses to pests Insects Diseases Weeds Total Without pesticides 18 15 9 42 1980 13 12 12 37 1974 13 12 8 33 1951-1960 13 12 8 34 1942-1951 7 10 14 31 1910-1935 10 NA NA NA 1904 34 NA NA NA Summary of global estimates of crop losses due to all pests Number of pest species 10,000 Number of key pests 600 Losses in the 1900s’ ~ 33% Losses in the 1980s’ ~ 33% 10-12% of losses attributed to insects and mites. 20 Kogan & Bajwa

Figure 5. Insecticide used on cotton and corn in the U.S.A., 1966 – 1996. (USDA-ERS)

(see Figure 3B). tegic inflection points “those moments when Has IPM failed to meet its promise? The new circumstances alter the way the world answer is definitely not. Even the incomplete works, as if the current of history goes through picture of IPM adoption around the world, a transistor and our oscilloscopes blip.” It provided by data in Tables 4 through 8, sug- can happen because of an invention gests that IPM has penetrated many regions (Gutenberg’s printing press in the XVth cen- of the world to which it has brought much tury), or an idea (individual liberty in the needed relief from the burdensome over reli- XVIIIth century), or a technology (electricity ance on pesticides. Intellectually IPM is with- in the XIXth century), or a process (the as- out a doubt a global reality. Practically, how- sembly line in the early XXth century) (Grove ever, IPM is a tangible reality in some privi- 1996, Isaacson 1998). We submit that IPM, leged regions of the world, but still remains a as an idea, a process, and a collection of tech- distant dream for many others. Given the nological advances, represented a strategic world demographic and social realities, how- inflection point in the agricultural sciences of ever, adoption of IPM is not an option, it is a the fourth quarter of the XXth century. The vital necessity for the conservation of the en- robust conceptual foundation of IPM projects vironment and for the very survival of the its influence beyond the limits of crop pro- human race on earth. tection. IPM has become a model for all other Andrew Grove, the Intel CEO, calls stra- operational components of sustainable agri- Março, 1999 An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 28(1) 21 culture (Kogan & McGrath 1993). It is just a Francisco, Westview Press, Inc., 197 p. matter of time and dedication from those who believe in its potential for IPM to become a Brown, A.W.A. 1958. Insecticide resistance global reality in practice, as well as in theory. in arthropods. Geneva, W.H.O., 240 p.

Literature Cited Campanhola, C., G. J.D. Moraes & L.A.N. De Sa. 1995. Review of IPM in South ANDEF. 1991. Associação Nacional de America. p. 121-151. In A.N. Mengech, Defensivos Agricolas, São Paulo, SP, K.N. Saxena & H.N.B. Gopalan (eds.), Brazil. Integrated pest management in the tropic- current status and future prospects. New APO - Asian Productivity Organization. York, John Wiley & Sons, 171 p. 1993. Pest control in Asia and the Pacific: report of an APO Seminar 24th Carson R. 1962. , Boston, September-4th October, 1991, Tokyo, Houghton Mifflin, 368p. Japan. Tokyo, Asian Productivity Organization, 409 p. Copping, L.G. (ed.). 1998. The manual. Surrey, U.K., British Crop Aragon, J. 1991. El manejo integrado de Protection CouncilFarnham, 333 p. plagas en soja. Desarrollo Argentino (Rosario), 8: 9-12. Cousens, R. & M. Mortimer. 1995. Dynamics of weed populations. Bajwa, W. I. & M. Kogan. 1997. Com- Cambridge, New York, Cambridge pendium of IPM definitions (CID). University Press, 332 p. Electronic Publication (http:// www.ippc.orst.edu/IPMdefinitions). Croft, B.A. 1990. Arthropod biological control agents and pesticides. New York, Balázs, K., G. Jenser & G. Bujáki. 1996. Wiley, 723 p. Eight years’ experiences of IPM in Hungarian apple orchards, p. 95-101. In Cross, J.V., A. Bonauer, V. Bondio, J. F. Polesny, W. Müller & R. W. Olszak Clemente, J. Denis, J. Grauslund, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the International Huguet, E. Jörg, S. Koning, A. Kvale, Conference on Integrated Fruit C. Malavota, R. Marcelle, I. Production, Cedzyna, Poland, 28 August Morandell, H. Oberhofer, M. Pontalti, - 2 September 1995. Acta-Horticulturae, F. Polesny, M. Rossini, A. Schenk, C. No. 422-443 p. de Schaetzen & M. Vilajeliu. 1995. The current status of integrated pome fruit Boza-Barducci, T. 1972. Ecological production in western Europe and its consequences of pesticides used for achievements, p. 1-10. In F. Polesny, W. control of cotton insects in Canete Valley, Müller & R. W. Olszak (eds.), Pern, p. 423-438. In M.T. Farvar & J.P. Proceedings of the International Milton (eds.), The careless technology. Conference on Integrated Fruit New York, Natural History Press, 510p. Production, Cedzyna, Poland, 28 August - 2 September 1995. Acta-Horticulturae. Braun, A.R., A.C. Bellotti & J.C. Lozano. No. 422, 443 p. 1993. Implementation of IPM for small- scale cassava farmers, p. 103 - 115. In Day, E. (ed.). 1998. Integrated Pest M. A. Altieri (ed.), Crop protection Management Measuring Systems strategies for subsistence farmers. San Workshop. Chicago, Illinois, Amer. 22 Kogan & Bajwa

Farmland Trust. 191 p. Grove, A. 1996. Only the paranoid survive: how to exploit the crisis points that Escobar, G.J.A. 1986. Criterios para la challenge every Company and Career. evaluación de programas de manejo New York, Doubleday. 210 p. integrado de plagas, con referencia especial al caso en caña de azucar. In Hall, F.R. & J.J. Menn. 1999. Conferencias Especiales 13. Congresso : use and delivery. Totowa, Socolen, 16 - 18 July 1986, Cali, New Jersey, Humana. 626 p. Colombia, p. 64 - 97. Hansen, M. 1987. Escape from the pesticide FAO, 1966a. Report of the FAO Symp. on treadmill. Consumers Union, 185p. Integrated Pest Control Rome, Oct. 11- 15, 1965,. Rome, Italy, FAO-UN, 40p. Higley, L.G. & L.P. Pedigo (eds.). 1996. Economic thresholds for integrated pest FAO, 1966b. Proc. FAO Symp. Integrated management. Lincoln, Nebraska, Univ. Pest Control Rome, Oct. 11-15, 1965. of Nebraska Press, 327 p. Rome Italy, FAO-UN, Part 1, 91p., Part 2, 186p., Part 3, 129p. Hollingsworth, C.S. 1996. Extending the concepts of IPFP to other crops: an IPM FAO, 1993. Global IPM: a report on the certification program in Massachusetts, global IPM field study tour and meeting USA, p. 90-94. In F. Polesny, W. Müller August - September 1993. FAO, Manila. & R.W. Olszak (eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference on Integrated FAO, 1994. Sustainable agriculture through Fruit Production, Cedzyna, Poland, 28 integrated pest management. Presented at August - 2 September 1995. Acta- the 22nd Regional Conference for Asia and Horticulturae, No. 422, 443 p. the Pacific, Manila, 3 -7 October. Iles, M.J. & A. Sweetmore, A. (eds.). 1991. Fernandez, J. 1994. Pesticide use reduction Constraints on the adoption of IPM in assessment. Senate Committee on developing countries - a survey. Natural Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Resources Institute, Kent, UK. Washington DC. 12 p. Issacson, W. 1998. Man of the year. Time, Fitt, G.P. 1994. Cotton pest management: Dec. 29, 1997-Jan. 5, 1998. p.48-51. Part 3. An Australian Perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 39:543-62. Jackai, L.E.N. & R.A. Daoust. 1986. Insect pests of cowpea. Ann. Rev. Entomol. Garcia, F. 1990. Avances y perspectivas del 31:95-119. control biologico en Colombia. Colombia Ciencia y Tecnologia, 8: 8 -12. Kenmore, P.E. 1996. Integrated pest management in rice, p. 76-97. In G.J. Geier P.W. 1966. Management of insect Persley (ed.) Biotechnology and pest pests. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 11:471-490. management. Wallingford, UK, CAB International, 475 p. Geier P.W. & L.R.Clark. 1961. An ecological approach to pest control. Proc. Kogan, M. 1988. Integrated pest Tech. Meeting Intern. Union for Conserv. management theory and practice. of Nature and Natural Res., 8th, 1960, Entomol Exp. Appl. 49:59-70. Warsaw, 10-18. Março, 1999 An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 28(1) 23

Kogan, M. 1998. Integrated pest Michelbacher A.E. & O.G. Bacon. 1952. management: Historical perspectives and Walnut insect and spider mite control in contemporary developments. Ann. Rev. Northern California. J. Econ. Entomol. Entomol. 43:243-270. 45:1020-27.

Kogan, M., B.A. Croft & R.F. Suthurst. Morse, S. & W. Buhler. 1997. Integrated 1999. Applications of ecology for pest management: ideals and realities in integrated pest management, p. 681-736. developing countries. London, Lynne In C.B. Huffaker & A. Gutierrez (ed.) Rienner Publishers, 171 p. Ecological Entomology, 2nd edit. New York, Wiley. Moscardi, F. & D.R. Sosa-Gomez. 1996. Soybean in Brazil, p. 98 -112. In G.J. Kogan, M & J. D. Lattin. 1999. Persley (ed.), Biotechnology and Agricultural systems as ecosystems. integrated pest management. CAB Chapter 1, in J.Ruberson, ed. Handbook International, UK. of pest management. New York, Marcel Dekker. in press. NAS - National Academy of Sciences. 1969. Insect-pest management and control. Kogan, M. & D. McGrath. 1993. Integrated Washington, DC: Nat. Acad. Sci. pub. pest management: Present dilemmas and 1695, 508 p. future challenges. Anais 14o Congresso Brasileiro de Entomologia. Piracicaba, Nel, P. J., M. F. Addison, A.M.E. Schenk, S.P., Brazil. p 1-16. A.D. Webster & S.J. Wertheim. 1993. The development of an integrated pest Leslie, A.R. & G.W. Cuperus. 1993. management programme in apple Successful implementation of integrated orchards in Elgin, South Africa and the pest management for agricultural crops. implications for integrated fruit Lewis Publications, Boca Raton, Florida, production. Second international USA, 193p. symposium on integrated fruit production, Veldhoven, Netherlands, August 24-28, Liu, S. & Y. Piao. 1992. Biological Control 1992, p. 323-326. in China. Paper presented at FAO Regional Expert Consultation on Ooi, P.A.C, G.S. Lim, T.H. Ho, P.L. Manalo Biological Control of Plant Pests, 8 -12 & J. Waage (eds.). 1991. Proceedings July 1992, Hangzhou, People’s Republic of the conference on IPM in the Asia- of China. Pacific Region, 23-27 September 1991, Kaula Lumpur, Malasia, 445 p. Mengech, A.N., K.N. Saxena & H.N.B. Gopalan (eds.). 1995. Integrated pest Perkins, J.H. & B.R. Patterson. 1997. Pest management in the tropics- current status pesticides and the environment: A and future prospects. New York, John historical perspective on the prospects for Wiley & Sons,171 p. pesticide reduction, p. 13-33. In D. Pimentel, Techniques for reducing Metcalf, R.L. 1986. The ecology of pesticide use. N.Y., Wiley, 444 p. insecticides and the chemical control of insects. p. 251-297. In M. Kogan (ed.) Persley, G.J. (ed.). 1996. Biotechnology and Ecological theory and integrated pest integrated pest management.CAB Int. management practice. N.Y., Wiley, 362 p. Pretty, J.N. 1995. Regenerating agriculture: 24 Kogan & Bajwa

Policies and practice for sustainability Schaetzen, C. de. 1996. Integrated pest and self-reliance. Washington, D.C., managemnt in Belgium orchards in 1995, Joseph Henry Press, 320p. p. 321-323. In F. Polesny, W. Müller & R.W. Olszak (eds.), Proceedings of the Prokopy R.J. & B.A. Croft. 1994. Apple International Conference on Integrated insect management, p. 543-89. In R.L. Fruit Production, 28 August - 2 Metcalf & W.H. Luckmann (eds.) September, 1995. Acta Horticulturae, Introduction to Insect Pest Management, No. 422, 443 p. 3rd Ed. New York, Wiley, 650p. Schafermeyer, S. 1991. Vergleichende Rabb R.L. & F.E.Guthrie (eds.) 1970. Untersuchungen zu Richtlinien fur die Concepts of Pest Management. Raleigh: integrierte Kernobstproduktion in Europa N.C.State Univ., 242 p. (Comparative studies on guidelines for integrated pome fruit production in Raheja, K. 1995. Practice of IPM in South Europe). Berlin, Kommissionsverlag P. and Southeast Asia, p. 69-119. In A.N. Parey, 110 p. Mengech, K.N. Saxena & H.N. B. Gopalan (eds.), Integrated pest Schwartz, P.H. & W. Klassen. 1981. management in the tropics- current status Estimate of losses caused by insects and and future prospects. New York, John mites to agricultural crops, p. 15-77. In Wiley & Sons, 171 p. D. Pimentel (ed.), Handbook of pest management in agriculture. Boca Raton, Ramalho, F. S. 1994. Cotton pest Florida, CRC Press Inc., 597p. management : Part 4. A Brazilian perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. Servian de Cardozo, J.F. 1990. Problematica 39:563-78. de las plagas y los plaguicidas en el sector campesino. In: Consulta Sudamericana Reed, A.N. 1993. Low or no chemical: will it sobre Manejo Integrado de Plagas en la work?, p. 135 - 144. In Proceedings of Agricultura Campesina. Instituto the Eighty-eighth Annual Meeting., Agronomico Nacional, Caacupe, Washington State Horticulture Paraguay. Association. Soon, L.G. 1996. Integrated pest Reed, A.N. 1995. Responsible Choice: A management in developing countries, p systems approach to growing, packing, 61-75. In G. J. Persley (ed.), and marketing fruit, p. 68-78. In J. Hull Biotechnology and integrated pest Jr. & R. Perry, The 125th Annual Report management. Biotechnology in of the Secretary of the State Horticultural Agriculture, No. 15. Cab International, Society of Michigan for the year 1995. UK, 475 p.

Reed, A.N. & P. Nelson. 1996. Reasonable Sorensen, A. A. 1998. Integrated pest choice - an IFP approach, p. 319- 320. In management: future farming takes lessons F. Polesny, W. Müller & R. W. Olszak from the past. Electronic Publication (eds.), Proceedings of the International (http://ificinfo.health.org/insight/int- Conference on Integrated Fruit pest.htm). Production, Cedzyna, Poland, 28 August - 2 September 1995. Acta-Horticulturae, Sterling, W. 1984. Action and Inaction No. 422. 443 p. Levels in Pest Management. College Março, 1999 An. Soc. Entomol. Brasil 28(1) 25

Station, Texas, Texas Agr. Exp. Station. pesticides: A self-instruction guide. B-1480, 20 p. Fresno, California, Thompson, 274 p.

Sugonyaev, E. S. 1994. Cotton pest Warner, G. 1998. People want IFP fruit, management: Part 5. A Commonwealth but are unwilling to pay more. Good Fruit of Independent State perspective. Annu. Grower, 49(15): 22-23. Rev. Entomol. 39:579-92. WRI - World Resource Institute. 1994. Surgeoner, G.A. & W. Roberts. 1993. World resources - a guide to the global Reducing pesticide use by 50% in the environment; people and the province of Ontario: challenges and environment; resource consumption; progress. p. 206-222. In D. Pimentel & population growth; women. New York, H. Lehman (eds.), The Pesticide question Oxford University Press, 400p. : environment, economics, and ethics. New York, Chapman & Hall. 441 p Zethner, O. 1995. Practice of integrated pest management in tropical and sub-tropical Thompson, G. 1998. Industry and individual Africa: An overview of two decades company's perspective on resistance (1970-1990). In A.N. Mengech, K.N. management. Resistance Pest Saxena & H.N. B. Gopalan (eds.), Management 9: 6-9. Integrated pest management in the tropics- current status and future Van den Bosch, R. 1978. The Pesticide prospects. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Conspiracy. Garden City, N.Y., 171 p. Doubleday, 226 p. Zhaohui, Z., P. Yongfan & L. Juru. 1992. Vandeman, A., J. Fernandez-Cornejo, S. National integrated pest management of Jans & B. Lin. 1994. Adoption of major crops in China, p. 255 - 66. In integrated pest management in U.S. P.A.C. Ooi, G.S. Lim, T.H. Ho, P.L. agriculture. Resources and Technical Manalo & J. Waage (eds.), Integrated Division, Economic Research Service, Pest Management in the Asia-Pacific USDA. Agri. Info. Bull. No. 707. Region. CAB International, UK.

Wardhani, M.A. 1991. Development in Zurawicz, F., A. Bielenin & B.H. IPM: the Indonesian case. p.27-35. In Labanowska. 1996. Preliminary scheme P.A.C Ooi, G.S. Lim, T.H. Ho, P.L. for IFP of soft fruit in Poland, p. 35-41. Manalo & J. Waage (eds.), Proceedings In F. Polesny, W. Müller & R.W. Olszak of the Conference on IPM in the Asia- (eds.), Proceedings of the International Pacific Region, 23-27 September 1991, Conference on Integrated Fruit Kaula Lumpur, Malasia. Production, 28 August - 2 September, 1995. Acta Horticulture, No. 422, 443p. Ware, G.W. 1986. Fundamental of