 |
|
|
|
Barry Jacobsen
|
|||||||
|
|
|
| American Samoa | Guam | Federated States of Micronesia | Northern Marianas | Virgin Islands | Washington, D.C. |
CSREES, Directory of Personnel
II. Establish and conduct a process for identifying the IPM implementation needs of producers and provide the support and resources necessary to conduct a coordinated program of research, development, and delivery of education and information to meet producers' IPM implementation needs.
III. Develop methods and conduct programs to accurately measure progress toward the 75 percent IPM goal and assess the impacts of IPM implementation on the public and private sector as measured by economic, environmental, public health and social factors.
IV. Implement a communication and information exchange program involving stakeholders
to increase public and policy-maker understanding of the USDA IPM Initiative, it's
objectives, progress, impacts, and benefits.
This approach to reduction in risks from pesticide use and development of more
sustainable agricultural production strategies was adopted by USDA and EPA rather than the
mandated use reduction strategy adopted by several European governments in the early
1990s. Since the first coordinated federal funding for IPM was provided for the Huffacker
project by EPA, NSF and USDA in 1972 and Extension Pest Management Education (Smith-lever
3(d)) funding in 1973, the federal investment in all IPM related research and education
programs has been approximately $180 million per year . In 1995, an increase of $25,000 in
Smith-Lever 3(d) Pest Management Education funding was provided to each state and
territory to conduct a process with farmers and others to identify and prioritize needs
for IPM implementation for key commodities in each state. The Clinton Administration first
requested increased budget support for the IPM Initiative in FY 1996. In FY1996, Congress
appropriated increased funding of $2.0 million for the Pest Management Alternatives
Program component of the IPM Initiative. Funding for the USDA IPM Initiative was again
requested in the Executive budget for FY 1997 with an estimated total federal investment
of $204.9 million an increase of $15.1 million over the appropriated FY 1996 budget.
IMPORTANCE OF ADOPTING IPM
Pest control represents approximately 34 percent of a farmer's variable crop production
costs and pests continue to cause losses of 10 to 30 percent with current pest control
strategies. In addition co existing pests, farmers are continually challenged by new pests
such as Karnel bunt, new races of potato late blight, sweetpotato whitefly plus associated
gemini viruses, and the brown citrus aphid and the associated citrus tristeza virus. These
and other pests not only reduce profitability but often threaten export markets.
Pesticides are an important tool used by farmers to control pests. However,
environmental regulation, pest resistance to pesticides and consumer concerns have reduced
the use and availability of pesticides and has dramatically limited the introduction of
new pest control chemicals. Thus, farmers are looking to USDA and Land Grant University
research and extension scientists to provide new and improved pest management strategies.
The IPM Initiative will do this by: 1) providing farmers with pest control tools including
chemical pesticides, biological control products or cultural tactics to replace
agricultural chemicals which are under regulatory consideration or whose registrations
have been voluntarily canceled by registrants, and for which producers do not have
effective alternatives; 2)providing alternatives where pest resistance limits IPM options;
and 3) providing biologically- based and other sustainable strategies for management of
existing and new pests in cropping systems.
Integrated pest management is a science-based strategy that provides answers to
important pest control problems by identifying and introducing new pest control tools for
farmers emphasizing biologically-based IPM products and ecological principles. IPM is
defined as "a sustainable approach to managing pests by combining biological,
cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and
environmental risks". It is the only proven approach that can simultaneously: 1)
Increase producer profitability and competitiveness; 2) Provide consumers with safe, high
quality, economical supply of food and other agricultural products; 3) Reduce
environmental and human health risks associated with pesticide use on farms, ranches,
homes, parks, forests, buildings, and range lands; 4) Open and enhance new export markets;
5) Enhance the sustainability of natural resources; and 6) Support new business
opportunities in consulting and production of new IPM products.
USDA's IPM Initiative identifies new pest management tools through fundamental research
and moves this science from the laboratory to the farm to solve priority pest control
problems identified by farmers. A unique feature of this Initiative is that it based on
grower-identified research and extension needs and voluntary implementation. This approach
to pesticide risk reduction is compared to mandated pesticide use reduction laws enacted
by several European governments. In a recent University of California, Department of
Public Health study, IPM was evaluated to be a more effective strategy for reducing farmer
reliance on pesticides while maintaining competitiveness than mandatory use reduction
laws. The European mandatory use reduction laws based on amounts of active ingredient
resulted in farmers primarily switching to new, lower use rate pesticides and not
substituting biologically-based IPM strategies. The IPM Initiative will provide funding
for research and extension education to help growers increase utilization of IPM-based
pest control strategies. Failure to support the Initiative will slow the development and
implementation of new biologically-based IPM products, and will limit the alternatives
available to farmers for addressing important pest control problems.
Investments in IPM research to-date have resulted in adoption of IPM-based pest control
strategies by some farmers. USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that the most basic
level of IPM was used on approximately 50 percent of U.S. cropland in 1994. However, this
study showed that the majority of crop producers were only able to implement low to
moderate levels of IPM due to lack of IPM tools for the full range of crops and pests that
need to be addressed on their farms. The IPM Initiative will provide farmers with the
tools and knowledge needed to implement more comprehensive IPM strategies on these acres
and to introduce IPM on the other 50 percent of U.S. cropland. This is essential if U.S.
farmers are to reduce pest losses in the future and remain world-class competitors. A
recent study has shown that 74 percent of Iowa farmers investing in IPM implementation
report a two- to five-fold return on their investment. This detailed study is one example
of the benefits of IPM use reported throughout the United States. In addition, the federal
investment in IPM has helped leverage financial commitments by states, commodity groups
and industry for IPM research, education and technology transfer.
USDA's IPM Initiative engages, in a partnership mode, the Land Grant University system
and all appropriate federal agencies with farmers in identifying needs and setting IPM
research and extension education priorities. More than 4250 customers, including 3205
farmers are currently involved in identifying priority research and extension needs for
IPM implementation for key commodities at the state level. In addition to the state-level
needs assessment process, 23 production region IPM teams in 44 states have identified
needs for crop production systems in regions. These teams involve 154 farmers or crop
consultants, 36 food processors or marketers, state and national level commodity
organizations, agribusinesses, USDA and EPA field personnel, and research and extension
faculty at cooperating Land Grant Universities. This approach to "buy in by
researchers, farmers and others involved in all phases of the development and
implementation of IPM programs" was complimented by the 1995 Office of Technology
Assessment study, "Biologically Based Technologies for Pest Control" as being a
proven method to ensure the expeditious flow from research projects into applications by
farmers and private practitioners.
This participatory needs identification and priority-setting process has created high
expectations for implementation of the USDA IPM Initiative by U.S. farmers, agribusiness,
and environmental and public interest groups. A common statement made by farmers and
others involved in this process is "not only are these things important, we want them
done!" Funding currently available for research and extension is insufficient to
comprehensively address these producer-identified needs in a timely manner. The budget
requested for the IPM Initiative is based on meeting these producer identified needs in
the next 6-7 years. Again, the 1995 Office of Technology Assessment Study,
"Biologically Based Technologies for Pest Control", evaluated the USDA IPM
Initiative "as addressing a number of criticisms " raised in the report on
moving from research to implementation. This report concludes that, "Ultimately the
impact of the USDA IPM Initiative will depend on sustained commitments from USDA, the
Administration, and the Congress".
INVESTMENT NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT THE USDA IPM INITIATIVE
The budget request for the USDA IPM Initiative is based on meeting farmer and other
stakeholder identified research and extension education needs for 75% IPM implementation
within a 6-7 year time period. For research and education programs in CSREES, an
investment of $27.5 million (budget increase of $12 million) is required in FY1997. In FY
1998, we will propose an increase of $8.0 million (to a total of $35.5 million) to provide
the IPM research and extension education support needed to implement basic to advanced IPM
strategies on 75% of the nation's crop acres. This level of support will need to be
sustained for 6-7 years to successfully address the needs identified for selected major
cropping systems representing more than75% of the nation's cropland.
These funds have been requested in the IPM and Biological Control Research, Pest
Management Education, Emerging Pest and Disease Issues budget lines. These resources will
support: 1) on-going core regional and state programs, 2) new production system IPM
development and implementation projects, and 3) the development of alternative management
technologies. Funding for new IPM component research and extension education and
technology transfer programs is needed in the four regional IPM competitive grants
programs. These programs are funded through IPM and Biological Control Research (PL89-106
Special Research) and the Pest Management Education (Smith-Lever 3(d)) budget lines. The
four regional competitive grants programs will be supported with $3.8 million from the IPM
and Biological Control Research budget line and approximately $700,000 from the Pest
Management Education line in FY 1997 and are responsive to the needs and priorities
identified by production region and state IPM teams. In addition, the Pest Management
Education budget line supports the critical basic education and technology transfer
infrastructure necessary to transfer IPM research to farmers via Extension programs in
every state/county at approximately $10.1 million per year. We will not be able to achieve
the 75 percent goal without strengthening this basic education and technology transfer
infrastructure. Also, the fundamental research supported by the National Research
Initiative and the USDA Agricultural Research Service undergirds the IPM component and
systems research program.
A three-phase process to develop and implement IPM for crop production systems has been
planned. This process is essential in developing and providing the "right tools"
for farmers to implement IPM methods on 75% of the nation's crop acres. The three phases
are:
I. Formation and development of IPM project development teams that address cropping
systems in crop production regions. These crop production regions typically address more
than existing administrative regions. In 1995 and 1996, 23 production region IPM teams
composed of farmers, consultants, research and extension staff, state and federal
agencies, and others identified priority research, education, and technology transfer
needs to implement new and improved IPM programs for specific crop production systems. In
FY 1997, we envision expenditure of $400,000 to develop approximately 20 new production
system teams that will address cropping systems not addressed previously. These teams will
develop implementation project plans for funding in FY 1998. These teams plus those formed
in 1995 will address IPM implementation for 40-45 major cropping systems in the United
States and will incorporate needs and priorities from the state level IPM teams.
II. Initiation of specific crop production system IPM development and implementation
projects that address the identified research and extension education needs identified in
Phase I. To achieve the needs identified, we envision that approximately 30-35 production
system projects will be needed to achieve the 75% goal. These projects will fund the
research and education needed to develop and implement IPM for regional cropping systems
and will be based on proposals developed by IPM teams submitted for funding through a
competitive process in FY 1997 and FY 1998. Requested funding for FY 1997 will
competitively fund approximately 16 projects at up to $500,000 per project per year; these
projects will be funded for up to 6 years with a mandatory mid-point review. Approximately
16 additional projects will be initiated in FY 1998 for cropping systems not addressed in
projects initiated in FY1997.
III. Privatization of IPM systems in regional cropping systems. Experience has shown
that implementation of IPM and privatization by farmers, crop consultants, IPM
cooperatives or pest management associations has occurred where adequate IPM tools have
been developed and economic and environmental benefits are identifiable. Phase II projects
will provide these prerequisites for privatization. Development of private sector IPM
services will be much slower if the USDA IPM Initiative is not funded. Core formula
extension and research programs plus ongoing base IPM support for regional IPM grant
programs will provide the needed education and technology transfer to farmers, crop
consultants, cooperatives and agribusiness plus the development of IPM tools for existing
and new pest problems. Extension educators associated with the Health, Environmental and
Pesticide Safety Education Program will be critical in educating pesticide applicators and
operators in IPM- based pest control technologies.
Budget Summary: FY 1997 funding for Phase I
and II will be $4.2million from the IPM and Biological Control Research (PL89-106 Special
Research) and $4.2 million from the Pest Management Education(Smith-Lever 3(d)) budget
lines (total $8.4 million). An additional$4.0 million in each of these budget lines will
be requested in FY1998. The four regional competitive grants programs will be supported
with $3.8 million from the IPM and Biological Control Research budget line and
approximately $700,000 from the Pest Management Education line in FY 1997(total $4.5
million). Core IPM extension education programs will be funded at $10.1 million from the
Pest Management Education (Smith-Lever 3(d) budget line. Total budget request for FY1997
for these programs is $23.0 million.
Increased support is also needed for the Emerging Pest and Disease Issues budget line.
This budget line includes the Pest Management Alternatives Program. This competitive
grants program addresses the Memorandum of Understanding between the EPA and USDA to: 1)
provide farmers with chemical pesticides, biological control products or cultural tactics
to replace agricultural chemicals which are under regulatory consideration or whose
registrations have been voluntarily canceled by registrants, and for which producers do
not have effective alternatives; 2) provide alternatives where pest resistance limits IPM
options; and 3) help farmers implement new alternative pest management tactics. This
program will require $4.5 million in FY1997. The process to identify critical needs, at
the state level, for this program is supported by NAPIAP and state Extension IPM
Coordinators. Registration of new biological or other pest control products is coordinated
with the IR-4 Minor Crop Use Registration Program and the USEPA. A Pest Management
Information Decision Support System has been developed to facilitate process of
identifying critical needs for research funding.
Other USDA Agency Budget Requests Involving the IPM Initiative:
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Area wide IPM Research: This program focuses on
management of pests where existing technologies(including pheromones, biocontrols and
alternatives to pesticides that disrupt natural control systems) are most effective when
used over a multistage area. Control of codling moth with mating disruption on apple and
pear in the western United States is an example. Other pest/crop systems are currently
under evaluation, including corn rootworm in the Midwest. (1997 budget request is $6.0
million, an increase of $2.2 million)
Economic Research Service (ERS) Assessment of IPM Initiative Impacts: A program to
analyze pest management data and develop procedures for: 1) development of economic
thresholds, and 2) coordination of assessments of economic, environmental and public
health impacts of IPM programs. (1997 budget request is $0.5 million, no increase over
1996)
Ongoing Research and Application Programs ($ million): CSREES - National Research
Initiative $16.5, Hatch formula/Pesticide-related grants $17.6, SARE $3.2; ARS - $65.2; FS
-Research $9.2, Application $6.5; ERS - $0.1; APHIS - Biocontrol $3.5,Methods and
laboratories $10.0; FSA-ACP/IPM cost share $8.0.
Ongoing Pesticide Data Generation, Collection, Assessment, andTraining Programs ($
million): NASS - $6.7; ERS - $1.9; AMS - $2.7;ARS/CSREES (IR-4) - $13.3; ARS/CSREES/ERS/FS
(NAPIAP) - $6.5.
TOTAL IPM INITIATIVE AND OTHER IPM-RELATED PROGRAMS BUDGET REQUESTFY96 = $189.7
MILLION; FY97 = $204.9 million, an increase of $15.1million
Suggested Reading
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Biologically BasedTechnologies for Pest
Control, OTA- ENV-636 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1995
Proceedings of the National Integrated Pest Management Forum-June17-19, 1992. American
Farmland Trust
National Integrated Pest Management Forum: Discussion Papers of the Constraints
Resolution Teams, June 1992
Food, Crop Pests, and the Environment. Edited by Frank G. Zalom and William E. Fry. APS
Press, St. Paul, MN 1992
Pesticides in California: Use patterns and Strategies for Reducing Environmental Health
Impacts. Pease, W.S., J. Liebman, D. Landy, and D. Albright. University of California,
California Policy Seminar, Berkeley, CA. 1996
Ecologically Based Pest Management: New Solutions for a New Century. National Research
Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.1996
Integrated Pest Management: The Path of A Paradigm. J. R. Cate and Maureen K. Hinkle.
National Audubon Society, Washington, DC 1994
Return to Radcliffe's IPM World Textbook Home Page.
The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
Privacy Policy
Last modified: Tuesday, 16 April, 1996
© Regents of the University of Minnesota, 1996
