and Integrated Pest Management - part - usaid

ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION OF 1PM 171
Waibel (1986) has reported that in sonic IPM trials a slight increase in risk
was detected. Given normal risk aversion, however, this should still be
acceptable to farmers.
It is, nevertheless, apparent that farmers still regard expenditure on pesticides
as a form of "insurance premium" and in view of the fact that this expenditure
accounts for only 5%of total production costs, there is a tendency to use more
than the opt;mum from the economic viewpoint. It secr.is that farmers rate the
risk of biological control techniques higher than risk of chemical control
practices.
The Project Executing Agency
IPM projects generally entail only . low level of investment as their
principal task is often to introduce new subject matter into the extension work of
an existing plant protection service. However, IPM projects essentially need onfarm
data collection and processing, means of transport, training of technicians
(training centers), and extension (farmers' training centers or mass
ccmmunication). Bioogical control always calls for a sizable research effort in
IPM projects.
All in all, expenditure during tie first ten years of investment is likely to be
somewhere in the order of USS4-9 million. The follow-up costs directly
attributable to IPM are well below USS0.5 million per year, but may rise
depending on extension intensity (Table 2).
If the capital costs and running costs are apportioned over the area of land on
which the new pest managemenit strategies are used, in the long run, investment
during the first ten years amounts to a total of US$1 per ha. It can rise to over
C.SS100 per ha if a complete plant protection service has to be set up and
appropriate research work becomes necessary, as in Cape Verde (Table 3).
The project executing agency cannot expect to derive any direct income from
a project of this type. Indeed, it often even loses the revenue obtained from the
sale of pesticides since IPM projects, of course, aim to reduce pesticide
application.
Table 2. Investment cost of IPM projects over 10 years in millions of US$
(DaxI & Schubert 1986, Doppler et al. 1986, Grosse-Ruschkamp et al.
1985, Neutatz etal. 1985).
Philippines
1987-1996
Thailand
1983-1992
Nicaragua
1981-1990
Cape Verde
1978- 1987
Donor contribution 5.45 5.80
3.27 3.40
CP-country
0.85 3.45
1.36 0.66
(estimate)
in %of total 14 37 29 16
Total 6.30 9.25 4.63 4.06