Proceedings of the Asia regional workshop on the

Myths in <strong>the</strong> farming communities regarding chemical pest control, lack <strong>of</strong> proper awareness
<strong>of</strong> pesticides and irresponsible promotion <strong>of</strong> products in <strong>the</strong> field by suppliers/dealers have
contributed towards number <strong>of</strong> incorrect practices. Selection <strong>of</strong> chemicals for pest problems, timing,
frequency and dosage <strong>of</strong> application are some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most frequent indiscriminate uses carried out by
farmers. This would result in poor yield, high input cost and low quality produce.
Therefore, farmers should be properly educated through comprehensive campaigns designed,
based upon technical as well as socio-economic aspects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> farming community. Integrated Pest
Management (IPM), <strong>the</strong> internationally acclaimed solution to indiscriminate use <strong>of</strong> pesticides, has
been declared as one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> government policies in sustainable development <strong>of</strong> agriculture. The
government <strong>of</strong> Sri Lanka has a long-standing commitment to IPM. In <strong>the</strong> policy statement (1994) <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> President <strong>of</strong> Sri Lanka it was declared that “<strong>the</strong> dependency on chemical fertilizers and
agro-chemicals will be progressively reduced through soil fertility improvement measures, adoption
<strong>of</strong> integrated pest management and o<strong>the</strong>r agronomic practices”.
Successes <strong>of</strong> Integrated Pest Management
Sri Lanka has a very successful IPM program in rice spread all over <strong>the</strong> country, initially
sponsored by FAO from 1984-2001. The success was made possible by right policy decisions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
governments with regard to pest management coupled with <strong>the</strong> availability <strong>of</strong> relevant technologies
and institutional arrangements which has facilitated <strong>the</strong> efforts <strong>of</strong> control on pesticide use
(Administration Report, Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, 2000, 2002).
The success <strong>of</strong> IPM program in rice over <strong>the</strong> last several years has resulted in <strong>the</strong> demand for
IPM for o<strong>the</strong>r field crops as well. During 1996 yala season IPM was adopted for chili crop that
consumes extremely high quantities <strong>of</strong> pesticides. The Farmer Field Schools (FFS) conducted with
a group <strong>of</strong> chili farmers were able to change <strong>the</strong>ir attitudes on pesticide use and reduced <strong>the</strong> pesticide
usage by about 75 percent (Administration Report, Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, 2000). This has
motivated agriculture research for fur<strong>the</strong>r studies on IPM for chili and o<strong>the</strong>r crops as well. Most
farmers in <strong>the</strong> central region <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country were adopting rice/vegetable mixed cropping pattern with
rice being <strong>the</strong> minor crop. Since <strong>the</strong>se farmers seldom apply any insecticide on rice <strong>the</strong> positive gain
by IPM was not evident. Unlike in rice, vegetable farmers apply large quantities <strong>of</strong> pesticides to <strong>the</strong>ir
vegetable crops. The experience gained by <strong>the</strong>m through rice/FFS on ecosystem analysis and
identification <strong>of</strong> pests and <strong>the</strong>ir relationship with natural enemies have made a considerable change in
<strong>the</strong>ir thinking about pesticide usage in <strong>the</strong> growing <strong>of</strong> vegetables. These preliminary observations
confirmed that <strong>the</strong>re is much scope for IPM in vegetable production. Expansion <strong>of</strong> IPM on
vegetables is fur<strong>the</strong>r explored by <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture with <strong>the</strong> technical backup given to
<strong>the</strong> provincial extension service to conduct IPM demonstrations in farmer fields on tomato and leafy
vegetables (Administration Report, Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, 2000).
It has been observed that if a promotional package is <strong>of</strong>fered with alternatives to <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong>
pesticides such as IPM, we can anticipate a reduction in <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> pesticides or a deviation from <strong>the</strong>
trend in chemical dependant pest control (Sumith, 2002). The significance reduction in <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong>
fenobucarb (BPMC) in 1995 compared to that <strong>of</strong> 1990 (Figure 2) may be a result <strong>of</strong> intensive rice
IPM program conducted by <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture where fenobucarb is mainly used in rice
Brown Plant Hopper (BPH) control.
The overall impact <strong>of</strong> IPM revealed that (1) Reduction in insecticide use: IPM farmers use
an average <strong>of</strong> 0.48 insecticide applications against 2.27 applications by non-IPM farmers per season
in all 8 provinces; (2) Yields: IPM farmers obtain 23 percent higher yields than non-IPM farmers on
<strong>the</strong> average in <strong>the</strong> experimental fields; (3) Durability <strong>of</strong> FFS training: IPM farmers still continue to
- 162 -