Participatory
IPM Development and Extension
The Case of Bean Foliage Beetles in Hai,
Northern Tanzania
J.K.O.
Ampofo, U. Holenweger & S.M. Massomo
Studies
of the Pest’s Biology and Ecology
Evaluation
of Potential Control Strategies
Summary
of the Research and Technology Development Process
Extension-led
Scaling-up of Participatory IPM Dissemination in Hai District
Abstract
During the cropping season of 1996, farmers from Masama in Hai District, northern Tanzania, requested assistance to diagnose and develop solutions to a pest that was constraining bean production in the area. In collaboration with the farmers and staff of the district extension service, a research team identified bean foliage beetle (BFB) (Ootheca spp) through participatory surveys, problem diagnosis and monitoring of pest biology and ecology. The understanding of the pest biology and ecology enabled the farmers to identify opportunities for pest management. The opportunities focused on cultural strategies, including the use of botanical pesticides, timely planting, crop rotation and post-harvest tillage. These were further evaluated with the farmers, who were then able to select strategies that they felt were compatible with their production circumstances. At the end of the1997 season, they observed that a community approach was necessary to solve the BFB problem because the pest could fly from one field to another. The farmers approached the local administration to set by-laws to enforce the adoption of some of the strategies.
In1999 the extension service requested a wider dissemination of the technologies. A stakeholders' workshop was held to select suitable technologies and dissemination pathways to reach the wider farming community in the district. The technologies and pathways selected differed from one village to another, in accordance with resources and opportunities available to them. In each location, the extension staff discussed the opportunities for BFB management and encouraged the community to modify them and include their traditional practices, and these were evaluated together by the community. In many cases, the traditional IPM methods proved to be as effective as the ones coming from the initial research. The community at large was informed of the IPM technologies through farmer-organised field days during which all participants reviewed the dissemination process and suggested ways of improvement.
The results were discussed in a second workshop during which all stakeholders critically evaluated the dissemination process, and recommendations for improvement and wider dissemination of the IPM methods were adopted. All participants appreciated the participatory mode of technology generation and dissemination and farmers identified new problems that they would like to solve using this process. In most cases, participating farmers generated enough confidence in themselves to want to share their experiences with non-participants in their community, and groups of farmers would meet to use the process to analyse and develop solutions to their problems. Already farmers in Hai District have started a programme on local radio to disseminate IPM strategies.
A proposal is under consideration for
support from DFID[1], the Africa
bean research networks (ECABREN[2]
and SABRN[3])
and CIAT (International Centre for Tropical Agriculture) to institutionalise
the process and to use it to generate and disseminate IPM strategies more
widely across bean-growing environments in eastern, central and southern
Africa.
Introduction
Technologically sound and effective integrated pest management (IPM) strategies are often not adopted because farmers' production circumstances are frequently not well understood, or sometimes neglected in the generation and packaging of technologies. This is largely due to the fact that smallholder agriculture has often been considered primitive and to the assumption that yields could be improved only by supplying deficiencies through the introduction of external inputs. Smallholder farmers, however, operate in complex, diverse and risk-prone environments. Fixed prescriptions such as IPM packages do not work in such circumstances, since site-specific agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions often determine what is best at one place (Van Huis 1997). To improve upon this, several concepts on farmer involvement in technology generation and diffusion have been proposed and tried. IPM technology generation is moving from the research station trials and subsequent transfer of results by the conventional extension system approach to different levels of farmer participation to ensure greater suitability of the technology to farmers' production circumstances and adoption.
In this paper, we describe some participatory approaches that we have used to develop and disseminate IPM strategies for bean foliage beetles (BFB) (Ootheca spp, Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) with farming communities in Hai District in northern Tanzania. The projects were initiated on invitation from the Hai District Extension Office to assist the village communities to address some of their production constraints. They were conducted through community-learning activities.
Context
The initial community-learning site in the Hai District was Boma Ng’ombe in the Masama Division on the Sanya Plain (about 950 m elevation), which lies between Mount Meru and Mount Kilimanjaro. Records from the nearby Kilimanjaro Airport suggest an erratic bimodal rainfall with peaks in April–May (140 mm) and November–December (40 mm). The soils are shallow, stony and weakly developed lithosols (JKADP 1977, Lundgren 1978) and irrigation water is limited to a few areas only. A mixture of ethnic groups dominated by the Wachagga populates the area. The population density is currently low: about 50 persons per km² but increasing with immigrants from the uplands. The main occupation is crop and livestock farming, with maize, beans and horticultural crops such as tomatoes, carrots, cabbages and sunflower as the main crops. The principal growing season is March–June. The area lies along the main Moshi–Arusha highway and production is market driven and directed to the two major towns, Moshi and Arusha.
In a Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) covering the Masama Division, Aminu-Kano et al (1992) observed that the farmers did not cite any problems associated with bean production. At that time, beans constituted a minor crop in their production system. In recent years, however, farmers consider beans as a more profitable crop and grow it as a monocrop for season after season. Crop rotation is poorly practised. Several problems associated with continuous cropping of the same species have emerged as a result.
Problem Identification
During the long rainy season of 1997, the Hai District Commissioner, Mr Raymond Mushi, requested help from CIAT and the Selian Research Station to address a problem that was affecting bean crops in smallholders’ fields. Because of our previous experience with farming communities in Mbuguni Ward (CIAT 1998), the research team decided to adopt a PTD approach in handling this case. During a preliminary survey, the research team went with extension agents to sample the fields in the affected areas and discussed the cropping history with the farmers in order to diagnose the problem. The farmers showed us visitors the plants with symptoms they were complaining about. The symptoms were stunted plants with yellowish leaves and premature senescence (growing old). Researchers uprooted plants showing these symptoms and examined the roots to find out the organisms affecting them. In almost all damaged plants, there were larvae on the roots or in the soil where they were growing. The research team encouraged the farmers and extension officers also to uproot and check for themselves and they all reported the same observation. Some lateral roots had been pruned off and the nodules had collapsed and the attached roots had the epidermis lacerated. Healthy plants were free of larvae and damage. We (farmers, extension agents and researchers) concluded tentatively that those larvae were causing the above-ground damage symptoms we were seeing. The researchers identified the larvae as Ootheca (BFB).
After the preliminary survey by researchers and the district extension officers (led by Dr Edward Ulicky), we invited the farmers to a plenary meeting of representatives of all the communities concerned to share the results of the initial survey; to plan studies to understand better the pest, its spread and ecology; and to develop research activities and solutions to address it.
Studies of the Pest’s Biology and Ecology
After the initial investigation, the research team confirmed the problem as BFB larvae attacking roots of bean plants and causing premature senescence. However, the farmers and some extension officers could not relate the adult BFB and its damage (chewing holes in leaves, defoliation) to the larval damage (root feeding, nodule poaching and the resulting premature senescence) they were observing. The local belief was that “the BFB come with the rains but heavy rain effectively drowns them.” Because of this, the only solution they could suggest was rain. We agreed to do a participatory study of the biology and ecology of the pest by following through the development of the larvae until they turned into adults and continued through oviposition (laying of eggs) and the different stages again, i.e. a full life cycle of the pest. We did this through sequential sampling of affected plots and mapping out the distribution in the area as well as distribution in relation to soil depth. Changes in the life stages of the pest were also monitored in the process until the adults had formed. This helped farmers in understanding the biology and ecology of the pest and, subsequently, in developing management strategies. The biology is described in Table 2 and Figure 1. The pest was widely distributed, but the severity of its damage varied in the area. Over 80% of the subterranean forms were within the top 20 cm of the soil and the mean population was about 100 insects/m2. The study helped all participants understand the BFB life cycle and ecology better. This enabled them to identify potential control methods (see Phase 2 in Table 1) and to participate actively in generating strategies for BFB management.
Such strategies included (as listed in Table 3):
- post-harvest tillage – to expose the immature stages in the soil;
- crop rotation, the farmers observed that large-scale growers who often rotated beans with other crops do not have the problem;
- delayed sowing of beans – they observed that the problem was more acute in the early sown crop;
- application of pesticides such as neem etc.
These were subjected to experiments under farmer/researcher-designed and farmer-managed conditions. The results are summarised in Figures 2–5.
Studies
of the Pest’s Biology and Ecology
Evaluation of Potential Control Strategies
Zero
Tillage and Post-Harvest Tillage
All people involved in the experiments discussed the findings during evaluation meetings and contributed to the conclusions and recommendations. The following is a short description of the results and appreciation of the strategies tested (see also Figures 2– 5).
Zero
Tillage and Post-Harvest Tillage
Both practices reduced pest emergence from the soil and subsequent crop damage. Post-harvest tillage exposed the subterraneous form of the insect to the elements and predators and reduced the residual population of the pest. Tillage just before planting facilitated the emergence of the pest from the soil as compared to zero tillage (Figure 2). There was general consensus that, because of the pest's ability to fly to other plots, these treatments would be ineffective when practised in isolation.
Crop
Rotation
Maize, beans, cowpeas and soybeans were planted after beans in a plot known to have a high level of residual BFB infestation. There was BFB emergence in response to the germinating beans and cowpeas but not to the maize and soybeans (non-hosts) (Figure 3). Mr Ringo, one of the farmers who had been doing experimentation on his own, had rotated his beans with sunflower and similarly observed that sunflower suppressed the emergence of BFB compared with beans. This was a clear indication that growing beans after beans in the same plot permitted the continuous development of BFB and its population build-up and that rotation with non-hosts interrupted the cycle and reduced the pest population.
Delayed
Sowing of Beans
Beans sown late (mid-April) emerged when BFB populations were low and were less heavily attacked compared to the March-sown crop (Figure 4).
Neem
Sprays
Foliar application of neem-seed oil and neem-seed powder protected the bean plants from adult infestation for periods of more than five days per application (Figure 5).
Evaluation
of Potential Control Strategies
Summary of the Research and Technology Development Process
We had several phases of discussion and
participatory research activities as summarised in Table 1.
At the end of each phase, we discussed the findings in an open plenary meeting,
made inferences from the results and developed further activities. Experiments
conducted were developed mostly through discussion with farmers and the
extension officers. Some farmers (e.g. Mr Ringo) did their individual research,
based on the available information, which turned out to be complementary to the
group research. They shared the results with the larger group during the
plenary meetings. Further experiments were based on the results of the previous
ones. We developed control strategies collectively as listed in Table
3.
The farmers observed that, while the methods we had developed worked well, they were unlikely to be effective if applied individually on small plots because the pest could fly from one field to another. In fact, some farmers who had practised post-harvest tillage (and still had their plots attacked) accused others who had not for “letting their insects invade other farmers’ fields”. In a plenary meeting, the farmers appealed to the local administration to pass a by-law to enforce area-wide adoption of the IPM strategies. All agreed in that meeting that the technologies should be extended to other communities beyond Masama Division.
Table 1: A summary of farmer-group discussion, research activities and
research and development needs as identified and agreed on by the farmers,
extension agents and researchers
|
Phase |
Discussion points |
Activities |
Research & development needs |
|
1 |
Discussion on cropping history of sampling sites. |
Problem identification and analysis. Field sampling of plants, roots and soil for the
cause of above-ground symptoms. |
|
|
2 |
Phase 1 research results. Potential control strategies. |
Field visits to monitor on-going research
activities. |
Evaluation of potential control strategies:
|
|
3 |
General research results. Strategies for area-wide management. |
Request
to local administration to enforce community adoption of area-wide management
strategies. |
Extension of management strategies with posters,
bulletins and farmer-to-farmer activities. |
Table 2: A summary of Ootheca life
cycle in relation to bean planting cycle at Hai, northern Tanzania (see also Figure 1)
|
Period |
Developmental activity |
|
March /
April |
Adult
emergence in synchrony with rains and planting of beans. The adults cause
defoliation of bean seedlings. Adults mate and lay eggs in soil near bean
plants. Emerging larvae feed on bean roots, removing secondary roots and
causing injury to the primary roots. They also poach nodules. |
|
May /
June |
Larval
damage to rooting system disturbs nutrient flow from the soil and causes
plants to senesce (grow old) prematurely and bear few pods, each with few
seeds. |
|
July |
Beans are harvested but Ootheca is left in the soil in different stages of development;
populations may exceed 100/m2. Land is left to fallow and Ootheca population development
continues. |
|
August |
Pupation
starts in the soil. |
|
September |
Adults
are formed but remain in soil and undergo diapause (suspension of
development). |
|
October–March/April |
Adults remain
in diapause until the beginning of the rains, when they emerge to attack
newly emerged beans. |
Table 3: A summary of
farmer-group discussion on possible control strategies
|
Strategy |
Views for: |
Views against: |
|
Post-harvest tillage |
BFB is
not a problem in commercial production system where this is practised. |
Hai
soils are rocky, and post-harvest tillage may be difficult. |
|
Insecticide application |
Use of insecticides will require a collective
approach so all farms will be sprayed simultaneously to avoid migration to
other fields. |
|
|
Delayed planting |
May be useful in monocropped beans. |
Rainfall distribution may not allow crop to grow to full maturity. |
|
Crop rotation |
A potentially good strategy. |
May not be practical where fields are small. |
|
Biological control |
No knowledge available, there is need for research
to identify possible natural enemies. |
|
Summary
of the Research and Technology Development Process
Extension-led Scaling-up of
Participatory IPM Dissemination in Hai District
At the end of the research and development of management strategies, all agreed that the results should be spread to the whole district. The District Extension Service, headed by Dr Edward Ulicky, called a meeting in Hai of Village Extension Officers (VEOs) and farmer representatives from the “hot-spot” areas. The collaborators from the first phase of the project in Boma Ng’ombe, above all the participating farmers, described the activities they had undertaken to solve the BFB problem. We reviewed the results so far and the methods used to achieve them as listed in Table 3. We then discussed available potential options that had not been tested. One of the strategies mentioned by farmers was putting fermented cow urine on the leaves, i.e. as foliar application. We then discussed which strategies were feasible in the different villages. The farmers did not consider crop rotation to be possible with their small landholdings. Planting date, neem oil and neem powder as well as cow urine were selected as common strategies in all villages. We then had a brainstorming exercise on potential pathways for disseminating the BFB management strategies. The extension officer and some farmers from each village discussed possibilities, considered the resources and opportunities available to them and identified the dissemination strategies that would best fit their circumstances.
The dissemination pathways selected by different villages in order of ranking were:
1. On-farm demonstrations.
2. Demonstrations in schools.
3. Training through farmer research groups.
4. Distribution of extension information leaflets about the problem and its management.
5. Awareness-creating seminars and field tours.
Each group went back to its constituency and the VEO used existing extension groups to form farmer research groups (FRGs). Their objective was to disseminate strategies to manage BFB suitable for their respective environments by means of promoting local experimentation. At the local level, the FRG reviewed the management and dissemination options suggested by the participants of the meeting in Hai (the “Hai group”), modified them as appropriate and added locally known treatments, having noticed their limited access to materials for some of the suggested treatments (e.g. neem). The local treatments and the ones suggested by the Hai group were investigated together. In some villages, the cow-urine treatment was modified: a slurry of urine and faeces (“mfori”) was used instead of the urine, and ash and a soap/kerosene mixture were added as other treatments. In similar work in the Lushoto area of northeast Tanzania, the farmers opted for trying also some locally known plants such as “Mhasha” (Vernonia sp), “Luli” and “Donondo” but did not try cow urine, ash or the soap/kerosene mixture. The FRGs installed learning plots in the different villages and managed the plots with help from the VEO and some advice from researchers. The groups received neem oil and neem powder from the researchers, but provided everything else themselves. Unfortunately, most of the crops in the learning plots failed because of the “La Niña” drought. The crops at the Sanya Juu site survived and this was then used by all the nearby villages as their joint learning site.
The IPM strategies selected by the Hai group for this site were:
6. Change in planting time of beans to avoid peaks of BFB (Ootheca) infestation.
7. Application of botanical pesticides (neem oil and neem powder).
8. Application of fermented cow urine.
9. Creating awareness about the pest.
The dissemination strategies were seminars, distribution of IPM extension leaflets and field demonstrations of the management strategies. Mrs Amanda Koola, the Sanya Juu VEO, and her group set up demonstrations in farms at vantage points so they would be seen by many within the community, and in schools and also in community training centres. In addition to demonstrating the proposed technologies, the FRGs selected and tested their own techniques (mfori, kerosene-soap mixture, ash) that they felt might be appropriate alongside those promoted by the Hai group. Figure 6 shows the performance of the different treatments. All treatments worked better than the control. The effect of cow urine lasted longer and delayed the re-infestation beyond five days. The VEOs used the demonstrations at schools and community training centres to train students about bean production, about pest and disease identification and about IPM in general. At intervals, the VEOs held field days and invited the general community to view and appraise the demonstration through open discussion. In addition, the researchers developed a short questionnaire that was filled in by both participants and visitors. The field days were conducted also to make more people aware of the pest and opportunities for managing it and to make them aware of another approach to extension, i.e. through experimentation.
Ash, neem oil and fermented cow urine were the most preferred treatments for Ootheca control (Figure7). With regard to the dissemination process, farmers preferred: 1) more seminars for awareness creation; 2) improving the extension system (empowering the extension service to deliver); and 3) dissemination through mass media to reach more farmers (Figure 8). In addition, the non-participating farmers were strongly in favour of more demonstrations, while the participating farmers requested more IPM training to enable them to understand and manage other pests, using participatory approaches as they had already experienced. Also, the larger-scale farmers (> 1 acre of beans) selected group training as their preferred option for IPM dissemination, while the smaller-scale farmers preferred demonstrations (Figure 9).
The District Extension Service organised a post-season monitoring and evaluation meeting, again inviting participating VEOs and farmers as well as new ones. Together we discussed the results of the season and planned the way ahead. Concerning the dissemination of technologies, the farmers cautioned that multiple strategies should be used rather than a single one, as different strategies target different categories of farmers. The VEOs lamented that it was difficult to go to farmers without “a new message”. Taking up the comments of the farmers that the extension system should be improved, all agreed that continued work on IPM in close collaboration with farmers and research would help the extension agents to improve their work. The approach of using groups, participatory discussions and joint learning plots was considered crucial for the success we had. In the discussion, we identified some other pest problems that should be tackled this coming season. The same participatory approach was chosen for the work on new pests, but there will be less direct research, as some pests had already been worked on in other districts in a similar way and we expect positive synergies between those experiences.
The exercise gave a boost to the district extension service, as the agents are able to reach more farmers with new technology to solve a problem that is limiting bean production in the area and they also know that continued support would help them to work on other problems. The extension agents are convinced that the participatory approach contributed to the dissemination of BFB management strategies. There is now an increased demand from VEOs and farmers for IPM promotion to reach more farmers. The extension service and the farmers have initiated a radio programme to discuss IPM strategies for bean and other crop pests. The programme is aired on “Redio Sauti ya Injili”, a rural broadcasting house in Moshi reaching most parts of northern Tanzania. They have also started dissemination through songs and dances. Researchers and the district extension service started to train more VEOs in the approach itself. This is done with two-day seminars, during which extension officers, who participated in the research process but did not receive any other training, teach their colleagues about the approach. Researchers also teach part of the course on trial planning, data collection and analysis. The district extension service continues to meet with some of the VEOs as a follow-up. Unfortunately, other VEOs will have to try the approach without any further help, because of limited means for the follow-up. Through this training, more extension agents learned about the work done and this has led to a better understanding of the importance of the farmers’ involvement and more commitment to their extension work in general. This will help to institutionalise the approach at the grassroots level of the extension system.
CIAT and the bean networks have adopted participatory research as one of the mainstream processes for technology generation and dissemination and have instituted a project Participatory Research for Improved Agroecosystem Management (PRIAM). The purpose of this project is to develop and promote participatory research methodologies and community-based projects within national agricultural research institutes, government organisations and NGOs for common use in improving soil, crop, tree and disease and pest management. The project collaborates with several national programmes, commodity networks and the African Highlands Initiative (AHI) in this regard.
In addition, PTD for IPM is being institutionalised in the bean networks through a DFID-sponsored project on IPM promotion for bean pests. CIAT and its partners have developed this project to target all areas with the Ootheca problem. Currently, activities have been initiated in western Kenya, northern and southern Tanzania and northern Malawi. This project helps to train extension agents and farmers who accept, adapt and experiment with new technologies to better understand the PTD approach to sustainability and hopefully will show impact in the national research and extension systems.
Extension-led
Scaling-up of Participatory IPM Dissemination in Hai District
Questions for Debate
Research-extension collaboration
Scaling-up of the process and result of the initial participatory research pilot relies very much on the existing agricultural extension structure. But the research organization faces severe limitations (capacities and resources) to assist extension in learning an effective PTD approach. How can one ensure, within those limitations, that the participatory development process continues after the research project ends?
Participatory researchers become
consultants?
Extension organizations, NGOs and farmers are interested in longer-term partnerships with research organisations such as CIAT in PTD when these meet their concrete interests. How flexible can research organizations be in the participatory research programmes they offer to really address priority issues from their partners without become consultants?
References
Aminu-Kano M, Grundel M, Kilambya W, Lazaro E, Polet G, Ruis Vega J & Saidi R. 1992. Coming down the mountain: a study of agriculture on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Working Document 21. Wageningen: International Centre for development-oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA).
CIAT. 1998. IP-2 Annual Report 1998. Cali: CIAT.
JKADP (Japanese Kilimanjaro Agricultural Development Project). 1977. Annual Progress Report 1976–77. Vol. 2. Moshi: JKADP.
Lundgren B. 1978. Soil conditions and nutrient cycling under natural and plantation forests in Tanzania highlands. Reports in Forest Ecology and Forest Soils 31. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Van Huis A. 1997. Can we make IPM work for resource-poor farmers in sub-Saharan Africa? International Journal of Pest Management 43 (4): 313–320.