Discussing the results with growers (Jean Parfait Dako)

Integrated Production and Pest Management (IPPM) (Mali)

Gestion intégrée de la production et des déprédateurs (GIPD) (French)

Description

IPPM reduces the negative impact wrought by pesticides on the environment (wildlife, water, soil) and on humankind

Integrated Production and Pest Management (IPPM) curbs the environmental degradation caused by current farming practices (intensive and extensive), reducing the negative impact wrought by pesticides on the environment (wildlife, water, soil) and on humankind. IPPM promotes the adoption of farming practices that are as respectful of the environment as they are productive and profitable.

Purpose of the Technology: IPPM works with all available techniques for combatting pests, while keeping pesticide use at economically justified levels. It reduces risks to human and animal health and to the environment. It is put into practice in farmer field schools (FFSs).

Establishment / maintenance activities and inputs: Implementation: Men and women farmers are informed about the harmful effects of pesticide use. A group of local farmers are offered the opportunity to form a farmer field school led by a facilitator (with 25 farmers in each FFS group). The weekly sessions of the FFS focus on studying the presence
of insects and diseases and the condition of plants. The results are recorded in a study-findings logbook. Biopesticides like neem extract are used and their effectiveness is studied. Operation: Setting the critical thresholds for pest infestation of crops and evaluating the treatments required; Composing and applying pesticides according to the level of infestation.
Roles of the actors involved: Producers participate in the FFS and apply the techniques on their lands. Technical services provide training in good farming practices and link up the plant-disease and insect experts with the FFS facilitators. Research institutions make their plant-disease and insect experts available and train up the technical services.

Natural / human environment: Implementation locations: All regions throughout Mali. On going for around 12 years. This technique is particularly popular with farmers. Trained facilitators and farming advisors are available.

Location

Location: Mali, Mali

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • -4.19919, 15.01713

Spread of the Technology:

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: 10-50 years ago

Type of introduction
Studying plant disease in a Farmer Field School (FFS) (Jean Parfait Dako)

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use

  • Cropland
    • Annual cropping
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1
Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • biological degradation - Bp: increase of pests/ diseases, loss of predators
SLM group
  • integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)
SLM measures
  • management measures - M7: Others

Technical drawing

Technical specifications

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: n.a.
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = n.a
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: n.a
Most important factors affecting the costs
n.a.
Establishment activities
n.a.
Maintenance activities
n.a.

Natural environment

Average annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
Thermal climate class: tropics
Slope
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitude
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Water quality refers to:
Is salinity a problem?
  • Yes
  • No

Occurrence of flooding
  • Yes
  • No
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure
health

poor
x
good
education

poor
x
good
technical assistance

poor
x
good
employment (e.g. off-farm)

poor
x
good
markets

poor
x
good
energy

poor
x
good
roads and transport

poor
x
good
drinking water and sanitation

poor
x
good
financial services

poor
x
good

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
x
increased

risk of production failure
increased
x
decreased

water availability for livestock
decreased
x
increased

water quality for livestock
decreased
x
increased

expenses on agricultural inputs
increased
x
decreased


Reduced use of pesticides

Socio-cultural impacts
food security/ self-sufficiency
reduced
x
improved

health situation
worsened
x
improved


Reduced risk to human and animal health and to the environment

SLM/ land degradation knowledge
reduced
x
improved

situation of socially and economically disadvantaged groups (gender, age, status, ehtnicity etc.)
worsened
x
improved

Improved livelihoods and human well-being
decreased
x
increased


IPPM promotes the adoption of farming practices that are as respectful of the environment as they are productive and profitable. It reduces risks to human and animal health and to the environment.

Ecological impacts
water quality
decreased
x
increased

plant diversity
decreased
x
increased

animal diversity
decreased
x
increased

beneficial species (predators, earthworms, pollinators)
decreased
x
increased

habitat diversity
decreased
x
increased

pest/ disease control
decreased
x
increased

emission of carbon and greenhouse gases
increased
x
decreased

Off-site impacts

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
x
very positive

Climate change

Gradual climate change
annual temperature increase

not well at all
x
very well
Climate-related extremes (disasters)
local rainstorm

not well at all
x
very well
local windstorm

not well at all
x
very well
drought

not well at all
x
very well
general (river) flood

not well at all
x
very well
Other climate-related consequences
reduced growing period

not well at all
x
very well

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Yes
  • No
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Reduction in pest control costs
  • Farm production is healthier and the environment is better protected
  • The use of pesticides for safeguarding production in rural areas is now very low.
  • Reduction of the negative impact wrought by pesticides on the environment (wildlife, water, soil) and on humankind
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • The village facilitators and farmers participating in the FFS must be literate
  • IPPM requires inputs from plant-disease and insect experts

References

Compiler
  • Dieter Nill
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: Dec. 9, 2014
Last update: May 28, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Annual reports for 2010, 2011 and 2012 – IPPM/DNA:
Links to relevant information which is available online
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International