Traditionally, ‘subsistence’ farming is practiced in Ghana. Pest and disease control have always involved culturally inherited and physically strategic methods relying on the contribution of indigenous, beneficial natural enemies of pests in the crop environment as nature created it. This kind of farming and pest management is still practiced in some parts of the country where pesticide use is negligible. However, population growth is forcing the country to intensify its agricultural production. As in most debt-servicing countries with agrarian economies, increased crop production has been achieved through increased cropping frequency, increased use of high yielding crop varieties, resulting in increased use of agro-chemicals, including fertilizers and pesticides. This is because high-yielding crops tend to be more susceptible to pests and diseases, particularly if fertilized, necessitating the use of pesticides to ensure that pests and diseases do not eliminate or reduce the potential yields of the crops. In this way pesticides have found their way into tropical farming systems; and in Ghana, chemical pesticides have become the fastest and most reliable means to reduce pest and disease damage.

But sole dependency on imported chemical products is uneconomical for the small-scale farmer. Furthermore, in the past few decades it has become evident that pesticide use is responsible for many health and environmental problems. In response, a new approach to pest management has developed involving more economical and environmentally safer pest control methods, an approach that wholly minimizes the farmer’s dependency on pesticides.

During the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) became a focal point. An entire section of the ‘Agenda 21’ plan of action adopted at UNCED was devoted to IPM and called on all signatory governments to promote IPM at the farm level through networks of farmers, extension agents and researchers.

1. Management of a particular pest is integrated into the overall farming system, and is subsumed under appropriate measures to control pests in general.

2. Biological measures (plant breeding, agronomic practices and ecological control by natural enemies) are used to create an environment that discourages the build-up of pests and diseases. Chemical pesticides are used only as a last resort when other measures fail to prevent pests from exceeding predetermined thresholds.

3. The objective is to keep pest and disease levels below economically damaging levels (as determined by regular monitoring and surveillance). The goal is not to eradicate pests and diseases.

4. Control measures minimize hazards to human health and the environment.

Towards this end a workshop for policy makers, extensionists and scientists was held in Accra in April 1996. Subsequently a systematic program was laid down by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to integrate the IPM training agenda into all of the country’s agricultural development programs.

The general goals of the work aspects of IPM training include focussing on the management decisions that have to be made by a farmer applying IPM principles. The interaction domain contains the more social aspects of IPM, teaching farmers how to motivate other farmers to apply IPM and to establish IPM farmers’ groups. For reasons detailed below, participatory involvement in IPM strategies is essential to their success. The goals associated with empowerment concern the human developmental process whereby farmers learn to identify and overcome factors that inhibit their control over their own lives. Farmers need to be able to discriminate among technologies presented to them by the agricultural research establishment. Furthermore, farmers need to empower themselves in order to make their own decisions with respect to their farm management activities so that they can employ what they learn from studying IPM principles. These principles constitute improved farm management practices for the attainment of higher yields and greater profit margins. These results in turn can liberate the farmers above the perpetual poverty margins where many of them find themselves, enabling them to take proper care of themselves and their families.

This training is concerned with behavioral change. The Indonesian National IPM Program has identified specific guidelines (including the ‘farmer as experts’ mandate referred to above) for program implementation. These guidelines form the foundation of the whole IPM training scheme:

1. Grow a healthy plant.

2. Preserve natural enemies of pests.

3. Make regular field observations.

4. Farmers become experts.

To be able to grow a healthy plant, farmers need to acquire a whole set of skills and farm management strategies associated with growing healthy crops. The work of many national extension agencies since the ‘green revolution’ has not helped farmers to become better producers of crops. It did help them to become better consumers of inputs. Inputs were bundled into application packages based on a pre-determined schedule derived from research results. Farmers were provided no scope for action or decision making; they were trained to follow instructions.

Thus, for farmers to be able to grow a healthy crop, emphasis in IPM is placed on agronomic management issues such as seed selection, soil preparation, planting in nurseries and transplanting to the field, row planting, application and use of fertilizers, water requirements of plants and timing of irrigation, along with other essential agronomic practices. The decisions regarding the use of these inputs are connected to plant physiology and a particular plant’s needs at different stages of its development. The goal is to help farmers optimize their yields by fulfilling the growth potential inherent in the plant.

To preserve natural enemies of pest is, in a sense, a positive way of instructing the farmer to reduce pesticide use. Preserving natural enemies requires being able to recognize the different factors in the crop ecosystem and understanding their complex interactions. All fauna observed in the rice-growing eco-system may be classified either as pests, natural enemies or as neutrals. Pests are fauna detrimental to the rice plant: insects, rodents, birds and weeds. Insect pests are further grouped functionally as defoliators, detillerers, plant/leaf or grain suckers. Natural enemies are the beneficial fauna. These include insects and spiders whose activities are conducive to the plant’s growth; again these are classified functionally as predators or parasites. The neutrals are neither detrimental nor beneficial to the crop plant’s yield. Plant-eating insects, predators, and parasites are all studied in the context of how they relate to each crop and to each stage of a plant’s development. Farmers learn to identify insects and interactions among pests; thus they learn to preserve natural enemies of pests. They learn this on the basis of their own analysis of the factors prevailing in their own fields.

To understand the principle of regular field observation one learns how to make keen observations in the field. The observations are based on the collection and analysis of field data. In the learning situation farmers go through a formal process to acquire these observational and analytical skills. Then later in their own fields, these skills will be applied without the outward formality of the learning process. Having learned systematically about agronomic and ecological issues, the farmer is then able to see for himself or herself what is happening in a field and is able to make decisions based on his understanding of the ecological cause and effect relationships as they are observed in the field. Thus the farmer becomes an expert in the systematic activity of farming. Farming then becomes more of a business enterprise that requires investment and optimal management.

The domain of interaction is the aspect of IPM training concerned with motivating farmers and preparing them to motivate others to act on IPM principles. Pests do not attack the fields of just one farmer; they attack those of several — perhaps all — farmers in a particular area. If farmers work together and employ IPM principles cooperatively, in particular with respect to preserving natural enemies, the likelihood of pest outbreaks will be reduced in their area.

While the objectives of the participatory IPM program are primarily devoted to behavioral change of the individual agent, the interactive domain is crucial to its success. Some pests such as rats, grasshoppers or army-worms cannot be controlled by the efforts of an individual farmer. The individual farmer is at a severe disadvantage if neighboring farmers are not also applying IPM principles such as preserving natural enemies. An understanding of group dynamics, awareness of how people best work together and competence in communicating the content of IPM principles are thus fundamental aspects of the training for farmers gaining IPM expertise.

Crop and field problems such as pest outbreaks and poor irrigation delivery systems may be seen as problems over which an individual farmer has no control. They may be perceived as resulting from someone else’s decisions or negligence, resolvable only by governmental action. Empowerment from IPM training helps farmers to recognize the extent to which such problems are in fact within their own control and to plan how they can affect remedies.

The training is conducted in what is known as an ‘IPM Farmers’ Field School’. Baseline studies are conducted to determine farmers’ constraints and established production practices in a region where IPM training is planned. These studies always precede the opening day of a Field School.

A Farmers’ Field School is a group of about 25 or 30 farmers who have agreed in advance to meet once a week for at least half a day (4 to 5 hours) throughout an entire crop season. On a typical day, these farmers break into sub-groups (of five or six field teams), and spend one to two hours in the field making observations, counting population densities of different insect species, assessing crop physiological conditions and recording their observations. Each team then assembles outside the field to discuss, analyze and interpret its data. The interpreted data are then summarized, usually in a sequence of agro-ecosystem diagrams, and presented to the entire field school. These diagrams include a picture of the crop at the stage of growth for that week. Organisms that eat the crop and may produce symptoms that look damaging are drawn on one side of the picture of the crop, whilst others that eat such damaging organisms and thus protect the crop are drawn on the other side.

These Field Schools are experiential and consistently focussed on the field. There are two separate plots in which the teams conduct comparison studies between a crop grown using IPM treatment and a crop grown using non-IPM or ‘local’ treatment. The study includes taking ‘yield cuts’ and making an economic analysis. As part of their training, farmers also make insect collections that can be used as reference materials. Another learning vehicle that farmers create is the ‘Insect Zoo’ discussed below.

A feature of every field school is public promotion of IPM principles. Promotional activity serves to announce to neighbors and local officials that the farmer participants have accomplished a special training and have become better farmers. This announcement is backed by evidence of the farmers’ acquired knowledge. A ballot box test is conducted both as a pre and post training voluntary evaluation, covering all aspects of cultivation: pest and natural enemy identification, fertilizer use, knowledge of plant disease, water management and crop physiology. Generally twenty multiple choice questions are set; farmers spend from two to three minutes answering a question.

Farmers enjoy these tests; the number participating is always high. So far (as expected) scores recorded in the pre-evaluation tests have been lower than scores in the post-evaluation ones, indicating some degree of success in training as farmers gain more knowledge in IPM than they had before they started the training.

There are three stages in the activity of agro-ecosystem analysis: field observation and data collection, analysis of data and its preparation for display and, finally, summary and group presentation. Agro-ecosystem analysis helps farmers discover fundamental cause and effect relationships in the crop ecosystem. Depending on the crop cycle, this method of analysis allows a longer period of practice in making the observations that are crucial to understanding the agronomic and agro-ecological principles under the farmers’ scrutiny. People need practice to master the art of seeing what is happening in the field and to master the reasoning skills required for analysis and decision making.

At the end of the season, yields from the IPM treated plots are compared with yields from the non-IPM-treated plots. A cost/benefit analysis is made. That analysis, together with the developmental knowledge gained from weekly field observations, provides learners with deep insight and an analytical basis for practical applications of IPM principles. The domains of interaction and empowerment are also integrated into this activity since people are gaining communication capacity and learning social psychology as they engage in their investigative research. Each of the farmers has a role in learning about small groups. Each group helps its members to learn about social dynamics and teaches flexibility in assuming leadership roles to respond to change in activity and skills required.

Empowerment is enhanced by the knowledge of causal relationships examined in the agro-ecosystem. In the end, myths about the invincibility of pests are replaced by a clear understanding of what actually happens in the field and how farmers can influence, positively or negatively, what happens in the field. Other activities included in the Field School schedule are: ‘What Is This?’

This IPM training technique encourages articulate, exploratory communication in the form of a dialogue. IPM trainers, referred to as facilitators or IPM Field Leaders, are urged to avoid answering a question such as ‘What is this insect?’ with a direct answer such as ‘This is a lady beetle.’ Instead they establish a dialogue concerning the insect in question by responding with a series of further questions that focus on the insect and its functions in the ecosystem. The questions asked by the field leader should be open-ended yet direct the way to an answer, should help participants to discover on their own answers to their questions and, ideally, should compel an ongoing attitude of critical investigation.

The purpose of initiating such a dialogue is not only to transmit information about a fixed subject. It establishes that the learner is someone knowledgeable about the topic already. In the above example, a question may be asked to determine where the insect was found, what it was doing, at what time, what was the stage of growth of the crop when the insect was sighted, whether other insects were present and so on. By establishing a dialogue, other questions that might eventually be asked are answered by the trainee, who at this point has become the teacher. The dialogue follows the steps involved in any critical investigation. Through repetition of this process participants learn how to probe their environment; the participants learn how to learn.

Besides relying on learning theory and behavior modification, the dialogue makes use of basic principles associated with interaction and empowerment. Empowerment results from acquiring new and more discerning perceptions through critical thinking. The dialogue provides the building blocks of critical thinking. The learner in IPM training selects a theme for the dialogue ‘What is this?’ and with the aid of the dialogue investigates this theme. This activity is presented early in an IPM Field School’s cycle and it is used throughout the cycle. A particular dialogue may not reach a resolution where participants accept the conclusion they have derived. In such a case a leader might present an additional ‘special topic’ to help the farmers pursue their lingering question to a satisfactory answer.

This lesson design presents a particular topic connected with various aspects of IPM such as agronomy, biology, ecology and economics. At the core of special topic activity is an experiment or problem, the solution of which either demonstrates an IPM principle or explains how the principle functions in a particular context. The special topic activity consists of four stages: explanation and assignment of a task, a core activity, presentation of results and discussion and, finally, processing by the trainer. The special topic usually takes an hour or two to conduct, but some may take weeks, e.g. making and observing an insect zoo.

The special topics engage learners in the work of discovering principles fundamental to IPM. Work is done in small groups of five learners each. Most special topics ask learners to write or draw on newsprint the results of their experiment or problem-solving activity. These results are then presented to the group (just as for the Agro-economic system analysis).

Probing questions are raised after learners have conducted their experiment to help them process what has happened. Usually each presenter representing a small group is asked some questions, with other members assisting in the reply whenever necessary. These processing questions stress the major learning points of the activity. The question and answer process helps learners to apply what they have gained from their experiment. The process of presenting and questioning also sharpens the farmers’ communication skills and builds their confidence in assuming the voice of critical expertise.

The special topic activity continues the integration of different domains in IPM training. Working together in groups compels people to analyze how to work together. While this aspect is not stressed, people want their group to do well. Thus participants learn how to take on the roles necessary to solve problems. Their discussions lead to clearer understanding of IPM concepts and logic. Special topics demystify issues and clarify causal relationships, so that farmers are empowered to tackle their field problems.

There is at least one special topic in every meeting of a Field School. Besides being ordered according to issues and concerns as they develop in the learning process, the sequencing of special topics also follows what is happening through the growth processes of plants in the field. Here are some examples of special topics covered for rice production:

1. Land preparation

2. Seed germination test

3. Ballot box test

4. Crop compensation-defoliation and detillering

5. Panicle initiation and fertilizer management

6. Water management

7. Pests, natural enemies and insect zoos

8. The effect of pesticides on natural enemies

9. The effect of pesticides on human health

10. Weeds and their management

11. Birds and rodent management

12. Human agro-ecosystems

13. Group dynamics

14. Village immersion

15. Farm immersion

16. Folk media

Land Preparation. It is generally observed from data gathered during the baseline survey that most farmers on irrigation projects do rather poor land preparation. This leads to poor land levels and inadequate water management. If land is poorly prepared, field water distribution becomes poor and leads to serious weed problems. Ideally, land preparation/tilling is done twice with the first tilling at least two weeks prior to planting. Water is ponded on the fields to enhance weed and debris decomposition. Final tilling is accompanied by rotovation and leveling with drag boards.

Farmers generally appreciate the key importance of good land levels for proper weed and water management, and agree to implement the techniques discussed. However, they lament about the inadequacy and badly timed availability of powertillers and tractors for land preparation.

Seed Germination Test. Most farmers do not check the viability of their seeds before planting on their fields. This normally leads to poor field seed germination and the tendency to use very high seed rates. Quite often, non-viable seeds that could otherwise serve as food are wasted and thus their nutritional value is lost to farmers.

So farmers are trained to perform simple germination tests. These involve pre-soaking seeds in water for 24 hours and incubating in jute sacks for another 48 hours. A germination test helps to assess the viability of seeds. It allows farmers to sow at optimum seed rates, eliminating seed waste. It facilitates good field germination of seeds and rapid establishment on the field.

Ballot Box Test. As noted already, this pre- and post-evaluatory test provides some objective indication of the positive results of the Field School for the general public. But facilitators also need to know how much farmers are learning about IPM from their school experience—specifically about growing a healthy crop, as well as identifying pests and natural enemies.

Crop Compensation-defoliation/detillering. Most farmers rush to apply insecticides at the first sign of insect damage to leaves and tillers of the rice plant. Natural compensation of the rice plant in response to pest damage is usually not well understood by farmers.

‘Compensation’ refers to the versatility of the rice plant in replacing leaf and tiller due to pest attack. Field trials are conducted to demonstrate these effects. Pest attack is simulated by defoliating and detillering rice plants (up to 10-50 percent) and their compensation ability is monitored till harvest when yields are compared with untreated plots. When the yield levels are similar this indicates the crop has aptly compensated for imposed damages. The farmers come to realize the compensatory ability of the rice crop through the ‘participatory action research’ they conduct themselves. They discover there is no need to spray when such minor damages occur, especially at the early vegetative crop stage. They also collect insect pests and identify defoliators and detillerers, in order to anticipate when pest attacks are likely to be excessive and so will require a planned-intervention response.

Panicle Initiation (P1) and Fertilizer Management. Without an informed farmer’s supervision, application of technical advances in new fertilizer can be costly and destructive. A list of instructions in a foreign language on new fertilizer packaging does not serve to transfer the needed information to the farmer. Many farmers are not aware of the Panicle Initiation stage of the rice crop and its relation to specific nutrient requirements and water management. Dissecting the rice stem to observe the young panicle primordia is very important for the farmer to recognize P1 in the field.

Group discussion focuses on P1 as the most critical stage of a rice crop in relation to nutrient and water uptake. At P1 the crop’s physiology changes from the vegetative to the reproductive phase. At P1 there is active reproductive cell division and, as such, it is very critical for resource utilization. At P1 much of the photosythate produced is diverted from tiller and root development to the production of reproductive organs. The number of grains per panicle is determined at P1. Therefore more nitrogen is required by the plant at this stage. The ability to identify the P1 stage helps farmers to make crucial decisions about fertilizer use and water management.

For a typical 120-day maturing variety, P1 occurs around 55 days after sowing (DAS); i.e. 35 days to ‘heading’, or 65 days to maturity. Farmers themselves dissect rice stems to observe the young panicle primordia (agronomic P1 = 1 mm). Thus the farmer witnesses the need to apply nitrogen fertilizer at P1 when insufficient. The need for irrigation is clarified at this stage as well.

Water Management. When, how much and how often to apply water are important considerations for the farmer to make. Discussions have yielded the following: Optimum water levels (5-7 cm) facilitate effective nutrient uptake. About 16-20 cm water is too much and can result in reduced tillering and weakened plants. Good land preparation with proper leveling facilitates uniform water depth and effective weed control. The maximum amount of water usage by the rice plant occurs at its reproductive stage. Water should be drained off at the ‘hard dough’ stage to facilitate harvesting and to prevent lodging.

Pests, Natural Enemies and Insect Zoos. An insect zoo is a small cage surrounding an individual rice plant into which insects and spiders are introduced to study their feeding habits and life cycles. These are constructed by the farmers with polythene sheets on potted plants so that they can observe the defoliation process first hand. Farmers make weekly collections of insects and spiders for identification based on their functional roles and the growth stages at which they appear. In particular, the farmer witnesses:

i) the spider predating on adult Diopsis;

ii) damselflies predating on white leaf hoppers; and

iii) the life cycle of the Cortesia (wasp) parasite.

The Effect of Pesticides on Natural Enemies of Crop Pests. This topic addresses the vulnerability of beneficial natural enemies to pesticides. Demonstrations or trials conducted by farmers and facilitators using various types of pesticides (e.g. insecticide nematicide-carbofuran, and herbicide thiobencarb-propenyl as active ingredients) consistently exhibit quicker ‘knockdown’ times and higher mortality rates of beneficial natural enemies when compared with their effect on target pests against which the applications of such poisons are intended.

By the 1960s serious problems began to emerge which brought into question the received unilateral chemical approach. Many side effects resulting from overuse of chemicals became evident (Graham-Bryce, 1977; Coffee, 1979; Hartley and Graham-Bryce, 1980; Afreh-Nuamah, 1996). The impact of pesticides on the natural enemies of the target pests also undermined the pesticides’ long-term effectiveness.

With the removal of predators and parasites by pesticides, many pest species hitherto suppressed by their natural enemies returned in much greater numbers — this phenomenon is known as pest resurgence. Further: indigenous species, which had previously been economically insignificant, emerged as secondary pests (Stem et al, 1959; De Bach, 1974; Youdeowei and Service, 1983; Kenmore, 1991).

The implication is clearly that beneficial fauna — the natural enemies of pests — are the most vulnerable of all to broad spectrum pesticides. Therefore with the IPM strategy any pesticide application is regarded as a last resort to control pests, and the types chosen must be selected with discretion in favor of low mammalian toxicity.

The Effect of Pesticides on Human Health. The potential hazards of pesticides are ubiquitous. They confront workers engaged in their manufacture, transport and disposal, farmers and operators who apply them in the field, the consumer and wild life in the environment. The hazards to the manufacturers are manageable by following relatively well tested procedures and practices. Of greater concern is the hazard to the field operator using a pesticide because of the high degree of variability in field conditions and the frequent lack of information concerning safety precautions — recall that most chemical pesticide imports are packaged in languages unknown to the user in Ghana.

In 1972, the World Health Organization (WHO) received published statistics on pesticide poisoning from 19 countries and estimated that there was as many as 500,000 cases of pesticide poisonings per year. OXFAM, a non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Britain, updated this figure to 750,000 in 1981. Around the late 1980s the Economic and Social Commission of Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) suggested that pesticide poisoning accidents might mount to two million a year, of which about 40,000 were expected to be fatal.

Pesticide poisoning is much more common in the ‘Third World’ — occurring with about 13 times greater frequency — than in the USA, according to a report by the USAID. It has been statistically established that at least one individual in the ‘Third World’ is poisoned by pesticides every minute. The major reasons for these accidents are attributable to the more brutal working environments and the hazards of distributing poisonous chemicals in societies where most people can neither read nor write. In Ghana, most chemical dealers are nonliterate and therefore they lack access to published information about the chemicals they are selling; thus they are not able to offer advice that is crucial for farmers regarding pesticide use.

Reports reaching the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) (through personal communication with the Director of the Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Department) indicate that in some parts of the country — especially the intensive vegetable growing areas — chemical abuse is rampant. For example, some farmers use persistent chemicals such as gammalin and unden (meant for cocoa), on their food crops. In addition, arbitrary solutions of different chemical formulations are mixed for use against vegetable pests and diseases. Apart from reported deaths from such pesticide abuse in several of such areas, some male farmers have lost their virility through pesticide poisoning. This special topic is treated to emphasize the magnitude of the disastrous consequences of pesticide misuse by farmers. Usually this involves an open-spraying demonstration by a farmer while other farmer participants critically observe the spraying action and score the performance according to criteria that concern the propriety of the sprayer’s apparel, eating and smoking habits, talking while spraying, the pace of spraying, the disposal of safe containers and their contents. After the exercise, farmers usually have scored higher in "don’ts" than "do’s" in their spraying technique. Typically they are dismayed about the extent to which they have unwittingly put their lives at risk using these `killer’ pesticides. Upon this revelation some farmers have testified concerning their chronic ailments and loss of virility.

Weeds and Their Management. Results of the baseline survey conducted before the start of the Farmers’ Field Schools indicate that weeds are the number one pest problem for all irrigation projects. The most common types of weed found are the Echinochloea spp. and Ishaemum spp. (grasses), the Cyperus spp. (sedges), and the Euphorbia and Marselia spps. (broad leaves). The Echinochloea spp. are the most difficult to control. Farmers collect different types of weeds for identification. Discussions center on experiences with different types of weeds and control methods: good land preparation, proper water management, handweeding and chemical intervention only when necessary.

Proper management of water to specific depths (7-15 cm) can control most of the young troublesome weeds. Handweeding is performed by handpicking and removing weeds and stump debris after land preparation clears most of the troublesome stolonaceus weeds. Two other handweedings are advised: the first is very important, around 30-35 days after sowing (DAS); and another at 65-70 DAS is a minor aid to cleaner fields.

Chemical weed control entails the use of herbicides, pre- or post-emergence of weeds. Due to poor timing and management problems, post-emergent types of control are more commonly used on the irrigation projects. These are usually compositions of two active ingredients (ai)-propanil (constant) plus thiobencarb (in Saturnil), or plus bentazone (in Basagram), or plus Oxadiazone (in Ronstar). These must be applied post-emergence from 14-21 days after sowing and must be followed two to three weeks later by handweeding. The weed problem is greater in direct seeding than in transplanting. However, no matter the system or method, all weeds should be controlled before 35-42 days after sowing.

Birds and Rodent Management. These can become very serious pests if not controlled with extreme vigilance. Various control methods are discussed, and many farmers share their experiences with the time and extent of damages caused by these pests.

With birds, the time of damage starts at heading (formation of the grains) or the early milky stage. Damage involves the sucking of juice from grains or the removal of whole grains from the plant’s spike. Damage to a rice crop on irrigation projects occurs around the onset of the rainy season; for this is the period for birds of food scarcity in the surrounding vegetation. The major culprits are the weaver birds and the quelea quelea. It was noted that the colorful Red and Yellow Bishops do not cause any damage to the grains themselves. Rather they invite the grain-eating birds to the field for a meal. Various control methods like use of scarecrows and timing-guns have not been found to be very effective, as birds sooner or later become scare-shy. The traditional vigilant scaring-by-shouting and shooting catapults loaded with clay-balls, usually involving child labor, have been more successful.

The damage caused by rodents starts at early booting and continues through the mature grain stage. The rodents cut and eat the fresh stems and parts of the panicle. Again the major period of damage is at the onset of the rainy season. The main culprits are the field rats (rattus rattus) and the small house mice (rattus norwegicus). The mice are very prolific, producing high litter counts, stay in holes and are mainly nocturnal. Their nocturnal habits render control (especially by physical means) very difficult.

The main control methods are cultural (weeding for clean bunds and fields), physical (digging out or flushing out the mice with water from their holes), and chemical (use of rodenticides). The main problem with chemicals is that the rodents easily become ‘bait-shy’, especially to the acute poisons. The anticoagulants (especially warfarin base-types) that kill slowly by internal bleeding have been the most effective.

This special topic allows farmers to enact on stage the interplay of factors in the crop’s agro-ecosystem. After many analyses of data, farmers come together to enact the roles and functions of all the key players observed. Each farmer acts the part of one aspect or organism in the agro-ecosystem (e.g. the sun, the rice plant, the various pests and their ‘natural enemies’).

When linkages between these factors in the agro-system’s trophic levels and food webs are theatrically demonstrated, the farmers can easily recall the functions of the various organisms. This improves their identification skills later when the farmers make IPM decisions on their own.

Group Dynamics. These activities are designed to enhance the performance of small farmer units or groups. They are important tools for facilitating adult learning. They involve icebreakers and physical exercises, riddles, fun-stories or jokes, exercises for team solidarity building, for communication skills and for leadership role training. There are effectively three stages in each activity: introduction, action and review. A typical group dynamics activity asks small groups to draw a picture of a given topic. First the group is asked to draw without being able to communicate. Later the group is invited to communicate. The drawings are usually noticeably different. The leader helps the participants to reflect on why there were differences, what it feels like under each of the two conditions, what can be done to enhance communications in teams and so on. Group-dynamics activity keeps farmers alert and attentive during the training, fosters cooperation and togetherness within the groups, promotes the spirit of motivating competition and purpose among the groups and sharpens farmers’ communication and organizing skills.

Village Immersion. This important exercise of the Farmers’ Field School promotes good interaction and trust between facilitators and farmers. It involves facilitators visiting farmers in their homes on resting days, especially taboo days when farm work is prohibited. Maps are drawn to identify the house of each farmer in the village or community. Facilitators use the map drawing as an opportunity to learn about the farmer and his or her family, interests, dislikes and habits. The traditional culture of the area is also discussed in a relaxed manner. These visits enable facilitators to know a little more about the farmers themselves. It is usually a give and take affair, so it is also important for facilitators to disclose some personal information to the farmer and his family.

Farm Immersion. This is another important exercise when facilitators visit the farmers in their respective fields to build the necessary trust and rapport between themselves and the farmer. On these visits, facilitators learn the field conditions and problems of farmers through discussion and shared experiences. The participant farmers feel more secure and accepted as a result. After their initial visit, facilitators draw a field/farm map indicating the plots of each farmer for future reference and field visits.

Folk Media. These are theatricals organized by farmers to spread the IPM message to non-participating farmers and visitors. The presentations usually highlight the benefits and praise the importance of IPM, in the form of poems and recitals, songs, hymns, drama and role playing, dancing, parades, all accompanied by traditional drumming and music. The occasion is usually a special open day for the graduation ceremonies at the conclusion of the Farmers’ Field School when invited guests, dignitaries and policy makers are in attendance.

IPM Farmers’ Field Schools often take root in pre-existing farmers’ organizations and help them to work better. The Schools catalyze these established groups and focus their attention upon concrete goals. The IPM training process shows how to build stronger groups, given the individual members’ talents and accomplishments.

Farmers’ Organizations and Extension Systems. The discovery-based learning process reduces farmers’ dependency on outside technology and increases their self-reliance. It strengthens the indigenous investigation that farmers have carried out over the years in any case, and makes the farmers collectively stronger and more active collaborators who can shape the country’s research and extension system to cohere with their local needs and priorities. IPM depends upon a broad-based commitment to redress the built-in imbalances of development and to create conditions whereby local farmers can take active roles in the management of their farms.

Stronger, mutually beneficial interactions are established between farmers and extension officers, in particular the technical officers within the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Extension officers are notorious for chasing farmers with packages of inputs and collecting loans that were granted only to enable farmers to purchase those packages. Instead IPM teaches extension officers how to become partners with farmers in a joint discovery process. They learn to assume the role of facilitators participating in IPM rather than the role of instructors, and together with the farmers in the field, they learn to observe, discuss, analyze and to keep focus on constructive solutions.

IPM’s Impact on Research Relationships. IPM so practiced opens the possibility for a fundamentally new relationship between agricultural researchers and prospective beneficiaries. This has been called training-driven or demand-driven research, grown directly out of the Farmers’ Field Schools. Extension officers learn directly from farmers the main constraints to crop production, and these facts are passed on to researchers for redress. Farmers who have been through IPM Field Schools are better able to articulate their production constraints and needs. This relocates the farmers into a position where they can assume a voice of authority and expertise to guide Ghana’s future national agricultural policies in a beneficial direction.

1. Smith and Reynold (1966).

2. As of 1997, the United Nations Development Project (UNDP) under its National Poverty Reduction Program is sponsoring a three year training project to introduce IPM to 1700 rice and vegetable farmers in five districts throughout Ghana: in the Afram Plains (Eastern Region), Bongo (Upper East), Accra Metropolitan Assembly and Dangbe West (Greater Accra Region), and Jubeso-Bia (Western Region). The author is currently UNDP’s Director for IPM in Ghana.

Afreh-Nuamah, K. (1996) People’s Participatory (Bottom Up) Approach to Integrated Pest Management in Africa: Prospects and Constraints, Accra: Ghana Universities Press.

Coffee, R.A. (1979) "Electrodynamic Energy Nozzle; a New Approach to Pesticide Application," Proceedings BCPC Conference on Pests and Diseases, 3, pp. 77-89.

De Bach. (1974) Biological Control by Natural Enemies, Cambridge University Press.

Graham-Bryce, I.J. (1977) "Crop Protection. A consideration of the effectiveness and disadvantages of current methods and the scope for improvement," London: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B281, pp. 163-179.

Hartley, G.S. and Graham-Bryce, I.J. (1980) Physical Principles of Pesticides Behaviour, vol. 2 London: Academic Press.

Kenmore, P.E. (1991) "Getting Policies Right, Keeping Policies Right: Indonesia’s Integrated Pest Management Policy, Production and Environment," paper presented at the ARDE Environment and Agriculture Officers Conference, Colombo, Sri Lanka, September 11.

Smith, R.F. and Reynold, H.J. (1966) "Principles, Definitions and Scope of Integrated Pest Control," Proceedings of FAO Symposium on Integrated Pest Control, 1, pp. 1-17.

Stem, V.M., Smith, R.F., Bosch Van Den, and Hagen, K. (1959) "The `Integrated control concept’," Hilgaria, 29 pp. 131-159.

Yondeowei, A. and Service, M.K. (1983) Pest and Vector Management in the Tropics, London: Longman.