Northeastern IPM Center – IPM Partnership Grants – 2009 – Proposal

Document Sample
Northeastern IPM Center – IPM Partnership Grants – 2009 – Proposal Powered By Docstoc
					                                       Partnership 2009 Coli Proposal




                 Northeastern IPM Center – IPM Partnership Grants – 2008

PD: William M. Coli
Project Title: Northeastern Region IPM Evaluation Working Group

B. Project Description

1. Project Category: Working Group

2. Project Summary: The overall goal of the proposed project is to assist state IPM
Coordinators and others in the region to better understand available techniques that can be
employed to measure changes in adoption of IPM over time, and to then document short-,
intermediate-, and long-term impacts of adoption. Participants will collaborate to develop one or
more IPM Guidelines for a significant crop (or crops) or non-agricultural settings. Group
members will learn how to use IPM Guidelines to measure end user IPM adoption levels, and
how existing impact assessment models can be used to plan programs whose impacts can be
quantified or to document impacts of previously-conducted outreach programs. A specific
objective will be to make sufficient progress toward the stated goal that group members will be
prepared to submit an IPM Planning and Assessment proposal to the Northeastern Center in
2009.

3. Background and justification:

a. Describe the Problem or Challenge: Before the development of “Integrated Control” and
later “Integrated Pest Management” systems in the 1960’s and ‘70’s, agricultural and other pest
management programs relied primarily on preventative sprays of pesticides based solely on low
cost and high efficacy. Often, little or no attention was paid to levels of pests present, to effects
of pesticides on endemic natural enemies, to the development of pest resistance to crop
chemicals, or to negative effects of pesticides on non-target organisms or the environment.

The period from about 1980 through the 1990's truly can be called “the IPM Era” given the
widespread and large-scale adoption by commercial farmers and others of the techniques
developed largely by Land-Grant IPM researchers and demonstrated by Extension IPM
specialists. By the 1980s, many cropping systems had experienced a dramatic reduction in
overall use of pesticides and an increase in use of such key IPM practices as pest population
sampling and action thresholds. Well-publicized IPM successes led USDA to set a goal in 1994
to have 75% of crop acreage under IPM by the year 2000. Although USDA estimated that IPM
was used on approximately 71% of U.S. cropland by the turn of the century, a 2000-2001
General Accounting Office (GAO) report indicated that total pounds of pesticide used had
increased over the preceding 6 years. This report also stated: “A related management
shortcoming of the federal IPM initiative is that USDA has not devised a method for measuring
the environmental or economic results of IPM implementation.” (Stephenson, 2001 p 15).

Since many commonly used chemicals represent a significant risk to human health, to beneficial
natural enemies and non-target organisms and/or to the environment, pesticide use in both
agricultural and non-agricultural settings continues to be a matter of concern. The passage in
                                     Partnership 2009 Coli Proposal




1996 of the federal Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) raised the prospect that future pest
management systems will need to be far less reliant on highly effective and relatively
inexpensive, but often highly toxic, broad-spectrum, long residual pesticides (e.g.,
organophosphate and carbamate insecticides, certain fungicides that are possible human
carcinogens, and other pesticides thought to have estrogenic effects).

b. Address the Specific Need: Hence, there remains a critical need to develop and test
innovative, economically-viable pest management programs that use lower risk pesticides in the
context of an IPM strategy. Only when such systems are fully characterized and demonstrated to
be both affordable and effective, can we anticipate that growers will willingly adopt them. Partly
in response to the challenges raised by the GAO report and by FQPA, and partly due to a
recognition that further reductions in pesticide use hinge on development of more biologically-
based pest management tactics, a new national goal has been set for IPM programs. As
described in the USDA National Roadmap for IPM this goal focuses on reduction of health risks
to agricultural workers and on preservation of natural resources, while at the same time
enhancing the financial viability of farmers and rural communities.

The USDA IPM roadmap explicitly recognizes the need to generate and aggregate better data on
adoption of materials and strategies that reduce risks. Such data will enable national IPM
leadership to compile annual reports that demonstrate progress toward the goals of the Roadmap.
Especially now, in a time of economic downturn and budget shortfalls at all governmental levels,
and with increasing demands for accountability, it is imperative for IPM specialists to understand
the role evaluation systems play in assessing the true value of IPM locally, regionally and
nationally.

With this in mind, the Northeast Research, Extension and Academic Programs-IPM coordinating
committee (NEREAP-IPM) has previously identified a clear need for a well-focused effort to
create and utilize real-world means to document positive impacts of IPM to date, and to measure
progress toward the goal of reduced risk IPM. Formation of an IPM Evaluation Working Group
will provide a needed forum for experienced individuals to cooperate within the region on
documenting extent and impacts of IPM use, and report findings to USDA and key stakeholders.

c. Who Will Benefit From the Project: Intended beneficiaries of the WG work include IPM
target audiences (e.g., farmers, facility managers, grounds keepers, pest management consultants,
policy-makers, and others) as well as Land-Grant faculty and staff. End users will better
understand the economic, environmental or human health benefits of IPM and thus will be more
likely to adopt research-based, reduced-risk pest management materials and tactics they may
currently not be using. IPM researchers and educators will be enabled to provide justification to
support funding for ongoing or new IPM activities.

d. Review of Ongoing or Completed Work: Research and Extension staff, growers and others
in several states in the region already have substantial experience with defining IPM systems via
IPM elements or guidelines, using these to document levels of IPM adoption (Hollingsworth and
Coli, 2001), and even taking IPM into the marketplace with program such as Wegman’s IPM
(Cowles, 1999), Partners With Nature (MA), CORE Values Northeast (NY and New England)
and Eco-Apples (NY and New England). In addition, the P.D. has substantial experience
                                      Partnership 2009 Coli Proposal




developing national IPM impact assessment models applicable to agricultural and non-
agricultural settings and with survey methodology to measure adoption and impacts.

If one is to measure IPM adoption and assess its impact, a key issue is how it is to be defined.
Many general definitions of IPM can be found in the literature (Bajwa and Kogan, 1996), but
these have little utility for assessing adoption on the ground due to their general nature. In an
effort to overcome the inherent limitations of general definitions, many methods have been
proposed to determine the extent of adoption (Boutwell and Smith, 1981; Benbrook, et al., 1996;
Calvin et al., 1992; Coli and Hollingsworth, 1996; McDonald and Glynn, 1994; Tette et al, 1987;
Vandeman et al., 1994), and one such method, a telephone survey to determine grower use of
IPM practices, was used to evaluate economic benefits of IPM nationally for several crops
(Rajotte et al, 1987). Under the aegis of the International Organization for Biological Control
(IOBC), a similar approach has been used in Europe to define “Integrated Production” for
purposes of certifying and marketing IPM-grown pome fruit and other produce within the
European Union (Cross and Dickler, 1994).

More recently, Hollingsworth and Coli (2001) used crop-specific IPM definitions (IPM
Guidelines), to describe extent of adoption along a continuum of IPM in four crops grown in the
northeastern U.S.: apples, potatoes, strawberries and sweet corn. Guidelines, also known as IPM
Elements (Cornell University, 2007; IPM Institute, 2007 a), IPM Standards (IPM Institute, 2007
b) and IPM Protocols (Owen et al., 2000) are a categorized list of all relevant, research-based
practices that constitute an IPM system for a particular crop or site. Robertson et al. (2005) used
an identical approach to assess the level of adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) by
South Carolina cotton growers. Zalom and colleagues at UC Davis have conducted surveys of
IPM adoption in almonds on 2 different occasions approximately 10 years apart, enabling them
to track changes in IPM practices used over time. (Brodt et al., 2005). Guidelines/Elements or
protocols have now been developed for a wide array of crops/sites in several states (e.g., Hawaii,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio). In addition to measuring adoption, many
published individual case studies have investigated IPM impacts, usually focusing on economic
aspects of implementation in a research mode (Waibel, 1999; Day and Greitens, 2003).

The need for better documentation of IPM impacts has also been clearly noted by Antle and
Capalbo and colleagues (2003). However, until relatively recently, no standardized set of
impact indicators and related measures were available that can be consistently applied by IPM
specialists nationally to allow large-scale aggregation of impacts. This roadblock is no longer in
place now that logic models for all cells of the IPM Roadmap matrix (Coli, et al. 2008) have
been finalized. Such documentation is critical to defend the continued need for federal IPM
research and extension funding. If funded, this proposal will help Northeastern states to move in
that direction.

e. Applicability to other regions: As a consequence of using widely accepted means to define
IPM, measure adoption and document impacts, the project has applicability to all the other
USDA and EPA regions.

4. Objectives and Anticipated Impacts: 1. One objective of the project is to enable multi-
institutional and multi-agency personnel, as well as private sector participants, to develop
regionally-appropriate IPM Guidelines for important crops (i.e., soybean, wheat, corn in the mid-
                                      Partnership 2009 Coli Proposal




Atlantic region) as well as urban/community pest management systems and to prepare to
document extent of regional IPM adoption in one or more of those crops/environments. 2. A
second objective is to increase WG participant understanding of and ability to use existing
program planning and evaluation tools, how these can aid in planning for evaluation of future
programs and/or to conduct impact evaluation of past programs. 3. A third objective is to enable
WG members to better compete for competitive grant funding from entities that increasingly
demand evidence of documented impacts, not just activities.

Anticipated impacts of the project are several, and include: Improved regional coordination and
cooperation to document IPM adoption and impacts; enhanced ability of WG participants, other
IPM Specialists, and IPM consultants to encourage further adoption of IPM by demonstrating
concrete, local examples of positive economic, health or environmental outcomes; enhanced
ability to plan for future evaluation when designing new programs; increased opportunities for
end users to present themselves as “good stewards” by documenting their use of IPM; increased
public awareness of IPM benefits to society as a whole; and, enhanced policy-maker support for
maintaining or increasing amount of available IPM funding.

The national IPM Roadmap sets goals to evaluate IPM impacts in numerous places (see:
http://www.northeastipm.org/whatis_ipmroadmap.pdf).The WG will support goals of the
national IPM roadmap by bringing together a motivated core group of domain experts to help
evaluate impacts of IPM in the region.

5. Approach and Procedures: The P.D. will provide overall coordination for Working Group
activities over a twelve-month period beginning March 1, 2009. Initial members have diverse
interests and foci, and include: IPM for corn, soybeans and wheat in the mid-Atlantic region,
evaluating IPM outreach efforts to the general public, and IPM for affordable housing.
Therefore, the W.G. will likely organize as a series of small committees. We anticipate 1 to 2
face-to-face meetings initially, probably to be held in the mid-Atlantic region beginning in
March 2009. At the initial meetings, participants will flesh out a detailed scope of work and
begin the process of becoming familiar with the process of developing an IPM guideline for their
area(s) of expertise/interest. At the initial meetings, we will also begin to increase participant
understanding of, and ability to use existing program planning and evaluation tools, both in
planning for evaluation of new programs and/or conducting evaluation of past programs.

Over the course of summer 2009, participants working on guidelines will work independently to
list the relevant categories of IPM practice and specify all the individual research-based practices
that constitute an IPM system for their area of expertise/interest. Using emails and conference
calls, group members will review and refine practice elements defined during this initial phase
and make whatever modifications are needed to insure that the guidelines have regional
relevance. We anticipate that guidelines will be finalized over the winter of 2009-2010. At that
time, plans will be developed to apply for Center funding to conduct one or more IPM adoption
surveys as described in Hollingsworth and Coli (2001).

Concurrently, other participants who are not developing guidelines will collaborate to develop
survey instruments or other tools that can be used to evaluate impacts of programs that reach the
general public or specific groups such as residents of public housing. As described above,
participants in this activity will develop plans to secure external funding to actually conduct
                                     Partnership 2009 Coli Proposal




impact evaluations in their area of expertise/interests. All aspects of the project will be
completed prior to February 28, 2010 and a final report will be written and submitted to the
NEIPMC.

6. Evaluation Plans: Because the main objective of the W.G. is to increase participant ability to
evaluate IPM impacts, and due to the one year time frame of most working groups, the project is
anticipated to achieve primarily short-term impacts (i.e. knowledge change on the part of
participants). Actual measurement of the effects of Extending IPM knowledge in the
intermediate-term (i.e., changes in end-user behavior, practice adoption, etc.) or long-term (e.g.
changes in some end-user condition) will necessarily follow after year 1 of the WG project and
will depend on the availability of funding to carry out evaluations. However, successful
acquisition of external funding for evaluation will be evidence of success in achieving Obj. 3.

7. Cooperation, Institutional Units, Key Personnel Involved: Bill Coli, representing the
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, will serve as P.D. and lead the project. The P.D. will
provide overall coordination and organization for the WG, including scheduling meetings,
conference calls or other activities. Coli will provide necessary information and training on
guideline development and use of evaluation tools (i.e., national logic models) and will be
available as a resource for WG members to draw upon as needed.

Other WG members and their intended roles and responsibilities are described below:

Member Name and Affiliation             Role

Bill Angstadt, DEMD Agribusiness        Help develop regional guidelines and develop plans to
Assoc.                                  secure external funding to conduct evaluations

Rakesh Chandran, West Virginia U.       Help develop regional guidelines and develop plans to
                                        secure external funding to conduct evaluations

Carol Holko, MD. Dept. of Ag.           Help develop regional guidelines and develop plans to
                                        secure external funding to conduct evaluations

Cerutti Hooks, U. Maryland              Help develop regional guidelines and develop plans to
                                        secure external funding to conduct evaluations

Mary Kay Malinowski, U. Maryland        Help develop regional guidelines and develop plans to
                                        secure external funding to conduct evaluations

Luke McConnell, McConnell               Help develop regional guidelines and develop plans to
Agronomics                              secure external funding to conduct evaluations

Curt Petzoldt, Cornell U.               Help develop evaluations for IPM projects/activities
                                        dealing with the general public

Sandra Sardinelli, U. Maryland          Help develop regional IPM guidelines and develop plans
                                        to secure external funding to conduct evaluations
                                     Partnership 2009 Coli Proposal




Allison Taisey, Cornell U.              Help develop evaluations for IPM projects/activities
                                        dealing with affordable housing

William Timmons, DE Dept. of Ag.        Help develop regional IPM guidelines and develop plans
                                        to secure external funding to conduct evaluations

Joanne Whalen, U. Delaware              Help develop regional IPM guidelines and develop plans
                                        to secure external funding to conduct evaluations

References Cited:

Antle, J.M and S. M. Capalbo. 2003. Integrated Assessment of IPM Impacts: An Overview.
        Proceedings, 4th National Integrated Pest Management Symposium, Indianapolis,
        Indiana, April 9-10, 2003. Web site
        www.ers.usda.gov/publications/mp1542/MP1542c.PDF

Bajwa, W.I. and Kogan, M. 1996. Compendium of IPM Definitions. Oregon State University,
       Integrated Plant Protection Center, Corvallis. Web site
       http://www.ippc.orst.edu/ipmdefinitions/

Benbrook, C.M., E. Groth, J.M. Halloran, M.K. Hansen and S. Marquart. 1996. Pest
      Management at the Crossroads. Consumers Union, Yonkers, NY.

Boutwell, J.L and R.H. Smith. 1981. A new concept in evaluating integrated pest management
      programs. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 21(2): 117-118.

Brodt, S., F. Zalom, R.Krebill-Prather, W. Bentley, C. Pickel, J. Connell, L. Wilhoit, and M.
        Gibbs. 2005. Almond growers rely on pest control advisers for integrated pest
        management. California Agriculture, Vol. 59(4):242-248.

Browner, C., R. Rominger and D. Kesler. 1993. Testimony before the Subcommittee on
      Department Operations and Nutrition, Committee on Agriculture, U.S. House of
      Representatives. 22 September.

Calvin, D.G., E.G. Rajotte, and A. Harp. 1992. A survey of integrated pest management (IPM)
        adoption in Pennsylvania (Contract number 449011). Final report to Pennsylvania Dept.
        of Agriculture. Dept. of Entomology, University Park, PA.

Coli, W.M. and C.S. Hollingsworth. 1996. Defining the ambiguous. The Grower (April): 48-58.

Coli, W.M., W.A. Miller and J. Curtis. 2008. Impact Evaluation of the Cotton Inc. State Support
             Program. Cotton Incorporated Project: No. 06-930.

Coli, W.M., Pilcher, C.S., Herbst, L.L, Pereault, M., Van Til, B. and Sorenson. A. Measuring
       impacts of IPM implementation. CRIS annual report (0212322, CSREES 3. MASN,
       MASN-Coli).
                                     Partnership 2009 Coli Proposal




Cornell University. 2007. NYS Elements of IPM. Web site
       http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/elements/

Cowles, M.H. 1999. The Growing Market for IPM Labels. NY State IPM Program web site.
      http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/labeling/label2.asp

Cross, J.V. and E. Dickler. 1994. Guidelines for integrated production of pome fruits in Europe.
        Tech. Guideline III. West Palaearctic Regional Section Bull. 17(9):1-8. General
        Secretariat, International Organization for Biological Control, Montfavet, France.

Day, E. and T. Greitens. 2003. IPM Evaluation and Impact Assessment . Proceedings: 4th
       National Integrated Pest Management Symposium, Indianapolis, Indiana, April 9-10,
       2003. American Farmland Trust Center for Agriculture in the Environment.

Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and Jans, S. 1999. Pest management in U.S. agriculture. Resource
      Economics Division, U.S. Dept. Agri., Econ. Res. Serv. Agri. Handbook No. 717.

Hoffman, B. and Ortman, E. 2004. Extension IPM program impact. Presentation at the
      National Entomological Society of America Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT.

Hollingsworth, C.S. and W.M. Coli. 2001. IPM adoption in northeastern U.S.: An examination
       of the IPM continuum. Am. J. Alt. Ag. 16(4): 177-183.

IPM Institute of North America. 2007 a. IPM Elements and Guidelines. Web site,
      http://www.ipminstitute.org/Fed_Agency_Resources/IPM_elements_guidelines.htm

IPM Institute of North America. 2007 b. School IPM Standards. Web site,
      http://www.ipminstitute.org/school.htm

McDonald, D.G. and C.J. Glynn. 1994. Difficulties in measuring adoption of apple IPM. Agric.
     Ecosys. Environ. 48: 219-230.

Owen, M., R. Prostak, P. Bhowmik, S. Ebdon, T. Griffin, G. Schumann, P. Vittum, and R. Wick.
      2000. Protocols for an IPM System on Golf Courses. UMass Extension publication,
      Amherst, MA.

Rajotte, E.G., R.F. Kazmierczak, G.W. Norton, M.T. Lambur, and W.A. Allen. 1987. The
       National Evaluation of Extension’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Programs. Virg.
       Coop. Ext. Serv. Pub. 491-014. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.,
       Blacksburg.

Rajotte, E.G. 1993. From profitability to food safety and the environment: Shifting the objectives
       of IPM. Plant Disease 77, 296-299.
                                    Partnership 2009 Coli Proposal




Robertson, M.J., G. W. Zehnder and M. D. Hammig. 2005. Adoption of Integrated Pest
       Management Practices by South Carolina Cotton Growers. Journal of Extension 43(6).
       This article is online at http://www.joe.org/joe/2005december/rb10.shtml.

Stephenson, J.B. 2001. Management Improvements Needed to Further Promote Integrated Pest
       Management. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, and
       General Legislation, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate.
       United States General Accounting Office. GAO-01-815 Agricultural Pesticides August
       2001.

Tette, J.P., J. Kovach, M. Schwarz and D. Brunno. 1987. IPM in New York apple orchards-
        Development, demonstration and adoption. New Yorks. Food Life Sci. Bull. 119. Cornell
        University, Ithaca, NY.

Vandeman, A., J. Fernandez-Cornejo, S. Jans, and B.H. Lin. 1994. Adoption of integrated pest
     management in U.S. agriculture. Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.

University of Wisconsin-Extension. 2004. Program Development and Evaluation. Retrieved
       July 2005, from University of Wisconsin-Extension-Cooperative Extension, Program
       Development and Evaluation Unit Web site. Available online:
       (http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evallogicmodel.html) accessed July, 2005

Waibel, H. 1999. Evaluation of the Impact of Integrated Pest Management Research at the
      IARCs. 1999. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research – CGIAR
      Document No.: ICW/99/08/c.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:2/2/2012
language:Latin
pages:8