Emerging issues in IPM technology transfer for resource-poor farmers

ALLAN J. HRUSKA
Care International, Nicaragua

INTRODUCTION

In examining technology transfer in IPM for resource-poor farmers in Central America, I will address three questions:

1. Who is doing IPM technology transfer?
2. How is it being done?
3. What is being transferred?

In addressing these three questions I will examine emerging issues, especially in regard to the institutions and methodologies used, point out questions that need to be answered, and finally present recommendations on how to move forward.

THE NICARAGUAN CONTEXT

Before addressing these three questions, I would like to briefly describe my experience in IPM, to explain the context of my comments.

I have worked in IPM technology generation and transfer targeted at resource-poor farmers in Nicaragua for the last eight years. The farmers with whom I have been working have the following generalized profile: They were beneficiaries of the agrarian reform of the 1980s and were organized into co-operatives. Previous to receiving land they worked as wage labourers on large farms, typically cotton farms. Although they may have planted a small plot of maize and beans for their family's consumption, they did not own the land and their access to land was uncertain. By working as wage-labourers on large cotton farms they learned how to carry out someone else's orders; they did not make decisions in regards to production. They worked in cotton fields that used high levels of inputs, especially pesticides, where the crop was sprayed 25-30 times per season.

Once they received land as members of co-operatives, the farmers received free inputs, including machinery, fertilizers, and pesticides, through a series of subsidies from the government.

Through the subsidies and guaranteed prices for basic grains, farmers were encouraged to grow maize, and it became the most important crop in terms of area, replacing cotton, which was becoming increasingly unprofitable, squeezed between declining world prices and increasing costs of production.

The technical assistance that the farmers received until 1990 consisted of assuring that the 'technical packages' recommended by the government development bank were being carried out, as part of the credit package.

From this brief profile of the farmers who we have worked with, three factors are extremely important.

1. They are not traditional farmers with an historical or cultural tie to their land.
2. They do not have traditional production systems. They have several traditional crops, but they have been torn from their traditional systems by perturbations caused by the dramatic shifts in land ownership and cropping patterns.
3. They do not have experience in managing their crops, land, or farms.

For the last four years I have worked in implementing IPM with 1200 of these farmers in northwestern Nicaragua in a project implemented by CARE International in Nicaragua, collaborating with the Ministries of Agriculture and Health, small farmers' organizations, and local community groups.

The project began as a safe pesticide use project, trying to protect workers' and farmers' health through the 'safe' use of pesticides. Despite years of teaching farmers about the dangers of pesticides, and providing both protective and handling equipment, the project abandoned its efforts to achieve 'safe' pesticide use. A study carried out by the project showed that neither the use of protective nor loading equipment was effective in reducing pesticide exposure (Hruska and Corriols, 1993).

In July 1989 the project re-focussed its orientation, becoming an IPM project, providing technical assistance via a promoter methodology. The main tactics that were promoted during the first two years of the project were oriented towards pesticide reduction: using the correct pesticide dosages timing and method of application, insecticide selection, and most importantly, scouting and the use of economic thresholds.

The results of three years of work demonstrated significant achievements: pesticide use was reduced by 80% among farmers who received IPM training, while yields did not decline, resulting in net profit to the farmers. Likewise, the health risk due pesticide exposure was reduced among those farmers who received IPM training.

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND IPM

Technology transfer in the traditional sense is defined as the two-way flow of information from the generators of the technology to the users, and the problems/observations encountered from the user back to the generator for refinement and solutions.

During the Green Revolution this meant communicating new tactics, new varieties, new pesticides, new planting densities, new fertilizer recommendations. The goal was to get the individual tactics, or packages of them into practice. Green Revolution technology transfer was often quite easy, because its goals were simple and focussed on the short-term. Getting a farmer to replace one variety with another that yields twice the old variety may require nothing more than a good mass communication and distribution scheme.

But IPM technology transfer is quite different, because IPM is quite different. IPM technology transfer is not simply getting the IPM tactics, economic thresholds, biological controls, mixed plantings, etc. into practice, although these may be important outcomes of implementing IPM. Getting these types of tactics into practice, especially on a massive scale, may be very important, but we are not transferring IPM technology if we do nothing more. Tactics are not enough. The motivation for adopting any tactic must be based on an understanding and acceptance of the principles of IPM, which will lead farmers to make rational choices. Some of the concepts that become part of IPM technology transfer thus become:

1. Thinking of farms as dynamic agro-ecosystems, and part of larger ecological systems.
2. Decision-making and planning, for both the immediate future, but also for the medium and long term.
3. Evaluating choices not just using an economic criterion, but also health and environmental criteria. Implementing IPM includes changing attitudes, especially in regard to pesticide use. Attitudes are formed by more than simple economic calculations.

CURRENT TRENDS

Reading the technology transfer literature from ten years ago one does not find a discussion of who should be providing technology transfer. It was assumed to be the state's role, with possibly a role for private producers' groups among export crops.

In the last ten years a dramatic change has occurred in Central America, that is not fully appreciated by many working in IPM. In many countries of the region, the state has ended its role in providing technology transfer to certain groups of farmers, and has sought to reduce its exclusive role among all sectors.

This change has been promoted by the World Bank as part of a privatization effort, reducing the state's role, and opening up the possibilities to private and non-governmental organizations. Even where state institutions continue to play a role in technology transfer, especially among those farmers who cannot pay for a privatized service, the technology transfer service is typically removed from the Ministry of Agriculture, and included in a new semi-governmental organization, which includes the participation of many sectors.

Concomitant to the reduced role of the state in technology transfer, there has been an explosion of NGOs, community groups, and foreign-financed projects that have become active in providing technical assistance services.

WHO'S DOING IPM TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER WITH RESOURCE-POOR FARMERS?

The institutions currently involved in IPM technology transfer can be divided into four groups, state, semi-state, private, and NGO. Most private agencies, either producer groups, or commercial ventures that promote IPM do not reach the small farmer in Central America, so will not be discussed.

As described above, the state has dramatically reduced its participation in technology transfer, especially that targeted at small farmers.

Most of the new semi-governmental institutions, which are replacing the state organizations are new, having been recently created. Whether these new institutes will be better able to supply technology transfer services to resource-poor farmers is not yet clear. The methodologies employed are not necessarily dramatically different from those previously used, but there are more voices in the discussion. The sustainability of the institutes is also questionable, given that the majority of the funding comes from the World Bank, which provides funds for an average of five years. When asked about these points, one World Bank consultant responded, 'The governments never supplied technology transfer services to the poor farmers in the past, so it can't be worse than that.'

The 'growth sector' of technology transfer over the last ten years has been the NGO sector. NGOs have grown rapidly in number, coverage, importance, and funding, to such a point that in some countries they probably already reach more resource-poor farmers than either the state or quasistate sector. In Guatemala there are 76 NGOs with projects related to agriculture, of which 30-40 have significant agricultural programs (Kaimowitz, 1992). In Honduras a recent study (Matheu and Kaimowitz, 1993) found 66 NGOs working in agricultural projects, providing service to 50 000 beneficiaries, 15% of the producers in the country. In Nicaragua there are over 50 NGOs that work in sustainable agriculture in Nicaragua (PASOLAC, 1993). Eighteen of the largest of them employed 668 workers, reaching 11 000-15 000 producers, 8-10% of the country's farmers (Miranda, 1992).

The rapid growth of NGOs is due in large part to the increased financing that they have received from the international community. The support for NGOs has grown so rapidly that two countries, Norway and Denmark, have recently undertaken reviews of their funding, given that 25% of the foreign aid support goes through NGOs.

The support and rapid growth for NGOs is based on what are perceived to be the comparative advantages of NGOs over funding state institutions. Key among the perceived comparative advantages are: low cost, a strong community base, active participation, agile administration, and the ability to work in areas that might be not be possible with government agencies, due to their innovativeness or their potential risk, socially or politically. Often, NGOs are characterized by the missionary zeal of their work, and a high level of commitment and integrity. Many are lead by visionary, charismatic leaders who impart a mystique within the organization which results in a high level of dedication, energy, and activity.

Whether or not NGOs actually have these perceived comparative advantages depends on the organization. Among the NGOs there is tremendous diversity in quality, goals, capability, and capacity.

In technology transfer some weaknesses of NGOs have already been noticed. Many are very small and do not have the technical capacity or breadth of experience and personnel to provide technology transfer services successfully. Driven by goals of improving the standard of living for poor community members, many NGOs are not prepared to enter into the areas where that pursuit may lead them.

Often unprepared to work in technology transfer, most NGOs do not work in technology generation, and, in addition, are cut off from institutions that generate technology. NGOs do not have formal links to government research institutions or universities, the generators of technologies, and in many cases a mutual mix-trust or lack of understanding has prevented the development of informal links.

Nor do NGOs do a good job of collaborating among themselves. A sense of competition often exists among NGOs, both for funding and for hearts and minds.

Contradictory agendas of some NGOs prevent transferring sound technologies. Many NGOs, either directly or indirectly, represent the interests of religious or political groups. The proselytizing nature of their work may compromise the transfer of sound technologies. For example, providing free seed, fertilizer, and pesticides, as part of a project to win hearts and minds, may seriously jeopardize sound technology transfer, especially IPM technology transfer. Thus not all NGOs may be good candidates for transferring IPM technology.

NGOs are born out of, and driven by very different experiences, agendas, and philosophies than state extension services. NGOs often have as their main goal improving the lives of poor. In rural areas this translates into helping farm families increase their production and family income. Many NGOs also operate with a philosophy of active participation and empowerment. Hence, NGO field workers often have a broadly defined agenda, much wider than sectorially defined extensionists. Even when NGOs work in narrowly defined agricultural projects, and hire extensionists with an agricultural education and defined functions in agriculture, the philosophy of an NGO usually defines the extensionist in terms of an agent for change or development in a community, rather than in strict productive terms.

The difference between a community change agent and a traditional extensionist is quite large, and in most cases the role of a community change agent, with a goal of promoting sustainable agriculture, is consistent with the goals of IPM technology transfer. For example, many NGOs have been promoting organic, or low-input agriculture, driven not only by a goal of economic efficiency, but also goals of improving human health, and reducing environmental contamination. Goals and concepts need to be harmonized, so that contradictory agendas are minimized.

HOW IS TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER BEING DONE?

Reduced budgets for technology transfer and a search for increased efficiency and effectiveness has led most organizations carrying out technology transfer to look for other methods beyond the individual farm visit by extension agents.

Most of the NGO and semi-governmental organizations are now using a methodology based on promoter-producers. Although there is variation among the systems, the typical promoter is a farmer chosen by the community members to be the point person for the organization or project in the community. As the name implies, the main function of the promoter is to actively promote the technology transfer being offered. The promoter typically receives intensive attention from the organization's technical staff and carries out promotion on his farm, usually in the form of demonstration plots, field days, and practical experiences. In some cases the connection of the promoter to other community farmers is formalized in organized groups, which meet on a regular basis to review activity progress and discuss problems. In other cases, the promoter's connection to the community is informal.

The promoter system has become quite popular due to its perceived advantages, which include:

· Its efficient coverage, through the promotion efforts of the promoters, of far more farms than could be covered by the extensionists alone.
· Starting the technology transfer process on-farm, with local farmers, rather than beginning outside the community and being brought in.
· The local validation of the technology by promotors, who, in some cases, are also actively encouraged to generate and experiment with new techniques;
· The demonstration of the validity of the technologies on-farm, to the community;
· The promoters serving as local representatives of the project or organization, giving the effort credibility in the community.

However, the system also has weaknesses, which include:

- The possibility of creating an elite group of farmers through special attention, resources, and legitimizing the importance of the promoter in his community.
- The creation of an elite group may cause a rejection of the project's attempt to spread a technology in a community, or may lead to a distortion of what types of technologies are generated, validated, and promoted, depending on the socio-economic conditions of the promoters, which may be quite different from the rest of the community's farmers.
- The question of remuneration for their activities is very difficult, and can cause tremendous distortions. On the one hand, a project may ask a farmer to devote scarce time to promoting technologies, while on the other hand it may pay for those services, dramatically changing the incentive structure for a farmer's participation.
- Whether or not the promoter system is either more effective or efficient has yet to be demonstrated. Most projects work with the methodology due to perceived advantages, but none are measuring the impact of the model, and many are even reluctant to do so.
- There has been an explosion in activity in farmer participatory methods in technology generation, but very little work on farmer-led technology transfer.

The Role of the Extensionist

If IPM technology transfer involves working with farmers to help them make better decisions in managing their agro-ecosystems, given the predominant model of using promoters, what is the role of the extensionist? There clearly is a role, but equally it differs from that perceived under traditional extension models.

It is not the role of the extensionist to provide information or tactics, if they are presented as part of a framework of the fundamental concepts of agro-ecosystem management. The role of the extensionist is to provide training and advice in agro-ecosystem management, to empower the farmer to make rational decisions and to serve as an information and problem-resolution link between the farmers and researchers.

The Role of the Scientist

What is the role of the scientist in this methodology? Do we now expect that every farmer is going to become a self-contained manager and investigator, with some help from the extensionist? No, scientists among us can rest assured. The researcher has important roles to play in:

· Discovery of innovative solutions to problem.
· Efficient, effective testing of new techniques: The principles of scientific experimentation and statistical analysis were not invented, contrary to the belief of many, to employ researchers, university professors, and statisticians. Scientific experimentation provides a powerful framework and set of tools.

The greatest weakness facing NGOs in their transfer of IPM technology is their weak technical skills and weak or non-existent links to technology generation. The relationship between NGOs and government institutions is often one of mutual mix-trust, if not competition or confrontation. Few linkages exist between NGOs and universities or research centers that generate technology.

WHAT IS BEING TRANSFERRED?

Most of what is being transferred as IPM with resource-poor farmers in Central America are tactics that seek to reduce pesticide use and substitute dangerous chemical insecticides with less toxic, and often less expensive, ones.

The chief method for reducing pesticide use is the introduction of a cost-benefit analysis of pest control, which includes attempting to change the attitudes of farmers about the perceived damage of insects as well as the necessity of the use of conventional pesticides. The first step is thinking about the relationships between insect presence, pest damage, and yield loss. The establishment of that thought process is an important first step in moving beyond the attitude that the only good bug is a dead bug.

Once the concept is established for certain pests and crops at certain times that insect presence does not result in reduced yield, then the use of scouting and economic thresholds can be instituted. The use of economic thresholds has not been widely transferred to resource-poor farmers. In fact some say that the approach is too complicated for small farmers or that it is too time-consuming. Resource-poor farmers in Nicaragua do, however, use economic thresholds, after work with the CARE Nicaragua project.

Another tactic widely promoted is the replacement of chemical insecticides with other compounds, because they are cheaper, less toxic, or locally produced. Botanical insecticides are widely promoted, especially Neem which in both its use and production fulfills the three basic criteria for IPM pestcides. Other botanical insecticides, produced from local plants, such as madero negro, mamey, and peppers are also being promoted. Fermented manure is being used, both as an insecticide/repellent and foliar fertilizer.

One concept that is being promoted is that of natural control, focussing on beneficial insects and pathogens. This concept is often promoted as part of an understanding of the components and functioning of agroecosystems.

Within many projects IPM is treated as a component in the design and implementation of productive systems. In these systems, the impact on pest management is often measured on the use of such practices as minimum tillage, mixed cropping, leguminous cover crops, and hillside farming that incorporates soil-erosion control techniques.

WHAT IS IPM?

Let's go back and examine what IPM is. Before defining what IPM is, let's start with what it is not. IPM does not have as its goal the following:

· safe pesticide use
· pesticide reduction
· biological control
· use of locally-produced pesticides
· use of botanical or natural pesticides instead of synthetic pesticides.

That is not to say that a good IPM program, or a good IPM-practicing farmer would not implement some, if not all of the above tactics. On the contrary, they most likely would. But they would be used in a well functioning IPM program or by a good IPM implementor as tools, not a goal of IPM. Their use would be the result of a decision process carried out by the farmer, to implement sustainable agricultural systems on his farm.

The ideas of reduced pesticide use, and integration of non-chemical tactics are the dominant concepts of what IPM is, even among young agricultural extensionists who received training in IPM. In a recent survey that I carried out among 25 extensionists and trainers, 23 defined IPM as the integration of multiple tactics, usually non-chemical. Two mentioned the goal of IPM to be maximizing short-term economic returns to the farmer.

The two extensionists who mentioned maximizing short-term economic returns were not atypical of those who incorporate an economic goal into IPM. The economic analysis usually doesn't go beyond the short-term.

The IPM concept has focussed on, and continues to focus on, the tactics of IPM, and their integration, on the I of IPM. In fact, the word 'integrated' has nothing to do with what we are trying to achieve.

IPM should be managing pests as part of the agro-ecosystem to obtain sustainable benefits. Thus, IPM should be centered on the M, on the management of farmers' systems, helping farmers make rational decisions

CONCLUSIONS

1. NGOs are playing an increasingly important role in IPM technology transfer for resource-poor farmers in Central America.
2. There are many types of NGOs, with diverse, sometimes contradictory agendas. The agendas must be clearly spelled out and the role of technology transfer among the priorities must be made clear.
3. NGOs should work together, forming linkages among themselves to share information, experiences, and develop a common agenda as a major part of the technology transfer service.
4. Linkages, both formal and informal must be created and strengthened between NGOs and other organizations involved in technology generation and transfer, specifically government agencies, universities, and international centers.
5. There are still many questions to be answered about IPM technology transfer methods. There is an urgent need to test and compare the methodologies.
6. Technology generation and transfer should be demand driven. Increasingly it is NGOs that are in the field providing a direct link and service to resource-poor farmers. Thus they should determine the research agenda and should be funded to buy the research that they need. We should move beyond the existing structure whereby funding goes directly to researchers, who then go looking for someone to implement what they develop.
7. The working definition of IPM, and our visualization and promotion of the field should focus on the important concepts of IPM and agroecosystem management. IPM is not a collection of useful tactics, nor their integration.

QUESTIONS TO ANSWER

The convergence of the disengagement of the state from technology transfer, the concomitant rise of NGOs offering this service, and the rooting of the sustainable agriculture paradigm in Central America has brought us to a headwater that is rushing forward, but must now be closely analysed. Among the important questions to be answered are the following:

· NGOs are becoming a major player in IPM technology transfer. But there is a great diversity among NGOs. What types of NGOs, based on their goals, are able to provide competent IPM technology transfer?
· Do the current practices recommended by NGOs work? Do they benefit the resource-poor farmer?
· How do the farmers view NGOs? Do they view them differently from state or quasi-state institutions? If so, why?
· What technology transfer methodologies work for IPM? Does the 'promoter' system work? Is it sustainable? What are the costs and benefits? Has the promoter system been demonstrated as successful?
· What about credit? What kinds of credit schemes promote sustainable agriculture/IPM without creating temporary incentives/distortions?
· What about the temporary nature of project/NGO funding? Is there a fundamental difference between extension services, thought to provide on-going service, and 'projects' that are funded on three- to six-year time horizons? What is sustainability in terms of technology transfer?

RECOMMENDATIONS

What now needs to be done to take advantage of the current changes to improve IPM technology transfer for resource-poor farmers in Central America?

For NGOs

NGOs must recognize their new role in the technology transfer, especially IPM technology transfer. NGOs are no longer marginal players in technology transfer. As such they should assume their new role, working to improve their own capacity and the linkages with other actors.

As many NGOs are small and have limited scope and resources, it is imperative that they work together. The most effective forum may be a federation of NGOs working in the area of sustainable agriculture, where exchange of information, analysis of common problems, and collaboration can be established.

NGOs must clearly establish their agendas in sustainable agriculture and IPM, identifying possible areas of contradiction with their other agendas.

Having identified the goals of their work in IPM and sustainable agriculture, NGOs must develop indicators of progress and rigorous monitoring systems. The technologies promoted must be based on the principles of sustainable production that benefit resource-poor farmers. To this end, NGOs must be very critical in evaluating what technologies meet this end, and not promote technologies that have other attractive attributes, but don't meet the main goal.

NGOs must learn to develop informal and formal linkages with other actors in technology generation and transfer. NGOs should move beyond the isolationist or confrontationist relationship that at times characterizes their relationships with other institutions. This includes universities, international research centres, and government institutions. Collaboration among these actors must be strengthened.

For governments

Governments should also recognize the new roles of the actors in IPM technology transfer, especially that of NGOs. Government agencies should welcome NGOs into the technology generation/transfer process, working closely with them to identify needs from the field, and coordinate a response, based on the government's own resources and the government's role in setting related policies.

For research institutions

Research institutions should realize that their main clients may well be NGOs. Thus they should work closely with them, both in identifying needs and developing appropriate responses, and in helping to strengthen the NGOs technically.

For funders

Funders should fund NGOs, not only to implement IPM and sustainable agriculture, but to allow them to carry out the necessary research and technical assistance that is necessary to provide appropriate solutions to resource-poor farmers. With the resources available, NGOs will be able to contract the research institutions for the services they need, thus forging new institutional linkages that are necessary for IPM implementation.

REFERENCES

HRUSKA, A.J. and CORRIOLS, M. (1993) Training farmers how to manage pests reduces use and health risk of pesticides. Nicaragua: CARE.

KAIMOWITZ, D., ERAZO, D., MEJÍA, M. and NAVARRO, A. (1992) Las organizaciones privadas de desarollo y la transferencia de tecnología en el agro Hondureño. Revista Centroamericana de Economia 12 (37): 46-88.

MATHEU, R. and KAIMOWITZ, D. (1993) Las organizaciones no gubermentales en Guatemala que trabajan en el sector agropecuario. Unpublished.

MIRANDA, B. (1992) Las Organizaciones No Gubermentales y la Generacion y Transferencia de Tecnologia el Caso de Nicaragua. Managua: IICA.

PROGRAMA DE APOYO PARA LA AGRICULTURA SOSTENIBLE EN LADERAS DE AMERICA CENTRAL (PASOLAC) (1993) Inventario de Entidades que Trabajan en Agricultura Sostenible en Laderas en Nicaragua. Managua: PASOLAC.

DISCUSSION

Hermogenes Castillo Diaz (Altertec, Guatemala): I believe our best starting point is an examination of how the local agricultural system in the region is working. Our experience in Guatemala suggests that the changes we have introduced into organic agriculture were already known to the farmer. These techniques were applied before the agriculturalists arrived. I believe it is also important to establish links between NGOs and research centres.

Allan Hruska: I agree.

Lorena Lastres de Rueda (Zamorano, Honduras): Paternalism is damaging in the transfer of IPM technology. I believe we must analyse how to bring in the farmer without making him dependent on the researchers. I work in an area where paternalism is strong and people say, Good and what will you bring us. This is an error. People have training, not because they need it, but because we think they need it. Better would be a training approach working with the people to resolve problems. One should make it inductive, bringing together knowledge and ideas.

Allan Hruska: I am completely in agreement. That approach distorts and creates false impressions amongst farmers. Many NGO workers have religious and other reasons for their involvement. The implementation of IPM or sustainable agriculture is not their first priority. If NGOs are going to implement IPM, we must know and define our goals There must be training and orientation but we should exclude NGOs whose goals do not include IPM or sustainable agriculture.

Mario Pareja (Care International, Costa Rica): Two questions:

1. How can we transfer the concept of thresholds to the farmers and what results would follow.2. What is the role of credit in IPM programmes, seeing that credits usually encourage rather than discourage the use of pesticides.

Allan Hruska: To answer 1. In four years of working with maize farmers, we have given training on the concept of thresholds and had very positive results. We use a sheaf of very simple counts which we have refined over that period. The first year it did not work, but now after three years they use it. We have also monitored plagues without counts. It is flexible. Our recommended threshold is 40%, but our farmers have used 70% as their level of economic damage. The farmers have adapted and experimented with this. It is important to use the threshold level as a concept rather than a fixed rule.

2. There are ways to use credit in a sustainable way. We should link credit.

Geoff Gilman (ODA, UK): Allan, How do you see the relationship between national and international NGOs. International NGOs usually set up local offices and there is some collaboration, but I have occasionally detected some reluctance to work together. What is your view on tints.

Allan Hruska: I think there should be collaboration. My personal view is that they should work together as partners. As an international organization, we have some advantages. We have access to much more information, sometimes more resources, both financial and personnel. However we cannot implement sustainable systems for poor producers on our own and I think we should provide expertise, training and collaboration to ensure that local NGOs become the main actors. Then, when Care International withdraws at the end of a project, the work can be sustained.

Ronald Barrow (MALMR, Trinidad and Tobago): At the start of the IPM project you got good results but in the preceding project when you were addressing farmers about pesticide safety you stated the results were not good. What was different about how you carried out the programmes.

Allan Hruska: I said the results weren't positive in terms of reducing farmers' health risk. As a side note, we monitored cholinesterase (which is affected by organophosphates the main pesticides in use in Nicaragua) in the blood system of farmers who had received pesticide safety training or protective clothing by using blood samples. This gave a quantitatively accurate picture of their comparative levels of exposure and training did not result in less exposure. There may be three factors involved in this.

1. The training and particularly the equipment were often inappropriate for Nicaraguan conditions. where temperatures of 40° and high humidity make heavy clothing intolerable.
2. If the clothing becomes contaminated or damaged, farmers may expose themselves to risk from a false sense of security.
3. Probably most important is the training emphasis. One needs to show the dangers rather than talk about the safe application of pesticides. When we developed a video emphasizing the dangers, rather than the economics, we got good results. We no longer call the course Safe Pesticide Use but the Dangers of Pesticide Use.

Lori Ann Thrupp (World Resources Institute): I want to return to the issue of paternalism. One of the important lessons of the kind of work you are involved in is the development of respect for the farmers and their knowledge. Related to that concept, I would suggest that the use of the phrase 'target group' has the wrong connotations. It implies that people are passive recipients. One of the important changes in our conception of technology transfer would be to use a different word, actors, participants or partners.

Allan Hruska: I agree wholeheartedly that terminology indicates a lot about relationships. This is one of the NGOs' advantages. They are born out of a different philosophy from state-run extension services

Octavia Ramirez (CATIE, Costa Rica): I would like to comment on your view that NGOs must use the services of other institutions. I believe that funds should be given to NGOs or organizations that work in the field for buying in or carrying out research. However, we should take care that this not misinterpretated and funds given only for buying in research rather than the NGOs carrying it out themselves. That would kill the capability already within the region for developing technologies.

Allan Hruska: Yes I agree completely that NGOs and other organizations in the field must draw up the research agenda because of their ability to channel farmer demand which I trust. I believe financing research for the NGOs would be beneficial.

Porfirio Alvarez (MIP, Dominican Republic): I agree and would like to emphasize that it is important to evaluate the situation in each country. Some extension departments work well and others not so well and in the latter case NGOs and other organizations can help to fill the gap. Mixed public and private programmes have worked well in the Dominican Republic.

Mario Vaughan (UNAN, Nicaragua): I think Gene gave a very good summary of all the definitions, but really at this stage, I begin to wonder whether we are using the right concept of pest management. I believe in English it suggests wider aspects than we think of here.