Free Enterprise: The Only Sustainable Solution to IPM Implementation l

Scott H. Hutchins

DowElanco Global Headquarters, 9330 Zionsville Road Indianapolis, Indiana 46268 USA

,I. Agric. Entomo1. 12(4): 211-217 <October 1995)

ABSTRACT To be successfully implemented, [ntcb'l'uted Pest I'vlanagc­mont (I PAn must be a sound financial enterprise represented thl"Ough value­added services and products. Five principles for successful implementation arc outlined, including the need to recognize that value is defined by the farmer, not by the scientific community. If rPM adds value, it will be exploited, with objective decisions on selection and use of specific tactics based on margin contribution. Regulatory emphasis should incorporate societal concerns leading to science·based use restrictions that mitigate true risks. In addition, the cost of registration as translated through the price of technology or service fmther incorporates societal wncerns. Ultimately, IPNI will succeed and be sustained if adopters arc successful and laggat'ds am not. The action agenda based on these principles must include a renewed focus on decision making criteria by using the economic injury level variables of" injul·y and damage as a guide for planning research. In uddition, organizational hindrances in the public and private sectors must be eliminnted coincident with a renewed professional focus on leadership. The target audience must be IPM practitioners, with science and continuous learning integrated through professional certification. The implementation pl·inciples, combined with the proposed action agenda and professional expectations of" leadership, teamwork, and accountability, can narrow the gap bct.ween IPM theory and practice.

KEY WORDS Integrated Pest Management, IPM, economic injury level, decision making

Integrated pest management ([PM) clearly has been one of the most influential concepts affecting the research, education, and practice or agriculture in the United States. Indeed, since Stern et al. (]959) first introduced "The Integrated Control Concept," a plethora of modifications, refinements, and corollary concepts to efficiently manage pests (i.e., maximize benefit-to-cost ratio) have been theorized and investigated with both small scale and area·wide research initiatives (Norion and MuJlen 1994). This paper, however, will not debate the "validity" oflPM as a theory, but focus on assessing the hypothesis that IPM is removed from implementation at the farm level.

B.ccci\'l:!d for puhlicat.ion 29 September 1994, accepted 2 October 1995.

211

I

212 J. Agric. Entomol. Vol. 12, No. 'I (l995)

The premise offered in this paper on IP!\'l implementation is simple: to be successfully implemented at the farm level, IP:M must be a sound financial enterprise represented through value-added services and products. Whether or not it is inherently obvious, the reality is that capitalism, tempered by the collective values of our society, form the rationale for cost-to·benefit decision making in the United States. The farmer is the customer for IPM, proprietors of pest management products and services are the suppliers, and society as a whole is the secondary benefactor (via lower food prices).

IPM Implementation Principles

Consistent with the premise that rPM must be a sound financial enterprise in order to be economically sustainable, five implement.ation principles are proposed and must be embraced by public and private int.erests alike. 'With each principle, a perspective is presented on the contl'al issue, along with critical aspects of what must be recognized and ultimately Overcome i.n order to develop a value-added paradigm for IPM.

Implementation principle 1. The first principle relates to assignment of accountability for defining value: value is the key concept. of rPM, but can only be defined by the user. In a free-enterprise economy, the Clistomer (i.e., farmer or hislher agent) determines value. Boehlje and Eidman (1984), in their farm management text identify a number of farmer goals that affect allocation of scarce resources within any given farming enterprise. These include, but are not limited to, maximize profit or revenue, increase net worth, control a larger business, avoid low returns or losses, reduce borrowing needs, increase family living, increase leisure time, have a neat and well-kept ('armstead, and provide community service. Tn essence, therefore, the definition of value is circumstantial because each farmer has hisnler own personal value system. It follows, then, that for IPM to be successfully implemented, it must have the flexibility to accommodate this diversity without being considered an implementation failure by the scientific community. Indeed, much of the crisis or perceived gap between theory and practice actually is a gap between a theory of "idealistic IPM" where societal values are assumed (e.g., reduce pesticides) and l'realistic IPJ\!Y" where farmers have clearly considered their goals and personal values and made their choices accordingly.

Because the customers of rPM are managing a complex business in which pests are only one consideration, the reality that farmers have the responsibility t.o use control tactics as they see appropriate, so long as treatments are within regulatory specifications, must be accepted. Knowing this, [PM techniques that recognize individual preferences regarding income risk must be developed and incorporated within a value-sensitive decision model. The farmer and his/her products and services retailer arc the financial stakeholders witl1 IPM decision-making. Academia, eXlension, and government are third parties that will influence decisions within the scope of their mission, but are not accountable (not liable) for attainment of individual farmer objectives.

Implementation principle 2. The second principle states: if true value is present, it will be exploited as a business enterprise. Today, finally, IPM is

HUTCHJNS: Free Enterprise as a Sustainable Solution to IPP.'l Implementation 213

beginning to be recognized as a business opportunity rather than an academic initiative. IPM will (and should) be developed as value-added services and products (per the first implementation principle) for farmers, but that trend should be positively influenced by scientists to ensure that the business of IPM is consistent with good science. In other words, the scientific community must embrace the notion that IPM is represented by value-added products and services, overcome the belief that IPM can be successfully implemented by public entities, and establish business support mechanisms along with focused research and continuing education processes.

Implementation principle 3. With the belief that objective cost·La-benefit decision analysis itself adds value, the third principle becomes elementary: IP:M is input-independent; all control tactics should be considered based on their ability Lo add value to the pest management decision. As a theory and a practice, IPM should not, a priori, exclude any tactic or class of tactics. The successful business will, however, evaluate the potential of each alternative based solely upon the value it adds to the enterprise. If, for example, the personal goal of the fal·mer is to optimize the value of inputs, which seems like a reasonable goal for IPM decision making, then determinations of total physical product, average physical product, and marginal physical product per unit of input should be consider·ed for each alternative (Boehlje and Eidman 1984), From an efficiency standpoint, the farmer would seek to invest with inputs until the marginal return approaches zero.

Numerous techniques exist for optimization of inputs; however, the key point is objectivity in cost-to-benefit input analysis. If a particular prejudice exists against any legal control tactic by the decision maker, whether it be chemical, cultural, or biological in nature, then a personal value decision has been made by the farmer which is consistent with principle 1. For all remaining alternatives, however, the final choice should use objective criteria fol' assessing value. In order to support the business of IPM as advocated in principle 2, the scientific community should advocate a robust set of alternatives for situation· specific consideration and not recommend one tactic over another, but provide objective evaluation criteria. Recommendation of one tactic over another is a clear violation of principles 1-3 and, therefore, a hindrance to IPM implementation.

Implementation principle 4. rf farming is a business, driven by cost-to· benefit analysis and objective decisions, how does the non-farming sector of the United States (98% of the population) implement its OWI1 values regarding rPM? After all. the customer value paradigm also applies to falmer-s. There should be no mistaking that regulatory policy regarding the safe use of all IPM technology is a necessity. Society has the right, indeed the obligation, to affect these policies. Principle 4, however, insists that: regulatory emphasis should be on protecting the public from known risks associated with specific tactics (appropriate restrictions should be intrinsic to the decision). In other words, the regulation of control tactics should be the result of scientific determinations regarding risk, whether it be the risk of adverse environmental effects from a particular chemical tactic or adverse propagation of an introduced biological control agent. The Envil'Onmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to critically assess the environmental risk of any technology and correctly limit

214 J. Agric. Enlomol. Vol. 12, No.4 (995)

usage (via labeling) to mitigate adverse effects. The degree to which a tactic is investigated by EPA and other public regulatory agencies is directly related to t.he societal concern about that particular taelic (or class of tactics). Hence, the cost of data generation and review by the EPA will be applied disproportionately to registrants of tactics that are viewed by society as "risky" (e.g., pesticides and genetically altered species). In turn, the cost of this process will be passed on to the farmer, along with all the required use restrictions, and, thus, also represents and incorporates the collective innucnce society has on farmer decision making. This innuence is evident when using the economic injury level (ElL) model for [PM decision making (Pedigo et al. 1986) because the determination of' "economic damage" is directly related to pl'Ojected control costs.

So, with societal concerns addressed scientifically through regulatory critique and restriction of real risks, the scientific community must overcome any tendency to "double count" and associate IPM with the pl'Olllotion of any single tactic (e.g., biological contl'Ol) over another (e.g" pesticides), Promotion of any tactic over another by IPI\'l would be overestimating adverse effects (or perceived adverse effects) and hinder the implementation of principle 3. The critical need here is for the scientific communities of academia, government, regulatory, and industry to assess each tactic with clearly understood and communicated criteria regarding risk to ensure that the potential for true adverse effects is mitigated. F'inally, in a broader sense, administrators and political leaders should avoid the development of policies that inhibit the implementation of rPM through violation of' principle 4.

Implementation principle 5. If competitiveness in business and cost· to­benefit concepts seem foreign, consider the fact that IPM itself was bOI'n from these concepts as a proposal for continuous improvement in pest control. Our system of economics is painfully simple; if IPM delivers real value, those who adopt it should realize a differential advantage. Stated another way, poor decision makers must fail and exit the business.

As research on pests, hosts, and host. response to pests provides a better understanding of the biological variables required by the ElL model, the use of t.hat information for decision·making should strengthen the farming enterprise, As new biological knowledge and pest control technology evolve, there must be a benefit for early adopters and a penalty for laggards. In efTect, therefore, principle 5 recognizes that the biological and free enterprise principle of selection must apply to agriculture as it does within any at.hel' business venture.

'rhe five implementat.ion principles represent a f"amework from which to develop the infrastructure to close the gap between theory and practice wlth IPM. If these principles are substantially violated, IPM will remain a theoretical program to be debated among "third parties" and not fully utilized for value.

Building an IPM Action Agenda

Implementation is an action-oriented word, With principles in place, an action agenda can be constructed to narrow the gulf between theory and

HUTCHINS: F'rcc Enterpdse as a Sustainable Solution to IPM Implementation 2 t5

practice of IPM. Three categorical areas of action are required: focus IPM research on decision making needs, eliminate organizational hindrances, and focus on key performance dimensions to accomplish results.

IPM decision-making research. Regardless of whether or not research is "basic" or ""applied" in nature, it should be focused on some vision for an outcome. For IPJ\<l decision making, the variables of the ElL model represent a !"ruide to assess the knowledge that is requil'ed to enable decisions by end users. For example, is the injury potential of the pest species understood? Does knowledge of host response, or a damage curve, fOl' the key physiological processes affected through injury exist? If so, has the sensitivity of this relationship under varying environmental conditions been documented? Has all eflicient sampling technique been developed that is conducive to assessing injury?

Answering these questions through biological research forms the scientific core for lPM decision making, Indeed, combining the results of this research with information on control costs and efficacy, as well as market value of the crop, enables objective decisions. The successful implementation of JPM, however, also requires the transfer of knowledge and pest control technology expertise to the farmer (or hislhcr agent), Five suggested research needs moe required to support IPM implementation. The first need is to develop consensus on key physiological processes of host.s that are affected by pests. Pedigo et al. (1986) and Hutchins et al. (1988) propose a core set of physiological processes that form the dependent variables for damage curves, but wider validation 0(' these is necessary, This activity is primarily the responsibility of public research institutions, The second research requisite is to design and implement experimentation that characterizes host productivity as a function of the key physiological processes. In addition to a mean or median response, sensitivity analysis for the primary abiotic factors (e,g., water stress) affecting growth must be mapped as a measure for uncertainty, This research activity also is a primary responsibility of public institutions, with a critical emphasis on maintaining a practical perspective on data gathering, The third research need involves the development of transfer systems and decision models for use at the field level. Here, information must be effectively summarized as knowledge and put in a usable context for decision making to meet the needs at the field level. Static threshnlds that do not account for changing economic or biological variable values do not represent continuous improvement in decision making, Public and private entities must work closely and cooperatively to meet these needs, rt is the sole responsibility of the private sectOl'. however, Lo develop and position individual control technologies (i.e" products) with IPM services in mind, This ,'esponsibility of the private sector represents the fourth critical research need, Product characterization must elucidate the value added to the fanner as a means to provide objective cliteria for decision making. Finally, the fifth need is for !PM implementation to be driven through the continuous discovery, development, and use of value-added products as well as services that determine how they fit in prescriptive management.

The five research needs identified as supporting IPM implementation are consistent with the implementation principles and represent a planned technology transfer. The relative effectiveness and efficiency by which these

216 J. Agric. EntomoL Vol. l2, NO.4 (1995)

steps are undertaken through a public-private partnership clearly will affect the rate of implementation.

Eliminate organizational hindrances. If the first action item has identified the critical needs, the second must focus on what needs to change. Because IPrvl has become a ubuzzword" to extremists on both sides of the pesticide issue, focus on developing initiatives to address decision making has diminished. There is little or no concerted focus nationally on the research issues forming the foundation of [PM, and most lPM-sponsored research is not currently directed toward improving decision-making by the end user. It is time for federal and state administrators to direct their research resources toward the objective of characterizing injury and damage so the ElL model can be used as a decision tool.

The private sector also must change its paradigm of insecticide development and explore all value-added tactics for insect management.. The realism of having to create value for shareholders, however, must be recognized and will set staggering hurdle rates for "non-conventional n technology. Still, the railroad industry in the U.S. essentially vanished because of a failure by management to recognize that they really were in the transportation business in the broader sense. Similarly, insecticide manufacturers should never lose sight of the fact that their business, while dominated today by chemical insecticides, is rcaJly a pest management business in the broader sense.

In addition to a redirection of resources and emphasis on developing the knowledge for IPM decision making, the profession of entomology and other agricultural professions must come together and provide leadership. Today, there are conceptual rifts of various degrees between public and private entomologists, as well as basic and applied enl.omologists. \Vhile often referred to as an asset, one cannot help but wonder if the extreme diversity of interests and micro-agendas characteristic of these professions has not hindered progress on IPM, especially through a potentially influential organization such as the Entomological Society of America (ESA).

A fourth organizational hindrance, one that drastically limits the influence of science on decision making, is the failure to establish a working certification program for practitioners of [PM. The ESA Certification Board (formerly ARPE) has made impressive progress and still offers much hope, but the reality is that demand for professional certification of LPM decision-making knowledge has not been established. The scientific community must support certification of practitioners as the only sustainable means to translate new knowledge into new capabilities for managing pests.

Key Performance Dimensions. In addition to "what" must occur in support of IPM implementation, focus on "how" to behave is also important. For IPM implementation to succeed on the scale that has been proposed, three performance dimensions are critical: leadership, teamwork, and accountability. Leadership is a broad expectation, but fbI' IPM-based research it can simply mean plan, plan, plan and focus, focus, focus. Indeed, it will take great leadership by all entities to focus substantial resources on the central issues of !PM implementation in a fashion that eliminates waste and enables decision making. Because the suggested action items for research include sponsors from both the public and private sectors, teamwork will be critical to ensure that the

HU1'CHINS: Free Enterprise as a Sustainablc Solution to IPM Implementation 217

knowledge supply chain is functional and intact. A prerequisite to teamwork, however, is trust. All "factions" involved with IPM implementation must seek to understand the unique perspectives of their cohorts and take the time to build trusi and tr·ustworthiness. '\lith leadership providing the planning focus, and teamwork enabling synergy among the participants, the level of accountability for each aspect of IPM implementation must be elevated. The integmted control concepts originally proposed by Stem et al. (1959) are now 35 years old. Implementation has stalled because of many reasons, bui primarily because theoretical consensus has not iranslaied into professional accountability within ihe entomology communiiy.

There clearly is a gap between theory and practice insofar as IPM is concerned. Siill, the foundation for IPM implementation exists using the ELL model as the basis for objective decision making. This tool, combined with the principles of rPM implementaiion and the initiaiion of focused research prOb'1'ams through the elimination of organizational hindrances, will enable IPM to nan'ow the theoretical and practical differences thai exist today. Our role as a scientific community is to actively participate toward change as outlined, with special attention to excellence in leadership, teamwork, and accountability.

Acknowledgment

Appreciation is extended to the symposium organizers, Drs. Jim Berry, Leon Higley, and Kevin Steffey for the opportunity to participate in the 1993 I~SA symposium entitled, "'The Crisis in IPt\'I: Is There a Solution to the Gap Between Theory and Practice," and for their general leadership in addressing the critical topic of' IPr-,,1 implementation. The thoughts, belief's, and proposals presented do not necessarily represent the consensus opinion of OowElanco 01' the Agricultul'nl Products Induslry.

References Cited

Boehlje, M.D., and V.R. Eidman. 1984. Farm management, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 806 pp.

Hutchins, S.H., L. G. Higley, and L.P. Pedigo. 1988. Injury equivalency as a basis for dcveloping multiple-species economic-injury levels. J. Econ. Entomol. 81: 1-8.

Norton, G.W., and J. Mullen. 1994. Economic evaluation of integrated pest management programs: a literature review. Va. Coop. Exten. Publi. 448·J20, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and Stale University, 112 pp.

Pedigo, L.P., S.H. Hutchins, and L.G. Higley. 1986. Economic-injury levels in theory and practice. Ann. Rcv. EnlomoL 31:341-368.

Stern, V.M., R.F. Smith, R. van den Bosch, and K.S. Hugen. 1959. The integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29: S1·l0t.