What can we learn from more recent (and more 'rigorous') economic impact assessments of integrated pest management farmer field schools (IPM-FFS)?

Abstract

Abstract Based on results from the 15 'medium risk of bias' studies (and statistical 'meta-analysis' techniques of results from these studies), Waddington et al. (2014) concluded that Integrated Pest Management Farmer Field Schools (IPM-FFS) are generally effective in improving intermediate economic outcomes for participating farmers in smaller-scale programmes. On average, IPM-FFS programmes in these studies were shown to provide the following: a 39% reduction in insecticide use (i.e. based on an environmental impact quotient), a 13% increase in yields and a 19% increase in net revenues (or profits). However, these economic impacts are only found in smaller-scale programmes, and were not observed for IPM-FFS programmes that were scaled up to the national level. In addition, based on two studies that compared the benefits and costs of IPM-FFS programmes, Waddington et al. (2014) also indicated that IPM-FFS approaches are unlikely to be a cost-effective method for extending complex IPM information. In light of this comprehensive review by Waddington et al. (2014), the objective of this chapter is to 'build on' this previous work and examine more recent (e.g. 2012-16) economic impact evaluation studies of FFS (i.e. those not included in the Waddington et al. 2014 study). In particular, the focus is on recent economic impact studies that utilized 'more rigorous' evaluation techniques that account for selection issues/bias (i.e. 'medium-' to 'low-risk of bias'), especially those studies that utilized quasi-experimental techniques and/or fully experimental RCT approaches to evaluating FFS interventions. The chapter aims to determine if there are new and additional insights from these more recent and more 'rigorous' 2012-16 studies that were not captured in the systematic review by Waddington et al. (2014). It is also interested in whether these more recent studies followed some of the recommendations coming out of the Waddington et al. (2014) paper. Lastly, this chapter hope to provide some recommendations that are directly relevant to entomologists and other scientists developing IPM practices, IPM-FFS programmes, and other educational programmes promoting the use and diffusion of this pest control strategy.