IPM on WCR in Serbia

1
IPM on WCR in Serbia

• Sladjan Stankovic, NTC

2
WCR in Serbia, 10 years development

• How it started
• First occurrence of WCR in 1992 location Surcin
  near Belgrade airport (Baca, F., MRI, Zemun
  Polje, Bgd)
  
• WCR was established and economically important
  pest

3
WCR in Serbia, 10 years development
4
WCR in Serbia, 10 years development

• WCR problem was raised as, scientific, economic
  and political issue
  
• Spreading area and area with economic damages
  were increasing
  
• Farmers had losses (very significant, up to 90)
• Advisors had no answer or solution for the problem

5
WCR in Serbia, 10 years development

• There was no action organized or lead by
  government, SPS measures failed.
  
• There were only some solitary attempts and
  actions. One of these activities was
  collaboration of dr Sivcev and regional extension
  services
• It was basis for FAO project (the first FAO
  project after sanctions in Serbia).

6
Situation at corn fields
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
WCR in Serbia, 10 years development

• After 10 years, WCR is just a management issue,
  with solution
  
• What happened?
• ------------------
• ------------------
• IPM for WCR in Eastern and Central Europe -
  GTFS/RER/017/ITA
  

12
WCR in Serbia, 10 years development

• 2003 10 Facilitators ...5 FFS
• 2004 18 Facilitators .19 FFS
• 2005 25 Facilitators .37 FFS
• 2006 35 Facilitators .44 FFS

13
Why/how IPM can help?

• Farmers education about WCR plays key role in
  area wide detection and management.
  
• There were many cases of WCR attack without
  proper detection.
  
• New approach in knowledge and skills transfer
  lead to better understanding of WCR - FFS

14
Why/how IPM can help?

• Through FFS farmers get basic information on WCR
  and IPM at the beginning followed by more
  specific activities and topics.
  
• New approach in farmers education NFE and
  participatory training were quite beneficial and
  efficient, giving to farmer new knowledge and
  self confidence, for the first time.
• Regular meetings, honest expectations,
  intercourse respect and dedication of
  facilitators to FFS gained effects of NFE.

15
Why/how IPM can help?

• Structured learning experiences on IPM practice
  were one of the most effective tools for farmers
  education on IPM.
  
• During FFS meetings, farmers were able to monitor
  all important parameters of study.
  
• Finally, results were discussed in a
  comprehensible way and farmers evaluated effects
  of study fields and proposed field studies for
  next season.

16
Why/how IPM can help?

• Benefits of IPM through FFS are considerable.
• Life knowledge (especially risk assessment, map
  making and consequently community
  action-rotation) and special topics strength
  farmers motivation and confidence in FFS model,
  facilitators and project.

17
Why/how IPM can help?

• FFS starts with introduction to WCR problem and
  following printed material.
  
• After one FFS cycle farmers are informed about
  all important WCR topics.
  
• Farmer to farmer dissemination of information is
  effective tool for WCR management.

18
Training of trainers - TOT
19
Training of trainers - TOT

• Zig zague model of TOT
• Training for 1st cycle facilitators contained all
  important elements of NFE and participatory
  training, gained by 2nd and 3rd cycle
  facilitators experiences, which were present.
• 2nd and 3rd cycle facilitators were on advanced
  training.
  
• AESA is regular and unavoidable activity of TOT.
  Facilitators, divided in subgroups, did the AESA
  in the same way as in FFS meeting.
  
• Special topics and presentations by facilitators
  were highly significant activities.

20
AESA the key activity
21
(No Transcript)
22
AESA - TOT
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
Exercises
28
Special topics and presentations
29
The most important elements of FFS are

• AESA
• Special topics
• Study fields
• Risk assessment
• Map making
• Community action

30
AESA

• Regular activity
• Highly beneficial activity
• Use of printed form
• Improvement of form/template (like weather
  forecast)
  
• Developed form for AESA in fruits PLUM
• Development of few additional AESA forms

31
Special topics practical work
32
COMMUNITY ACTION
33
farmers involvement, FFS problems and
opportunities. What people think (farmers,
facilitators, village authorities)

• Levels of farmers knowledge are suficient for
  them to avoid losses from WCR
  
• 2 3 seasons of FFS activities are needed for
  farmers to change their attitudes and way of
  thinking (min. 2 years).
  
• After 3rd cycle, farmers are capable to transfer
  their knowledge to other farmers.
  
• It is essential for facilitators to have
  technical knowledge and background, as well as
  respect in local community (to be from local
  community)
• During the 2-3 seasons of FFS activities, farmers
  are accustomed to gether or that something is
  happening in the village. In some cases they
  organize events by themselves

34
DEVELOPMENT OF IPM FOR WCR IN COLLABORATION WITH
SECONDARY AGRICULTURAL SCHOOLS IN SERBIA
35
Background

• There were several ideas concerning project start
  and objectives related to this project. Well
  known facts were
  
• IPM is underrepresented or completely absent in
  Secondary School workplans and education
  
• Pupils are more open to new ideas they have to
  make their own knowledge, experiences and
  beliefs. Therefore, methodology for education
  /learning/ of pupils is simpler than learning
  process in adults.
• Teachers are interested in curriculum
  improvement, concerning IPM. Support by this
  project will make their efforts much easier.

36
Expectations

• Raise IPM concern and understanding in pupils
• Improve and test potential of pupils to learn,
  practice and disseminate principles of IPM in
  their families, villages and environment, as well
  as with other pupils and colleagues (as future
  students and agronomists)
• Create future core group of facilitators
• Strengthens IPM network
• Generate new ideas and approaches with younger
  population.

37
Method

• The same methodology applied in FFS in Serbia
  will be used. Regular meetings (10) during the
  whole season, with strong emphasis on AESA, study
  fields, discussions, learning by doing, special
  topics, insect zoos, etc., with 10 - 20 pupils.
  
• Participants (pupils) will be trained for future
  facilitators as well. They will have possibility
  to prepare special topics and different study
  proposals.

38
Method

• Season long activities on this project were
  implemented, as well as in FFS. The best and most
  beneficial results could be reached by starting
  the activities at sowing times, so the
  pupils/participants could follow all elements of
  work.
• Concerning that study is planned as activity in
  SFS, it is important for pupils to follow field
  activities until harvest and results summaries.
  
• Printed materials were very important for pupils
  education. For that reason brochure about WCR and
  IPM principles was very important tool for their
  learning process.

39
Method

• Programmes were adjusted to pupils grades. At
  the beginning, programmes were the same for both
  grades (presentations on IPM, WCR /biology,
  ecology, damages, history/, principles of AESA,
  study fields, use of pheromone traps and YST,
  risk estimation).
• Having in mind that 4th grade pupils are
  finishing school by the end of July, activities
  and programme was more intensive for them. The
  intention was to introduce them all significant
  elements of IPM and WCR.

40
Method

• Before they finished school /graduated/, brochure
  was finished, printed and distributed, so they
  had satisfying amount of knowledge, field work
  and resources for further acting. They also get
  YST to test their knowledge by themselves.
• Pupils from 2nd grade were in particular focus,
  because they were able to follow whole season
  activities. They were informed about all
  important topics about IPM, WCR, SFS/FFS and
  related activities. Activities in these groups
  were similar to activities in FFS groups, with
  slight modifications.

41
Method

• Finally, during October and November, there were
  final activities related to study fields, RA,
  dissemination of brochure about WCR and IPM, as
  well as conduction of assessments and knowledge
  testing.
• Feedback from pupils was estimated through
  questionnaire and knowledge test (KT). Results
  were analysed and presented in graphs.

42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
Outputs

• According to results and observations about
  project objectives accomplishment, it is obvious
  that SFS could play significant role in IPM
  developement and implementation.
• Having in mind pupils background (60 from
  families involved in agricultural production) and
  their plans to work in any type of agro business
  (50) or having doubt about future profession
  (20)(estimation suggested by Janice Jiggins),
  there is significant potential for IPM
  implementation. Pupils involved in SFS are also
  willing to continue with IPM knowledge
  improvement (80) and very aware about importance
  of environment and agro ecosystem preservation
  (100).

45
(No Transcript)
46
Knowledge test
47
Knowledge test
48
Who is afraid of IPM pupils are not
49
Who is afraid of IPM pupils are not
50
Teachers, their role, motivation and feedback

• Teachers in Secondary Agriculture School were
  active participants in all activities during
  project.
  
• Two teachers took part in planning and conducting
  activities
  
• Dragan Nikolic (professor of arable crops /
  practice)
  
• Madlena Jovic (professor of plant protection)
• Novica Ilic (professor of plant protection)

51
Teachers, their role, motivation and feedback

• Teachers were very highly motivated to
  participate and support SFS activities. Their
  motivation was due
  
• Improvement of school curriculum
• Testing new approach in education
• Collaboration with colleagues from other
  institutions /network/.
  
• Feedback from teachers is represented through
  their
  
• Regular participation at SFS meetings,
  collaboration and future activities on school
  curriculum development related to IPM
  involvement
• Willingness to continue with activities next year

52
Concusions

• Pupils at Secondary Agricultural Schools are very
  target group for education on IPM, concerning
  their ability to learn and accept new ideas and
  approaches.
• Participation and acceptance of SFS from pupils
  and teachers was high, far above than expected
  
• Contribution of SFS to IPM development and
  implementation could be very important and quite
  certain, if SFS activities continue in next
  years.
• AESA was key activity in SFS AESA played crucial
  role in better understanding in learning process,
  as well as sense of non formality.

53
Concusions

• Contribution of SFS to school curriculum is
  possible and certain, with basic steps done
  already
  
• Based on questionnaires and knowledge tests,
  pupils highly accepted methodology, knowledge,
  ideas and approaches represented and conducted in
  SFS activities this year.
• Pupils involved in SFS activities are good
  trained for IPM of WCR.
  
• High percentage of pupils will be involved in
  agriculture in their future (occupation, faculty,
  etc.)
  
• Some pupils candidate themselves for future
  facilitators.
  
• Potential of pupils and teachers for IPM network
  sustainability is very high and need to be
  developed.

54
Concusions

• SFS activities crated local IPM network,
  consisting of teachers, pupils, facilitators,
  extension workers.
  
• SFS activities can initiate and support
  establishment of local networks in other regions
  (recommended)
  
• SFS could bring and add very high influence to
  overall project sustainability.
  
• SFS activities should be continued, together with
  simultaneous programme modifications and
  adaptations.

55
Recommendations

• SFS activities should be continued in Secondary
  Agricultural School in Pozarevac and Prokuplje
  and extended to new schools, together with
  simultaneous programme modifications and
  adaptations.
• Initialisation of local networks through SFS
  activities
  
• Consolidation of school curriculum supplements at
  regional level (or for countries involved in SFS
  activities)
  
• Creation of unique SFS methodology, together with
  analysis and manual

56
Recommendations

• Linkage of SFS at regional level (regional SFS
  network)
  
• Involvement of pupils in ToT and their
  preparation for facilitators next year.
  
• It is important to provide more information (or
  sources) to facilitators, teachers and pupils in
  order to improve activities.
  
• SFS activities, definitely, should be continued.

57
(No Transcript)
58
(No Transcript)
59
Collaborating with schools, how it works, 1-2
cases with pictures
60
institutional (MOA, others?) commitment, local
and national level

• ?
• Good examples
• USDA, WB, IASA

61
Plans for the future and opportunities

• Project objectives and methodology were good
  accepted by farmers. The level of their knowledge
  about WCR significantly increased.
  
• Good training ToT (zig-zag) followed bt FFS
  activities results in effective control of WCR
  
• Positive evaluation by farmers and wish and
  readiness to participate next year
  
• Increase of their knowledge, demonstrated through
  discussions, field activities, etc. Additional
  interest of farmers from near villages and local
  media

62
Plans for the future and opportunities

• Based on facilitators impressions and evaluation
  of farmers and facilitators, here are some
  recommendations for next season
  
• Emphasis on AESA and risk assessment
• Continue training of new and current
  facilitators, or pupils and teachers

63
Plans for the future and opportunities

• Work on institutionalisation
• Further work on facilitator network development
• Consolidation at regional level SFS
• Trying to hold the flame