Biocontrol News and Information

June 2000, Volume 21 No. 2

• General News
• IPM Systems
• Training News
• Internet Round-Up
• Announcements
• Conference Reports
• New books

IPM Systems

This new section replaces the 'Biorational' section, but will essentially cover the same topics - integrated pest management (IPM) including biological control, and techniques that are compatible with the use of biological control or have little impact on natural enemies.

Commercialization of Neem in East Africa

The neem tree, Azadirachta indica, called `mwarubaini' in East Africa, has long been known for its medicinal and pesticide properties. The potential use of the various tree components as natural pesticides has been intensively researched worldwide in the last twenty years. Neem-based pesticides are environmentally friendly and able to control a wide range of pests without leaving dangerous residues. Pesticides formulated on neem are being widely used in India. Elsewhere, particularly in Australia, Germany, the USA and some countries in Central and South America, researchers are also working intensively on formulating neem-based pesticides. As a result, many neem-related products for pest management are available on the market in some countries.

In Africa, neem is a valuable shade and fuelwood tree. Knowledge of neem's efficacy as a traditional medicinal plant is widespread in East Africa. Indeed, it is claimed to cure 40 different diseases, hence its local name, mwarubaini (arubaini is Kiswahili for 40). In contrast, its potential for use as a natural pesticide is little known in the region. Home-made pesticides, using the leaves and seeds, have been considered an attractive option, especially for resource-poor farmers. However, the acceptance of this approach has been low. Major problems hindering adoption of neem by growers include poor dissemination of neem-related knowledge, and the fact that in those regions where neem could be used successfully, such as vegetable growing areas, there are either not enough neem trees or none at all. Other constraints to its use are labour intensity and storage problems.

For the use of neem-based pesticides to be successfully promoted among small-scale farmers in Africa, it is essential that formulations become available on the local market at competitive prices. This could be achieved if the products can be locally processed using seeds collected by farmers. To assess the possibilities for this, two feasibility studies were undertaken by the GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) IPM Horticulture Project (IPMH) in 1994-95 in Kenya. Based on climatic classifications, these studies estimated that over 25% of the land in Kenya is suitable for growing mwarubaini. The tree is currently found in Kilifi, Lamu, Mombasa and Taita Taveta districts in Coast Province as well as the semi-arid areas of north-eastern Kenya. It was therefore judged as worthwhile to establish a small industry to process the mwarubaini seeds and to formulate suitable products for sale on the local market.

In mid-1996, ICIPE (the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology) received a research and development grant from GTZ to undertake the development of a small-scale industry of mwarubaini-based insecticides. The aim of this project was to produce simple, standardized, mwarubaini-based pesticides, which could be purchased on the local market at competitive prices. The processing, formulation and standardization of the mwarubaini-based pesticides as well as efficacy tests were carried out simultaneously. The work was carried out by the GTZ-IPM Horticulture Project in collaboration with ICIPE and SAROC Ltd, a local pesticide manufacturer.

To date, four formulations of extracts from mwarubaini seeds have been issued a preliminary certificate of registration by the Pest Control Products Board of Kenya and are available for commercial use. These products have proved to be effective against important pests of horticultural crops such as the black aphid on French beans, cabbage aphids, diamondback moth, leafminers, caterpillars and root-knot nematodes. In addition, they have given good control of aphids, whiteflies and bollworms in tobacco. Furthermore, a remarkable development of natural enemies has been observed after long-term applications of mwarubaini-based insecticides, which have led to reduced applications of pesticides. In addition, the project created an alternative income generation through seed collection, especially in areas of marginal agricultural activities.

Contact: Ana Milena Varela,
c/o GTZ-IPM Horticulture,
P.O. Box 41607 Nairobi, Kenya
Email: avarela@icipe.org
Fax: +254 2 861307
Dorian Mario Rocco, SAROC Ltd,
P.O. Box 18228, Nairobi, Kenya
Email: drocco@icipe.org
Fax: +254 2 554370

By: Brigitte Nyambo

Indian Cotton IPM is Material Success

Encouraged by consistent success in field trials in earlier years [see BNI, 20(2), 56N-57N (June 1999)], the Indian National Centre for Integrated Pest Management (NCIPM) chose the village of Barad in the Nanded district of Maharashtra as the setting for a 200 ha village-scale validation trial for its cotton IPM module. More than nine million ha of land in India is planted each year with cotton, but although this represents some 5% of cultivated land, 52% of pesticides applied to crops in India are used on cotton. The NCIPM has been developing IPM modules for dryland cotton for some years to provide farmers with alternatives to such high pesticide use. The Centre has a mandate to develop and promote IPM technologies for major crops in India, to sustain higher yields with minimum ecological implications.

The IPM module combines need-based use of crop protection measures with appropriate crop management practices, which have been refined over the course of several years' smaller scale field trials. Certified acid-delinted seed was treated pre-planting with imidacloprid at 7 g/kg seed. Planting was synchronized, rather than staggered over a month, just after the onset of the monsoon rains. Only one hybrid (NHH-44) and one variety (RENUKA) were used, and these were planted at spacings of 90 × 60 and 60 × 30 cm, respectively. Maize and cowpea were grown as a border intercrop to augment coccinellid and other beneficial insect populations. Setaria was planted between every 9th and 10th row of cotton to provide perches for predatory birds and so lure them into the crop. Crop protection measures included releases of biocontrol agents, and application of Helicoverpa armigera NPV (HaNPV) and botanicals; applications were based on the economic threshold levels (ETLs) of the pests, and their populations were monitored by scouting and monitoring using pheromone traps. A typical farmer made two releases of the egg parasitoid Trichogramma chilonis, 15 days apart, following the appearance of H. armigera moths in the traps, and 2-3 applications of farmer-produced 5% neem seed kernel extract which also controlled other bollworms. If Helicoverpa populations continued to rise, one application of HaNPV would be made.

The worth of the imidacloprid treatment was proved when emerging seedlings in the non-IPM treatment were subjected to heavy millipede attack in the heavy monsoon rains, and the crop had to be replanted. Field sanitation and acid-delintation in the IPM treatment contributed to the suppression of most seedling diseases to low levels. Foliar disease was restricted to early growth stages (when the adopted crop architecture led to an unfavourable microclimate). A grey mildew disease caused by Ramularia areola became severe, but no fungicide was necessary at the dehiscence stage. However, heavy rain led to severe boll rot, which was attributed to a number of pathogens.

The pest insect population, which was monitored in IPM and non-IPM fields, included jassids (Amrasca bigutulla), aphids (Aphis gossypii), thrips (Thrips tabaci), whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) and several species of bollworm (spotted bollworm, Earias insulana; pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella; American bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera ). The populations of sucking pests were low in IPM fields compared to non-IPM fields, and were controlled by the imidacloprid treatment for up to 50 days after planting. But much larger populations of insects (coccinellids and chrysopids) and birds (mynas, finches and blackjays) were recorded in the IPM fields, and these also contributed to suppression of these pests and the bollworms. In the IPM fields, jassid populations were less than two-thirds, and aphid populations less than one-third those in non-IPM fields. Helicoverpa armigera populations in IPM fields were half those in non-IPM fields and similar differences were found for E. insulana and P. gossypiella. In addition, parasitism by T. chilonis was found to be highest in fields with least chemical interventions.

The IPM module gave substantial reductions in insecticide use and gave higher net returns and yields compared with the conventional non-IPM farmers' practices used the previous year in the village. IPM inputs cost Rs 1545 (excluding labour) compared to Rs 3225 for conventional inputs. The average seed cotton yield with the IPM module was 962.5 kg/ha, more than four times the previous year's average yield of 220 kg. The cost benefit ratio of IPM over conventional farmers' practices exceeded 1:15. However, the most important achievement of the project is argued to be an extraordinary reduction in pesticide use, from 9.28 to less than 0.03 kg/ha. Villagers not only saw better yields and higher net returns, but began to see the improvements an IPM approach brought to the environment as birds began to nest in the cotton ecosysytem.

This is just one of many IPM modules being developed by the NCIPM showing encouraging results in the last year. In Uttar Pradesh, for example, an IPM module for basmati rice was evaluated in trials covering an 8.5-ha area. Mean yields of 4.771 t/ha were recorded, compared to 3.628 t in plots under chemical control treatment and 3.628 t in farmers' practice plots. Here, leaf folder and stem borer were the commonest pests, while sheath blight and blast were the worst diseases. Substantial improvements were made to the website for IPM in this crop, and socioeconomic surveys added to knowledge about basmati rice growers' problems and concerns. Progress is also being made with IPM modules for mustard, chickpea and pigeon pea. The Centre's key work in forecasting systems continued for Helicoverpa and potato aphid (Myzus persicae). They also assessed the threat to Indian crops from exotic pests and diseases, and a study was made of nematodes and their management in rice and wheat. Training is a key function of the centre, and it ran field days, Farmer Field Schools, a Master Trainers Training Programme, training in cotton IPM for industry personnel, and an IPM workshop under NATP (the National Agricultural Technology Group).

Information:
NCIPM (1999) Annual Report 1998-99. New Delhi, India; National Centre for
Integrated Pest Management, 80 pp.
NCIPM (1999) NCIPM Newsletter 5(1),
4 pp.

Contact: NCIPM, Lal Bahadur Shastri Building, Pusa Campus,
New Delhi - 110 012, India
Email: ncipm@x400.nicgw.nic.in
Fax: +91 11 5765472

Delivering Biocontrol: Identifying Bottlenecks

An elegant biocontrol solution to a crop pest or disease may look good on paper and make an impressive conference presentation, but IPM is a practical and knowledge-intensive subject. If farmers don't adopt the technology, it's a might-have-been, and not a success.

Over the past twenty years, IPM has become a preferred and widely implemented methodology in crop production, but whereas in the 1970-80s IPM was based on research-driven technology with farmers the uninvolved beneficiaries, today, as IPM spreads, farmers are developing their own local solutions and look increasingly to researchers for technologies to test and incorporate. This demand is likely to increase as farmer-participatory IPM methods spread, but can it be met? The development of practical and economical biocontrol technologies has progressed more slowly than anticipated. The multinational crop protection industry has not found them economical to develop and smaller more local enterprises have received virtually no incentives. Biocontrol technology development is generally assumed to have presented a number of common obstacles for small enterprises, although how far these difficulties are real, or widespread, has not been fully investigated. These include:

• Developing products to meet high performance standards.
• Achieving good product quality with inherent safety and efficacy implications.
• Achieving adequate market penetration and product distribution.
• Competing effectively with agrochemicals.
• Operating within an unfavourable regulatory environment.

Stakeholders are beginning to address how far such obstacles really limit delivery of biocontrol technologies in developing countries and, if they do, how the constraints and barriers can be removed. As part of this process, UNEP and CABI have initiated a series of case studies* to consider critical issues in the delivery of biocontrol technology to IPM farmers. These are preliminary and small-scale studies, and their findings should be considered in this light. However, they do attempt to bring a multidisciplinary and delivery-focussed approach that addresses technical, economic, education and farmer related perspectives. The first three case studies cover:

• The use of the egg parasitoids Trichogramma spp. for control of lepidopterous pests of sugarcane, rice, cotton and vegetables in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in southern India.
• The delivery of biopesticides based on the fungi Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae for control of insect pests in coffee, vegetables and sugarcane in Nicaragua.
• The use of Trichoderma spp., fungal antagonists of a number of soilborne pathogens that attack field crops in Vietnam.

Food for Thought

The case studies summarize current government policy, industry structure, research and production, extension, distribution, training and farmers' views. Conclusions are drawn and recommendations made for each country covered, and more general conclusions and recommendations are drawn up from all three studies. Despite differences between countries and the specific biocontrol agents under consideration, some common constraints to the delivery of biocontrol technologies emerged.

Regulatory Framework

The need for a specific biocontrol regulatory framework, or exemption, or special status with regard to existing chemical pesticide regulations was recognised. Generally, biopesticide registration is similar to that required for chemical pesticides, and this can obstruct progress particularly for smaller would-be producers. In Vietnam, biopesticides are subject to conventional pesticide legislation.

In India, macrobiological control agents do not have to be registered, but biopesticides now have to be registered under the Pesticides Act under some circumstances: if farmers or cooperatives are producing biopesticides for their own use, there is no need for registration; if biopesticides are produced for commercial use by large (national or international) companies they have to follow registration requirements. In Tamil Nadu State in India, one NGO (VOICE Trust) has recently begun village-level production of Trichogramma, but faces uncertain, and at best fluctuating, demand through the year. Although initially donor-aided, VOICE Trust now needs to become commercially viable, so wants to diversify into other biological control agents and biopesticides. It argues that the recent legislation regarding biopesticide registration makes it difficult for a small commercial producer to meet registration requirements. This, it says, may prevent it from expanding into biopesticide (particularly microbial biopesticide) production, which would both increase product availability to smallholders and make the fledgling biocontrol business more secure through product diversification.

In Nicaragua, although the government supports IPM and biological control, there is no fast track registration procedure for biopesticides. Registration is expensive as well as lengthy. Small organizations can sell unregistered products to their members, but are unable to supply outside demand. Prospects for market growth are thus very limited and the biopesticide sector seems doomed to remain fragmented unless more appropriate biopesticide registration is facilitated. One farmers' association, the Miraflor Union of Agricultural Cooperatives (UCA-Miraflor), aims to register its product and use sales-derived income for improving production systems.

Production Capacity

Biological control agent production capacity often limits uptake of the technology. This is particularly striking in Nicaragua, where demand for biological control agents now far outstrips supply. There, biocontrol is still largely a development issue funded by international donors with sustainable agriculture and poverty alleviation goals. There is no commercial production, and biological control research and production are confined to universities, NGOs and farmers' groups. The Entomopathogenic Fungi Unit of the National Agricultural University (UNA) produces Beauveria bassiana (for coffee berry borer and for diamondback moth in cabbage) and Metarhizium anisopliae (for rice bug, sweet pepper weevil and sugarcane and pasture bugs) semi-commercially, using a solid substrate system based on rice. Products are not stored but are produced on demand. NPVs are also produced for lepidopterous pests in maize, vegetables and soyabeans. A number of NGOs also produce fungal biocontrol agents on a smaller scale. For example, the UCA-Miraflor supplies B. bassiana to its own members, but production is impeded by lack of laboratory facilities; the unit operates without electricity, and spore extraction, which involves lengthy sieving, is the key production bottleneck. Current demand for biological control (fungal and viral) products in Nicaragua comes mainly from smallholder farmers. This capacity has been generated largely through IPM training, which has built up a national network of enthusiastic and skilled extension staff and farmer groups engaged in experimentation. The growing organic coffee market is likely further to stretch biological control agent supply. The UCA-Miraflor sees the demand for B. bassiana from the organic coffee sector as an opportunity to expand their market beyond their own cabbage growers.

In India, national and state governments have been strong supporters of IPM and biological solutions to pest control for many years. In 1977, the All-India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) on Biological Control was initiated to conduct systematic studies on natural enemies of crop pests and to utilize both exotic and indigenous natural enemies. The first private insectary, Biocontrol Research Laboratory, was established at Bangalore in 1981. A rapid proliferation of companies ensued, and there are now some 80 country-wide, producing predators (including ladybirds, lacewings, anthocorids and predatory mites), a variety of parasitoid species (notably Trichogramma spp. and strains), entomopathogens (including Bacillus thuringiensis formulations, viral products and fungal pathogens), plant disease antagonists (Trichoderma and Pseudomonas spp. and strains) and weed-feeding insects (for water hyacinth control). These commercial concerns also supply other inputs such as pheromone traps for lepidopteran monitoring and mating disruption, and plant products such as neem-based formulations. The companies supply end-users directly or through government agencies. Apart from these private concerns, states have their own mass production units, including sugar co-operative mills which supply natural enemies to farmers. In short, a vast array of biocontrol products is available in India, yet inadequate production is still identified as one of the major bottlenecks to IPM adoption.

In Tamil Nadu, the Central Plant Protection Station began to promote IPM in 1981. The importance attached to this mandate was reflected in its change of name in 1991 to the Central Integrated Pest Management Centre (CIPMC), one of 26 such government-supported centres in India. The centres produce augmentative biological control agents and biopesticides, which are used mostly in demonstration plots in farmers' fields set up to train extension officers and farmers in augmentative biological control techniques as components of IPM. Most commercially available Trichogramma is currently produced by private companies, and most is sold on to farmers through state extension services (subsidized at about 10-25% of the commercial cost). Mass production methods are well established and well tested. Although adoption in sugarcane is high and Trichogramma supply to this sector is reliable, poor product availability was identified as a significant obstacle to biological control adoption in other crops (predominantly cotton and rice and also vegetables). It was the opinion of almost all stakeholders (including researchers, NGOs, extension agents and commercial producers) that Trichogramma needs to be produced locally at village level if the two key constraints of product availability and quality assurance are to be overcome. This view is not new, having been first put forward in 1990 by staff of the CIPMC in Bangalore, Karnataka. However, the Indian Government has recently taken steps to deal with the perceived production bottleneck, announcing funding for the Departments of Agriculture of state governments to develop infrastructure to allow their biological control centres to increase the supply and hence use of augmentative biological control agents and biopesticides.

Vietnam has virtually no national biopesticide production capacity, so nearly all products are imported and their availability is limited. A number of institutions work on Trichoderma and although they are being looked to for larger scale production, researchers identify constraints to achieving this at all levels. Scale-up of production remains an issue and the institutes have no experience in the more commercial aspects of biopesticide development.

Product Quality and Shelf Life

Problems with product quality were found in all three studies (high levels of contamination, variable concentration of active ingredient, variation in viability, questionable shelf-life, etc.). In India, there is a striking difference between the situation in sugarcane, where Trichogramma has been used for internode borer (Chilo sacchariphagus) control for the last forty years, and other crops where the technology is newer. Although mass production technology is reliable, there is little quality control. The commercial producers sell mainly to the extension services, but a significant though minor part of the market is to the sugarcane industry. Biological control is encouraged and promoted by the sugar mills, and adoption rates amongst sugarcane growers are high. Uptake is much lower in other crops, and farmers report poor product quality as well as lack of availability. Equally, some production companies argue that with no direct customer contact they have no control over the supply process. They say that product quality suffers as a result, especially for a product with as short a shelf-life as Trichogramma. (Trichogramma does present particular problems. In contrast, NPVs can be stored in India at room temperatures for up to three months, and under refrigeration for up to a year. For NPVs, the major constraint is continuous large-scale production in vivo on specific insect hosts.) There does appear to be a failure by some companies to maintain quality standards, although in a competitive market it is expected that companies that do not supply good-quality products will fail as customers `vote with their feet'. Recognising that a possible lack of self-regulation by some companies is causing a second major bottleneck to IPM adoption, the Indian government is considering enforcing strict quality parameters to protect the interest of end-users.

In Nicaragua, there is no national quality control body to oversee production standards. Quality control and monitoring are under-resourced and the relevant authorities lack necessary experience. Shelf-life is also a significant constraint, particularly for NPVs which need to be kept frozen until just before use. Most farmers do not have refrigeration facilities on their farms, let alone access to refrigerated transport, so although demand is high, the future of NPVs will be compromised unless formulation and storage characteristics of virus components can be improved.

In Vietnam, the regulatory authorities carry out quality control checks on chemical pesticides, but no such procedures are currently carried out for biopesticides. Farmers who purchase biopesticides (mainly imported Bt products) form their own opinions, based on experience, of the most reliable products and sources. Researchers included efficacy and shelf-life in the constraints they identified to developing large-scale production of microbial biopesticides.

Distribution Systems

Distribution systems for augmentative biological control agents and biopesticides are often limiting factors in product use. In India, the biocontrol industry acknowledges that it has a problem distributing direct to smallholder farmers, particularly given the short shelf-life of Trichogramma, and it also recognises that the state departments of agriculture have done a good job of promoting the use of biological control within IPM. Latterly, NGOs are also beginning to help. In Nicaragua, by contrast, there is no structured distribution system to reach the thousands of smallholders, and access to products is a key problem, with the exception of the UCA-Miraflor, whose members can either collect from the local town, or arrange a delivery within 1-2 days. NGOs and other IPM training projects have set up skeleton networks to supply biopesticides to some of their participating farmers; however, the cost of public transport and the time delay involved can be serious impediments to many smallholder farmers, especially coffee growers in isolated mountain areas.

Farmer Knowledge

Farmers often lack knowledge of biocontrol technologies, and in particular an understanding of the highly varied ecosystems within which such technologies have to perform. The case studies highlight the difference that training can make. In Vietnam, the government is a strong supporter of IPM and set up a successful National IPM Programme in 1992. Activities have included Training of Trainers, Farmer Field Schools and Participatory Action Research. Since 1998 the programme has been formally supporting local IPM movements to build a community IPM network that can provide a framework for nationwide IPM implementation. Farmers are currently evaluating Trichoderma under the IPM programme's participatory action research programme on disease management. However, the study identified a clear divide between IPM-trained farmers who are enthusiastic about biopesticide products, and non-trained farmers who are unfamiliar with biopesticide products. Amongst the latter group, there were concerns about the efficacy and speed of performance of biopesticides, and these reservations were largely based on a lack of understanding of how biopesticides work.

In Nicaragua and in the Indian sugarcane sector, where IPM training and a history of biological control, respectively, mean that farmers have a good understanding of the technology, there is great enthusiasm for biological control, the products are applied effectively, and the results are good. In other crops in India, by contrast, the technology is newer and farmers and extension staff are still learning how best to use biological control, aided by the strong commitment of the Indian government to IPM training. The Project Directorate of Biological Control (PDBC), Bangalore (established in 1993 by up-grading the AICRP on Biological Control) has since its inception provided training to scientists, entrepreneurs, agricultural officers of state and central agricultural departments and managers of private companies for the production, utilization and supply of quality natural enemies, and consultancy services are also provided. Since 1999, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)has established a Team of Excellence on Biological Control (funded by the World Bank) at PDBC, where two-month crop-based and six-month subject-based training is provided. With such a large farmer population to reach, their task is vast.

In Tamil Nadu, farmers report that problems with poor availability and poor quality of Trichogramma are compounded by a lack of understanding of augmentative biological control. The VOICE Trust suggests that the successful adoption of biological control needs a high level of farmer training and has developed special training curricula in biological control for farmers' field school graduates who are taught in small groups. In particular they suggest that farmers need to learn about augmentative biocontrol agents as living entities, their basic food and habitat requirements, and how to cater for these needs by providing alternative food sources/hosts. Explaining the importance of intercrops is seen as an essential component of IPM training, particularly in cotton and vegetables, to make the technique more sustainable. Unless knowledge and understanding is effectively conveyed to farmers, released agents may die on or soon after release, or migrate from the system.

Take-Away Messages

So which of the assumed problems outlined at the beginning of this article were found to be limiting adoption of biocontrol technologies in practice, and which weren't? There was certainly some variation in product performance. Some farmers were very happy with the biological control agents they bought, but others were not and some of these believed that local-level production could improve this. Although training had a major impact on the efficacy with which products were used, there seems to be a widespread lack of any quality control regulations for biological control agents on both local and national levels. Lack of quality control is affecting the long-term adoption of biological control in at least some cases. On the other hand, detailed, lengthy and costly procedures for registering biopesticides were identified as constraints to their development, particularly for small-scale producers, and simpler `fast track' systems were commonly suggested.

Market penetration and product distribution were found to be key constraints in all three countries. Even where an effective distribution network had been established (e.g. in parts of India), drawbacks were identified by farmers. Interestingly, farmers there want to replace the commercial production and extension-led distribution system with a village-level production system. Nicaraguan biopesticide producers are discussing the pros and cons of either cottage-industry local production centres or large-scale industrial production, or whether a combination of both is desirable. However, and as highlighted in Nicaragua and Vietnam, limited production capability is at least as important a constraint to uptake of biological control and the growth of the sector.

The ability of biological control products to compete successfully with agrochemicals depends on a wide range of issues, including those dealt with above. In India, for Trichogramma at least, factors that may constrain uptake in the non-sugarcane sector include poor product quality and availability, and lack of farmer training in augmentative biological control. In Vietnam, there was a clear divide between IPM-trained and untrained farmers in their preference for biopesticides or conventional pesticides, but the biopesticide products were also considered to be too expensive and of variable quality. The development of a national biopesticide production capability is being hindered by lack of funding and local expertise. In Nicaragua, inadequate supply and poor distribution were the overwhelming problems in a farming sector that was keen to adopt IPM following effective training. However, complex regulatory procedures were identified as hindering the resolution of production and supply problems.

So, within the context of these studies, the obstacles identified at the outset were shown to be limiting the adoption of biocontrol technology to some extent, and two more key constraints were identified: production capacity and farmer training. In the general conclusion to the case studies, it is suggested that the following avenues might be explored to find a means of removing barriers to delivery of biocontrol technologies in developing countries:

• The impact and value of incentives on the availability and uptake of biocontrol products.
• How appropriate shelf-life and quality can be achieved, maintained and monitored.
• How necessary support, experience and information can be provided to national regulatory authorities.
• The economics of scale of biocontrol technology.
• Improving and maintaining farmer learning methods.
• Defining the role of farmer participation in the development and evaluation of new biocontrol products, and identifying the mechanism by which this can be achieved.

A workshop is planned for later this year to consider in depth how best to remove the barriers. Other studies by other stakeholders will doubtless come up with other findings. For example, further studies are under discussion to look at issues in India in greater depth. However, it is hoped that these preliminary studies will begin to contribute to a better understanding of the constraints to delivering biocontrol for IPM farmers, and to an eventual resolution of them.

Raj, D.; Hill, G. (2000) Delivery of biocontrol technologies to IPM farmers: India. UNEP/CABI Critical Issues Case Studies. Dent, D.R.; Gopalan, H.N.B. (eds) Nairobi, Kenya; UNEP, ix + 19 pp.
Jenkins, N.E.; Vos, J.G.M. (2000) Delivery of biocontrol technologies to IPM farmers: Vietnam. UNEP/CABI Critical Issues Case Studies. Dent, D.R.; Gopalan, H.N.B. (eds) Nairobi, Kenya; UNEP, ix + 29 pp.
Williamson, S.; Ali, B. (2000) Delivery of biocontrol technologies to IPM farmers: Nicaragua. UNEP/CABI Critical Issues Case Studies. Dent, D.R.; Gopalan, H.N.B. (eds) Nairobi, Kenya; UNEP, ix + 35 pp.

Contact: Jeremy Harris,
CABI Bioscience UK Centre (Ascot),
Silwood Park,
Buckhurst Road, Ascot Sl5 7TA, UK
Email: j.harris@cabi.org
Fax: +44 1491 829123