Journal of Biological Control

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Perception on Biological Pesticide by Various Levels of Stakeholders in Nepal


Affiliations
1 Ministry of Agricultural Development, Plant Quarantine and Pesticide Management Center, Lalitpur, Nepal
2 CABI-India, New Delhi - 110012, Delhi, India
3 Chief, Ministry of Agricultural Development, Plant Quarantine and Pesticide Management Center, Lalitpur, Nepal
4 Plant Protection Officer, Plant Quarantine and Pesticide Management Center, Lalitpur, Nepal
 

Government of Nepal (GoN) has been prioritizing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy as the most important strategy after a sudden outbreak of Brown Plant Hopper (BPH) and heavy loss in rice production. GoN has been continuing IPM programs with the successful completion of different phases like technical cooperation, marketing and institutionalization. Awareness creation among multisectoral stakeholders is the most and major outcome through IPM program in Nepal. Plantwise, a global program led by CABI, has been working with GoN since 2013, for the improvement of plant health system. This program has also a good impact in the promotion of nonchemical strategies of pest management. Despite of having many national programs, efforts of GoN as well as different non-governmental and community based organizations; a significant progress has not been seen in the use of biological pesticides. This paper has tried to analyze the role of different stakeholders in the promotion of bio-pesticides along with other non-chemical management strategies viz. the trend of recommendations by plant doctors with the information retrieved from Plantwise Online Management System (POMS), perception of farmers as well as agro-input suppliers to the bio-pesticides, plant clinic interventions for bio-pesticides promotion, and policy review for finding reasons for less use of bio-pesticides in the field. Around 200 farmers who visited plant clinics and 50 agro-inputs suppliers from different regions were randomly selected for the survey with the developed questionaire. This paper is a preliminary review of secondary information on relevant policies, acts, regulations, etc. Major problem has been observed in agro-input suppliers among the whole cycle of biopesticide use.

Keywords

IPM, Plant Clinics, Plant Health System, Plant Doctors, Policy, Stakeholders.
User
Notifications

  • Ansari AR, Aryal S, Dangi N. 2013. Extent and potential use of bio-pesticides for crop protection in Nepal. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/271510970 Extent_and_potential_use_of_biopesticides_for_crop_protection_in_Nepal

  • Bentley JW, Boa E, Danielsen S, Zakaria AKM. 2007. Plant clinics for healthy crops. Leisa India. 23: 16-17.

  • Danielsen S, Kelly P. 2010. A novel approach to quality assessment of plant health clinics. Int J Agric Sustain. 8: 257-269. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0494

  • Gurung B, Thapa RB, Gautam DM, Karki KB, Regmi PP. 2016. Commercial vegetable farming: an approach for poverty reduction in Nepal. Agron J Nepal 4: 92-106. https://doi.org/10.3126/ajn.v4i0.15518

  • Kafle LN, Yubak Dhoj GC., Yang JT, Bhattarai S, Tiwari S, Katuwal M. 2014. Integrated pest management in Nepal. The 5th International Conference on Clinical Plant Science.

  • Palikhe BR. 2002. Challenges and options of pesticide use. In: The Context of Nepal. Landschaftsökologie und Umweltforschung 38: 130-141.

  • PPD, Nepal. 2017. Press release on the occasion of ‘No Pesticide Use Week, 2017’.

  • PPD, Nepal. 2010. Annual report 2065/66. Plant Protection Directorate, Hariharbhavan Lalitpur, Nepal.

  • PPD, Nepal. 2008. National IPM Programme in Nepal: Ministry of Agriculture development 2008.

  • PRMD. 2017. Updated list of registered pesticide in Nepal. Pesticide Registration and Management Division,Hariharbhavan, Lalitpur, Nepal, 6-84.

  • Pun L, Karmacharya BB. 1998. Vegetable training manual. Department of Agriculture, Hariharbhavan, Lalitpur, Nepal, p. 325.

  • Yubak Dhoj GC. 2012. Status of pesticide use in Nepal and future strategy for their safe and alternative uses. Retrieved from: https://www.scribd.com/document/264196800/Status-of-Pestiside-Nepal

  • Yubak Dhoj GC. 2014. Biopesticide-effective alternative to organic Nepal. J Agric Environ. 16: 95-106.


Abstract Views: 398

PDF Views: 163




  • Perception on Biological Pesticide by Various Levels of Stakeholders in Nepal

Abstract Views: 398  |  PDF Views: 163

Authors

S. R. Adhikari
Ministry of Agricultural Development, Plant Quarantine and Pesticide Management Center, Lalitpur, Nepal
V. Pandit
CABI-India, New Delhi - 110012, Delhi, India
D. R. Sharma
Chief, Ministry of Agricultural Development, Plant Quarantine and Pesticide Management Center, Lalitpur, Nepal
R. K. Subedi
Plant Protection Officer, Plant Quarantine and Pesticide Management Center, Lalitpur, Nepal

Abstract


Government of Nepal (GoN) has been prioritizing Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategy as the most important strategy after a sudden outbreak of Brown Plant Hopper (BPH) and heavy loss in rice production. GoN has been continuing IPM programs with the successful completion of different phases like technical cooperation, marketing and institutionalization. Awareness creation among multisectoral stakeholders is the most and major outcome through IPM program in Nepal. Plantwise, a global program led by CABI, has been working with GoN since 2013, for the improvement of plant health system. This program has also a good impact in the promotion of nonchemical strategies of pest management. Despite of having many national programs, efforts of GoN as well as different non-governmental and community based organizations; a significant progress has not been seen in the use of biological pesticides. This paper has tried to analyze the role of different stakeholders in the promotion of bio-pesticides along with other non-chemical management strategies viz. the trend of recommendations by plant doctors with the information retrieved from Plantwise Online Management System (POMS), perception of farmers as well as agro-input suppliers to the bio-pesticides, plant clinic interventions for bio-pesticides promotion, and policy review for finding reasons for less use of bio-pesticides in the field. Around 200 farmers who visited plant clinics and 50 agro-inputs suppliers from different regions were randomly selected for the survey with the developed questionaire. This paper is a preliminary review of secondary information on relevant policies, acts, regulations, etc. Major problem has been observed in agro-input suppliers among the whole cycle of biopesticide use.

Keywords


IPM, Plant Clinics, Plant Health System, Plant Doctors, Policy, Stakeholders.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18311/jbc%2F2019%2F22690