A landscape view of rice fields in the mid-hills of Nepal. Agricultural landscapes in this region are typically diverse, with multiple crops rotated annually. (Photo Subodh Adhikari, Ph.D.)

By Subodh Adhikari

Subodh Adhikari, Ph.D.

Farmers in Nepal and many other developing countries are facing bigger problems with pests than ever before: more frequent and intense pest outbreaks. Yet the tools they often rely on—mostly synthetic pesticides—are not always sustainable or effective in the long term. Integrated pest management (IPM), a strategy developed more than six decades ago, holds promise. But are we using it in the right way?

IPM is More Than a Toolbox

IPM began in the late 1950s in the United States to reduce the risks of insecticide overuse. Since then, it has grown into a globally recognized framework for sustainable pest management. But, in many cases, IPM is still misunderstood as a fixed set of tools for quick fixes, rather than a flexible, principle-based approach.

In developed countries with large-scale mechanized agriculture, IPM strategies have been more easily adopted. But in regions dominated by subsistence farming, such as much of Africa, Asia, and South America, the relevance and success of IPM varies widely and remains underexplored.

A wide variety of insect pests such as fruit flies attack a range of crops in developing countries like Nepal. (Photo by Buddhi Achhami)

What We Found in Nepal

In a study published last year in the Journal of Integrated Pest Management, we looked at how IPM has been implemented in Nepal, a country where farming is characterized by fragmented landholdings and where most producers practice subsistence agriculture. I conducted the study with my colleagues Rabin Bastola of Tribhuvan University in Nepal, Yubak Dhoj GC of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and Buddhi Achhami of the University of California, Davis.

Over 25 years ago, Nepal began promoting IPM through Farmer Field School, which was a collaborative effort of international agencies and government of Nepal. Thousands of farmers were trained through Farmer Field Schools and community outreach programs. At first, the results were promising: Pesticide use declined, ecological awareness grew, and traditional practices were revived.

However, over time, the momentum slowed. Many farmers began returning to chemical pesticides, likely drawn by their quick results, aggressive marketing, and the lack of easy alternatives.

We found that components of IPM tools such as cultural control, cultivar selection, biological control, mechanical and physical control, and insecticide application are used individually or in some combinations, but they are rarely integrated into a full IPM package.

Rice in Nepal is commonly affected by fungal diseases, including rice false smut. (Photo Subodh Adhikari, Ph.D.)

One core element of IPM is pest monitoring, which has not been implemented in a manner specific to crop, season, or location. A country like Nepal, with its high agro-ecological diversity, needs a robust pest monitoring system to effectively implement IPM.

Today, like in many parts of the world, ecological-based IPM remains underused. Many farmers are aware of it but, without strong support systems, they often lack tools, resources, or confidence to put it into practice. Further, the ecological-based IPM is not just important but essential in the context of increased erratic climate patterns.

The Climate Factor

Climate change, including rising temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns, is affecting pest life cycles and spreading pests into new areas. Yet many existing IPM strategies were not designed to handle these new realities.

As farmers face these challenges, it’s clear that IPM needs to be not only ecologically informed but also climate-smart and farmer-centered.

Schematic representation of a traditional three-sister cropping system, which remains prevalent in many developing countries. These systems exhibit high biodiversity in terms of crops, weeds, pests, and beneficial insects. Although a wide variety of insect pests affect multiple crops, pest management is often integrated within these diverse agroecosystems. (Diagram created by Subodh Adhikari, Ph.D., using BioRender)

What Needs to Change?

1. Focus on prevention. IPM should move beyond reacting to pest outbreaks. It must focus on prevention through diversifying crops, improving soil health, conserving beneficial insects, and planting pest-resistant varieties. Chemicals should be used only when necessary.

2. Strengthen extension systems and coordination. Many smallholder farmers don’t receive timely local IPM guidance. Coordination among national, provincial, and local agencies is needed to provide consistent, practical, and locally suitable support.

3. Embrace Indigenous knowledge. Traditional techniques such as locally available plant-based sprays, three-sister cropping (e.g., corn, beans, and squash grown together), crop rotation, and cultural controls should be formally integrated into national IPM programs.

4. Improve access to safe alternatives. Biopesticides, natural enemies, and precision tools like drones for monitoring or sterile insect release methods need to be more accessible and affordable. Supporting local production and improving regulations can help.

5. Institutional and public support. Implementing IPM can be costly in the initial stages. Therefore, providing input subsidies to growers and offering incentives (e.g., higher premiums to producers from IPM-implemented farms) for adopting IPM practices can help offset some of the initial costs.

A Shift in Mindset

Ultimately, we need to rethink how IPM is developed, supported and adopted. It is not a one-size-fits-all solution but rather a set of guiding principles that must be tailored to local conditions, farmer knowledge, and ecological realities.

Nepal’s experience shows that, with better training, climate-smart tools, and stronger institutional support, IPM can once again become a powerful and sustainable force in agriculture, not just in Nepal but across the developing world.

Subodh Adhikari, Ph.D., is an assistant professor and agronomic crops entomologist at Utah State University, in Logan, Utah. Find Adhikari on LinkedIn or X or via email: [email protected].