Understanding interactions and relationships in pest management innovation processes in Bangladesh

This thesis uses Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) perspective to understand the pest management innovation processes in Bangladesh where substantial investments in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) promotion by Farmer Field School (FFS) approach obtained little progress in achieving higher levels of IPM adoption. According to AIS perspective, pest management related innovations require interactional processes to make IPM knowledge and practices economically and practically viable which also require some socio-technical changes. The FFS approach and the AIS perspective both draw special attention to interactional processes like joint and need-based problem identification; interactive learning for problem solving; knowledge exchange; etc. This ethnographic research is designed to gain an in-depth understanding about how these interactional processes and relationships play a role in pest management innovation processes: networking, demand articulation and innovation management among farmers, government extension officers, pesticide companies’ promotional officers and pesticide traders at local context. This research also aims to decipher the cultural patterns, values and behaviour of relevant actors and organizations in order to understand how cultural diversities influence interactions and relationships in the innovation processes. Chapter 1 discusses the research background with a particular focus on pesticide (over)use trend in Bangladesh; the main theoretical concepts from the existing literature about innovation, its relevance to key concerns, prospects and challenges around pest management, pesticide use and IPM. The chapter introduces the research objectives, main theme of each empirical study, the specific research questions and the overall research methodology. The farmer level study in Chapter 2 focuses on cultural perspectives in two IPM-FFS trained farmer communities. The study aims to understand local interactions, pest management related knowledge sharing and learning dynamics to decipher the cultural patterns and their influence on these processes and IPM uptake in the two communities. Results reveal that certain cultural patterns in one community hamper processes of innovation where farmers rarely interacted or shared pest management knowledge and experiences, and continued to rely on pesticide based cultivation. However, the other community demonstrates strong group solidarity which facilitates innovation processes; the farmers shared pest management knowledge in a wide network, and started to apply some IPM practices while reducing pesticide use. Results also suggest that the level of education, poverty, seasonality, severity of pests, and the diversity of IPM-FFS implementation also influence pest management processes and different IPM uptake at different communities. Chapter 3 explores the role of ‘organizational culture’ of two agricultural extension offices in the implementation of IPM-FFSs in the two communities studied in Chapter 2. Results reveal that the cultural patterns of one office tend to follow a linear technology transfer approach while the other office tends to follow a relatively more farmer-oriented extension approach. The distinct cultural patterns of the offices are closely linked to the directors’ basic assumptions which influenced the actions of the field officers in the implementation of IPM-FFSs in the two communities. In one office, the director shows higher accountability to address farmers’ problem and the respective field officer implemented more interactive IPM-FFS in the community that showed higher group solidarity. However, both the cultural patterns of the farmer community and extension office together influence the implementation and outcome of IPM-FFS in different contexts. Chapter 4 uses the literature on Multiple Level Perspective (MLP) on transitions and concept of niche-regime interaction. This chapter focuses on strategies of networking; the alignments among interconnected actors, and institutions (local level business collaboration, incentive mechanisms, etc.) on two pesticide companies and one bio-pesticide company; and their influence on farmers’ pest management preferences for IPM or pesticides. The study reveals that, compared to the bio-pesticide company and government-run IPM-FFSs, the two pesticide companies invested heavily in networking and relationship building with farmers and traders to promote pesticide sale. Results find a substantial volume of pesticide sales in two IPM-FFS trained communities and nearby markets compared to a negligible sale of IPM products. Chapter 5 investigates distinct patterns of interaction between pesticide traders and farmers. The chapter describes how differentially these interaction patterns shape the extent to which traders influence farmers’ choices about pesticide selection and use. Results reveal that a considerably higher proportion of the farmers (45% or so) who visited pesticide shops completely depend on the traders’ pest management advice. Content analysis of traders’ advices shows a clear association with three types of risks: pesticide overuse, wrong pesticide use, and spraying a mixture of different pesticides without expert’s recommendation. These risks are also associated with, and reinforced by, the dominant credit relationships between pesticide companies, traders and farmers. The pesticide companies play the role of central knowledge providers to the traders who in turn promote pesticide based pest management practices to farmers. Chapter 6 provides the major findings of the research and an analytical discussion using the literature on multiple level perspective and dimensions that determine socio-technical transition processes. The discussions reveal prominent links between technology, knowledge, and culture dimensions; pesticide companies, market & user relation dimensions; and guiding principles and policy & regulation dimensions that explain comparative strength and weaknesses of pesticide regime and IPM niche in the present context of Bangladesh. The discussion concludes that the current position of IPM niche is too weak to compete with the dominant players in the pesticide regime to substantially reduce pesticide use. Frequent interactions between the farmers; traders and pesticide companies create a strong support network characterized by mutual relationships of interdependency which encourages pesticide sale. This support network further strengthens the position of pesticide regime when couple with weak policy regulations at local pesticide trade. The thesis provides some specific policy recommendations on: policy amendments and the enforcement of existing pesticide legislation to regulate the regime activity; formation of collaborative support network to nurture and strengthen the IPM niche; provision of more demand-led interactive advisory services by government’s extension department with special attention to understanding the cultural patterns of different farmer communities to adopt culturally sensitive education and advisory approach; and different types of IPM and teaching approaches to make sure their best use in the context of Bangladesh.