Contents - Previous - Next

4. 3. Thailand: The pest surveillance system campaign

In Thailand, a Strategic Extension Campaign to promote the appropriate application of a pest surveillance system among rice farmers was carried out in 1988. The Thai's Department of Agricultural Extension (DOAE) and the GTZ-funded Thai-German Plant Protection Programme (TGPPP) requested FAO to provide the necessary technical assistance in planning the SEC programme and training DOAE personnel in SEC process & methodology. The FAO's IPM project, in collaboration with the FAO's Agricultural Education and Extension Service (ESHE), provided the necessary technical inputs, mainly for the SEC planning, training, as well as KAP & other evaluation studies. In the spirit of the Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries (TCDC) concept, FAO utilized qualified SEC trainers or resource persons from the region (i.e., Malaysia and the Philippines) who were previously trained by FAO staff in SEC workshops in Malaysia. All these persons had firsthand experience in planning, implementing and managing one or more SEC programmes elsewhere, following the complete SEC process and its methodology.

The SEC on Pest Surveillance System, which involved the training of 25 Thai Core-Group members in five SEC workshops, was aimed at 12,000 farmers, 5,000 school children, and 400 local leaders/teachers in 116 villages in Chainat Province, Thailand. The detailed schedule of activities for this SEC programme is shown in Figure 4-20. This SEC programme followed closely the process and procedures applied to the Malaysia's SEC programme on Rat Control, including the operational steps and evaluation procedures. The cost of this SEC programme was estimated at about US$ 94,617.

The SEC activities included a series of 5 workshops, held between March 1987 - March 1988, to train 25 subject-matter specialists, extension officers and trainers of Thailand's Dept. of Agricultural Extension (DOAE) on various SEC concepts, principles and techniques, as well as their direct involvement in actual field action and follow-up activities as part of the campaign planning, implementation, management and monitoring process. The Campaign was launched in April 1988 (before the rice planting season) and terminated in November 1988 (just before harvest).

FIGURE 4-20

Activities and Schedule for Strategic Extension Campaign on Pest Surveillance System in Chainat Province, Thailand

STEP

ACTIVITIES

DATE

RESOURCES NEEDED

PROVIDED BY

1

Workshop on rationale, purpose and study design for conducting a survey of Thai farmers' Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) regarding Rice Pest Surveillance System

11-17 March 1987

Consultant (international) for 10 m/days

FAO

DSA: 7 days x 25 persons x B. 510 = B. 90,000 (= US $ 3,500)

FAO

2

KAP survey of the Rice Pest Surveillance System among Thai farmers in the Central Districts

April-July 1987

Expenses for survey investigators from Chulalongkorn University (US $ 4,500)

FAO

3

Workshop on Extension Campaign Planning, Message Design and Materials Development(to prepare for the strategic multi-media campaign on the adoption of the Rice Pest Surveillance System by Thai Farmers in the Central Districts)

19-29 Oct. 1987

Resource Persons (international and national) for 15 days

FAO

DSA: 15 days x 25 persons x B. 510 = B. 19,000 (= US $ 7,500)

TGPPP

Travel expenses for 25 participants

TNCIPC/DOAE

4

Workshop on Pretesting/Formative Evaluation of Prototype Campaign Materials (which have been developed during the October 1987 workshop mentioned above)

12-18 Nov. 1987

Consultant (international) for 7 m/days

FAO

DSA: 6 days x 25 persons x B. 510 = B. 76,500 (= US $ 2,950)

TGPPP

Travel expenses for 25 participants

TNCIPC/DOAE

5

Pretesting prototype campaign materials

16-18 Nov. 198

Part of step 4

6

Reproduction of the extension campaign materials (whose prototypes have been pretested and revised during the November 1987 work- shop mentioned above)

Nov. 1987 to Jan. 1988

Expenses for media materials production (US $ 25,000)

TGPPP

7

Workshop on Campaign Management Planning (to prepare for implementation of the campaign)

25-30 Jan. 1988

Consultant (international) for 8 m/days

FAO

DSA: 6 days x 25 persons x B. 510 = B. 76,500 (= US $ 2,950)

TGPPP

Travel expenses for 25 participants

TNCIPC/DOAE

8

Training and orientation for campaign personnel

February 1988

Active involvement of DOAE personnel

TNCIPC/DOAE

9

Workshop on Campaign Evaluation Methods and Management Monitoring Procedures

8-11 March 1988

Consultant (international) for 7 m/days

FAO

DSA: 6 days x 25 persons x B. 510 = B. 76,500 (= US $ 2,950)

TGPPP

Travel expenses for 25 participants

DOAE

10

Implementation of Strategic Multi-Media Campaign on the Adoption of Rice Pest Surveillance System by Thai Farmers in the Central Districts

April-Nov. 1988

Active involvement of DOAE personnel

TNCIPC/DOAE

11

Evaluation Studies:

• Management Monitoring Survey (MMS)

May-June 1988

US $ 3,500

FAO

• Information Recall and Impact Survey(IRIS) and Focus Group Interviews (FGI)

Sept.1988 & May '89

US $ 8,500 for both studies

TGPPP/FAO

• Field Damage Assessment Study

Nov. 1988-Jun. 1989

By DOAE plant protection personnel (no additional cost involved)

TNCIPC/DOAE

12

International Seminar on: Experience Sharing and Results Dissemination regarding the Campaign Planning, Implementation and Evaluation

August 1989

DSA and travel for 40 local participants;

DOAE

8 invited international participants (DSA & travel)

TGPPP/FAO

2 international resource persons for 10 m/days each

FAO

Publication/Documentation of Campaign process and results (US $ 8,000)

FAO

Note:

FAO here refers to FAO projects GPC/RAS/108/AGF, GCP/RAS/101/NET, GCP/RAS/092/AUL, assisted by the FAO's Agricultural Education and Extension Service (ESHE) staff.

TGPPP = Thai-German Plant Protection Programme

TNCIPC/DOAE = Thai National Committee for Integrated Pest Control/Department of Agricultural Extension

DSA = Daily Subsistence Allowance

B = Thai Baht (US$ 1 = B 25.50 based on exchange rate in 1989)

Evaluation studies had specifically been commissioned to individuals or institutions (i.e., Chulalongkorn and Kasetsart universities and Suwannaphum Agro Consultants) not involved in the campaign planning or implementation process in order to obtain objective assessment of the effectiveness and usefulness of the SEC on Pest Surveillance System in Thailand. The following types of evaluation studies were conducted:

BEFORE Campaign1

DURING Campaign2

AFTER Campaign3

Knowledge, Attitude & Practice (KAP) Survey, incl. Focus Group Interviews (FGI)

Management Monitoring Survey (MMS)

Information Recall & Impact Survey (IRIS), including FGI

In the following pages, a summary of the campaign's evaluation results and also information on the important elements/aspects of this SEC process and method are provided.

Details on the results of the evaluation studies are contained in the following reports:

1 T. Boonlue, "Knowledge' Attitude, and Practice on Pest Surveillance System in Chainat Province' Thailand", Bangkok: Chulalongkorn Univ., October 1987

2 P. Boonruang and P. Chunsakorn Management Monitoring Survey of the Pest Surveillance Campaign on Rice", Bangkaen: Kasetsart Univ., June 1988

3 C. Tiantong, "An Information Recall and Impact Survey (IRIS) on the Strategic Extension Campaign on Pest Surveillance System in Rice, in Chainat Province, Thailand", October 1988

STRATEGIC EXTENSION CAMPAIGN (SEC) ON PEST SURVEILANCE SYSTEM IN THAILAND

GENERAL OBJECTIVE:

TO PROMOTE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION OF PEST SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM AMONG RICE FARMERS (for specific and measurable objectives see page 137)

DURATION:

APRIL- NOVEMBER 1988

TARGET LOCATION:

17 SUB-DISTRICTS/116 VILLAGES IN CHAINAT PROVINCE, THAILAND

TARGET AUDIENCE:

about 12,000 FARMERS
5,000 SCHOOL CHILDREN
400 LOCAL LEADERS & TEACHERS

ESTIMATED COST:

US $ 94,617 (for one rice planting season), including the one-time human resources development investment for the initial training of 25 extension staff on SEC methods

EVALUATION PROCEDURES:

• KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE AND PRACTICE (KAP) SURVEY

• MANAGEMENT MONITORING SURVEY (MMS)

• INFORMATION RECALL AND IMPACT SURVEY (IRIS)

• FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS (FGI) (for qualitative aspects of KAP and IRIS)

Campaign Strategy Planning Workshop

Photo 1

Photo 2

FIGURE 4-21

Identified Problems of Pest Surveillance System

Based on Farmers' KAP Survey in Chainat Province, Thailand

IDENTIFIED PROBLEM

PROBLEM

RELATED TO

1

Low knowledge on pest identification and Economic Threshold Level (ETL)

KNOWLEDGE

2

Lack of sufficient knowledge on the importance and benefits of natural enemies

KNOWLEDGE

3

Lack of sufficient knowledge on the importance and benefits of resistant rice varieties

KNOWLEDGE

4

Lack of awareness on Surveillance and Early Warning System(SEWS) programme, and ability in using Pest Surveillance form

KNOWLEDGE/

5

Farmers prefer broad-spectrum pesticides and blanket spraying

ATTITUDE

6

Farmers do not believe in the effectiveness of natural enemies

ATTITUDE

7

Farmers go to the edge of the field, but NOT into the field to check for pests according to the recommended procedure and frequency

ATTITUDE

3

Farmers spray pesticides on sight of pests based on their "natural instinct"

ATTITUDE

9

Farmers are aware of pesticide hazards, but DO NOT apply safety precautions in pesticide handling, application and disposal

PRACTICE

FIGURE 4-22

Specific and Measurable Campaign Objectives

Based on the Problems Identified by the KAP Survey for the Strategic Extension Campaign (SEC) on Pest Surveillance System in Chainat Province, Thailand

IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS

EXTENSION CAMPAIGN OBJECTIVES

1

Low knowledge on pest identification and necessary action for pest control

To increase the percentage of farmers who have knowledge regarding:
a. Pest identification from 41% to 65% and,
b Necessary action for pest control from 15.1% to 40%

2

Lack of sufficient knowledge on the importance and benefits of natural enemies

To increase the percentage of farmers who know the identity of natural enemies (good bugs) from 11.4% to 35%

3

Lack of sufficient knowledge on the importance and benefits of resistant rice varieties

To increase the percentage of farmers who have knowledge regarding the recognition and importance of resistant rice varieties from 35.8% to 50%

4

Lack of awareness on Surveillance and Early Warning System (SEWS) programme and Pest Surveillance (PS) form

To create awareness by increasing the percentage of farmers having knowledge on SEWS from 13.2% to 50% and to increase the percentage of farmers skilled in the use of Pest Surveillance (PS) form from 10.1% to 30%

5

Farmers prefer broad-spectrum pesticides and blanket spraying

To reduce the percentage of farmers using broad-spectrum pesticides by:
a. Increasing the percentage of farmers who know how to choose right chemicals from 5% to 16%
b. Decreasing the percentage of farmers who prefer broad-spectrum pesticides from 65% to 50%

6

Farmers do not believe in the effectiveness of natural enemies

To reduce the percentage of farmers who do not believe that conservation of natural enemies can suppress pest population from 36.5% to 25%

7

Farmers go to the edge of the field, but NOT into the field to check for pests according to the recommended procedure and frequency

To increase the percentage of farmers who check their fields according to the recommended procedure from 17% to 35%

8

Farmers spray pesticides on sight of pests based on their "natural instinct"

To reduce the percentage of farmers who believe in the need for spraying pesticides as soon as pests are observed in the geld' without checking the field properly, from 69.8% to 55%

9

Farmers are aware of pesticide hazards, but DO NOT apply safety precautions in pesticide handling, application and disposal

To increase the number of farmers observing adequate safety measures in using pesticides by increasing the percentage of farmers practising correct disposal of left-over pesticide from 10.7% to 25%

FIGURE 4-23

Strategy Development and Message Design Worksheet

IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS

REASONS FOR PROBLEMS

PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGY

MESSAGE APPEAL

EXAMPLE OF MESSAGE

CHANNEL FOR MESSAGE DELIVERY

1

Low knowledge on pest identification and Economic Threshold Level (ETL)

1. Lack of Plant Protection Service Unit (PPSU) officers to train farmers directly

1.1 Extension Agents (EA) will assist PPSU officers to train farmers

Morale boosting

"Contact your nearest PPSU officer or EA who are skillful and trained in pest surveillance"

All materials

2. EA have low knowledge on pest surveillance and Surveillance and Early Warning System (SEWS)

2.1 PPSU officers will train EA on pest identification and surveillance system

Flipchart, booklet, Pest Surveillance (PS) form

3. Lack of effective training materials

3.1 Develop training and reference materials suitable for EA and farmers

Technology Simplification

Flipchart, leaflet.

4. Poorly trained farmers

4.1 Same as below

Testimonial/Informational

Farmer who owns field explaining how crop losses can be avoided by proper checking and control measures

Leaflet, farmer-to-farmer, video, poster, booklet, PS form

4.2 Encourage farmers to visit field trials

4.3 Increase farmers' knowledge on pest identification - emphasis on planthopper

2

Lack of sufficient knowledge on the importance and benefits of natural enemies (NE)

1. Lack of PPSU officers to train farmers

1.1 EA will assist PPSU officers to train farmers


2. EA not very familiar with natural enemies

2.1 PPSU officers will train EA on NE (emphasis on spider)


3. Farmers have not seen how NE attack pests in the field

3.1 Show the real action in the field

Incentive

"Spiders (NE) are useful, and can be your assistant"

Booklet; poster Video, flyer, flipchart, radio spot, song, leaflet audio-cassette

Dramatized approach

"Spiders can kill and eat planthoppers better than we can"

FIGURE 4-23 (CONTINUED)

IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS

REASONS FOR PROBLEMS

PROBLEM SOLVING STRATEGY

MESSAGE APPEAL

EXAMPLE OF MESSAGE

CHANNEL FOR MESSAGE DELIVERY

3

Lack of knowledge on importance and benefits of resistant rice varieties

1. Lack of knowledge on resistant rice varieties to specific pests

1.1 Demonstrate plots of resistant versus non-resistant varieties

 

1.2 Provide more information on resistant varieties

Incentive/Reward approach

"No pest problems when using resistant varieties"

 Booklet, video, leaflet

Testimonial approach

Interviews with farmers who have planted resistant varieties

Flyer, flipchart, radio spot, song; audio-cassette

4

Lack on Surveillance and Early Warning System (SEWS) programme and ability to use Pest Surveillance form

1. Limited exposure to program and use of Pest Surveillance (PS) form

1.1 Increase exposure through use of mass media

Social prestige approach

"Modern farmers participate to SEWS program"

Billboard, radio spot, song, audio-cassette, sticker, poster, flipchart, video

Economic/Reward Incentives

"Farmers in SEWS area get more benefits"

2. Pest Surveillance (PS) form is too complicated for farmers:
- too much information is requested
- not practical for field use
- easily damaged by moisture in the field

2.1 Introduce a new, simple, easy to carry, and attractive PS form

Simplification approach

"The form helps:
- identify correct pests
- make right decision before spraying"


 Pocket-size PS form

2.2 Stress importance and advantages of the PS form for deciding farmers' pest control action

Incentive/Reward approach

Video' radio spot, song, audio-cassette, flipchart, leaflet' sticker, billboard

5

Farmers prefer broad-spectrum pesticides and blanket spraying

1. Broad-spectrum pesticides are preferred because:
- cheap (save money)
- multipurpose (no need to buy other chemicals)
- easily available

1.1 Emphasize bad effects of broad-spectrum pesticides:
- kill both pests and NE
- contaminate environment

Fear arousal

"Broad-spectrum chemicals are poisonous"

Booklet' video, leaflet

Down playing the competitor

"Better not to spray (thus save money) than to use broad-spectrum chemicals"

Flipchart, video

1.2 Demonstrate advantages of spot-spraying

Incentive/Reward approach

"Spot-spraying is cheaper and more effective"

Flipchart, video

"Spot-spraying is safer for the environment, NE and human beings"

Booklet, PS form, flyer

Continue

Contents - Previous - Next