Rationale for IAPPS:
Global Plant Protection Challenges
Many changes have occurred in the plant protection sciences since the founding of the IPPC in
1946: (1) new pest management concepts, tools and tactics have been developed; (2) new
challenges have evolved such as the emergence of chemical-resistant strains of pests (insects,
weeds, and pathogens); and (3) undesirable side-effects of chemical usage have provided strong
incentives for the implementation of integrated pest management (IPM) systems. The decades of the 1970's and 1980's witnessed strong consumer, political and scientist support
for IPM programs which prompted special funding for IPM research and extension programs in
the USA and other countries. And now throughout much of the world many consider that IPM is
the prevailing paradigm for plant protection; however, one may question whether this perspective
is more rhetorical than reality. This is suggested in a recent report by the U.S. National Research
Council(1) which calls for a shift in the IPM paradigm away from managing components or
individual organisms to an approach that examines processes, flows, and relationships among
organisms. The report concludes that the plant protection disciplines are not working on an
integrated basis to manage pest populations in agroecosystems but continuing to work primarily
within their disciplinary realms. The creation of international congresses for each of the
principal crop protection disciplines (viz., plant pathology, entomology, nematology, and weed
science) has tended to fortify the intra-plant-protection-discipline approach and further limit
professional interaction across disciplinary lines. The IPPC is the only international congress that embraces the totality of plant protection through
a systems approach to methodological integration for maintaining pest populations below
economic threshold levels. This is an advantage over the other international plant protection
organizations which address only one group of pests (such as insects, diseases, weeds, or
nematodes) and which often do not include the supporting sciences essential for successful IPM
programs (e.g., meteorology, sociology, economics, ecology, agronomy, etc.). Detailed study of
individual pests (their biology and ecology) is an essential element of IPM; however, the
interactions of the management tactics utilized for an individual pest with other pests within that
ecosystem must be understood and reflected in the overall management strategy. This is a core
objective and major advantage of the multidisciplinary IPM approach and of the IPPC. The crop protection component of the world food production system has received less attention
and investment during the last half century than the agronomic component (including genetic
innovations for yield enhancement). As a consequence, the estimate of pre-harvest loss caused
by pests to principal food and cash crops is 42% of potential production on a global basis(2). This
alarmingly high loss to pests in the crop production system suggests that the most economical and
practical approach for increasing food production to meet growing demands would be the
development and utilization of IPM systems on a substantially larger percentage of the
world's principal crops. Such action would stabilize the productivity of the world food system
by providing greater assurance against the occurrence of catastrophic pest losses and minimize
environmental degradation. This would be especially important in many developing countries
where chronic food shortages persist, where crop losses due to pests are higher than the global
average, where crop production technology and effective extension delivery systems are
inadequate, and where environmental damage and health hazards result from the use of pesticides
by individuals who lack proper knowledge and training. Recognizing these changed circumstances, needs, and opportunities in global plant protection,
the Standing Committee (SC) of the IPPCs established the Future Directions Committee (FDC)
in 1995 and charged it to examine and elaborate upon the goals and objectives of the IPPC and to
recommend organizational/structural changes necessary to meet the communication and
integration needs and challenges of the plant protection sciences for the 21st century and
beyond. Among the many recommendations made by the FDC (and subsequently approved
by the SC) was the establishment of the International Association for the Plant Protection
Sciences (IAPPS). The purpose of IAPPS is not only to provide an umbrella organization for
the IPPCs but also to provide a forum and structure for the coordination and integration of the
plant protection sciences on a global basis. It is envisaged that IAPPS will provide a mechanism
for the formation of a global partnership among plant protection societies, congresses,
research/extension organizations, and private industry that supplies inputs for the plant protection
sector. During the period 2000-2025, it will not be possible to produce enough food and fiber for an
additional 2.1 billion people without a shift from subsistence farming in developing countries to
an increasingly commercially-oriented form of agriculture.(3)This will result in an increase in the
purchased inputs and demand better control of input use. As production systems are intensified
for higher sustainable yields, they will become more vulnerable to pest damage and the potential
losses will be higher than under subsistence farming systems. This will require improved plant
protection technology and better trained technicians and farmers. There must be opportunities
for these personnel to be linked into global communication systems, such as that envisaged
through IAPPS, so they can access relevant information and collaborate with colleagues on
problems of common interest. It is interesting to note that the recommendation of the FDC to establish IAPPS parallels a
recommendation made during an address in 1946 at the First International Congress for Plant
Protection by Dr. Olof Ryberg(4) of Malmo, Sweden.
He stated "The world .... needs an
international organization for plant protection, not only .... to plan coming congresses ....but to a
much greater extent to take care of the current work on the international plant protection
questions." Dr. Ryberg observed that the activities of the new organization should become
multifarious and that it should give attention to important global crop protection problems/issues,
publish a regular newsletter and a year-book to summarize important events in crop protection,
and develop a working relationship with the United Nations. So 50+ years later, IAPPS promises
to fill the role envisaged by Dr. Ryberg for a new international plant protection organization 1 National Research Council. 1996. Ecologically Based Pest Management: New Solutions for a New Century.
Board on Agriculture -- Committee on Pest and Pathogen Control Through Management of Biological Control Agents and
Enhanced Cycles and Natural Processes, Washington, DC. National Academy Press.
2 Oerke, E-C., H-W. Dehne, F. Schonbeck, and A. Weber. 1994. Crop Production and Crop Protection: Estimated
Losses in major Food and Cash Crops. 808 pp. Elsevier, Amsterdam and New York. (The crops included in this composite loss
estimate are: rice, wheat, barley, corn, soybeans, potatoes, cotton and coffee.)
3 Oerke, E-C., H-W. Dehne, F. Schonbeck, and A. Weber. 1994. Crop Production and Crop Protection: Estimated
Losses in major Food and Cash Crops. 808 pp. Elsevier, Amsterdam and New York. p. 764.
4 Ryberg, Olof. 1946. The world Needs an International Organization for Plant Protection with a Permanent Executive Committee. In: Proceedings of First International Plant Protection Congress. pp. 644-647. 15-19 September 1946.
University of Louvain, Heverlee, Belgium.
[Home]