Systems Approach Framework For Integrated Arthropod Pest Management In Smallholder Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum) Production In Kenya

Abstract

Arthropod pests have emerged as a major constraint in smallholder tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L) production in Kenya. For their management, the focus of crop protection research has been the curative control of the pests. Whilst such focus has contributed immensely to enhanced agricultural production, the indiscriminate use of chemical products has created new problems, including the negative effects of pesticides on public health, food safety and the environment. To complement entirely curative – and occasionally technology-driven – interventions, a ‘systems approach’ to pest management innovation is being suggested. The objective of this study, therefore, was to develop a systems approach framework for integrated arthropod pest management (IAPM) in the smallholder tomato production system in Kenya. The Plantwise programme – an innovative approach to support the delivery of agricultural extension service, and an experimental research, are both used to study tomato production system in Kenya. The study investigated the pest problem at three levels: plant/crop, farm and farm household. The primary aim of this approach was to address knowledge gaps in the fields of crop protection, ecology, and socio-economics. The study finds that any sustainable approach towards the management of arthropod pests must contend with the broadly categorised ‘big five dilemmas’: (1) farmers’ circumstances (resources and constraints) - decline in area under tomato cultivation, minimal adoption by farmers of high-yielding varieties, farmers grappling with other biotic pests (besides arthropod pests) and abiotic constraints, and gender inequality in the production system; (2) the pest problem - a diverse range of arthropod pests hamper smallholder tomato production in Kenya; key among them being tomato leafminer, whiteflies and spider mites; (3) decision-making by farmers and agricultural extension agents – limited adoption of IPM technologies by farmers and agricultural extension agents; (4) Pesticide use – increased usage of synthetic pesticides, including highly hazardous pesticides; and (5) decision support tools usage – opportunities exist for the uptake of a wide range of tools geared towards supporting participatory processes and decision analysis by farmers. The findings of this study underscore the need to design dynamic approaches to IAPM that take into account the highlighted complexities of agroecosystems and the diversity of farming circumstances, and that such approaches strengthen practitioners’ capacity to adapt crop protection to local realities.