Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
September 2010
Prepared by
Egmedio E. Samillano, Senior Agriculturist, Provincial Agriculture Office, Davao del Norte
Marilou N. Runas, Provincial IPM Coordinator,
Provincial Agriculture Office, Davao del Norte
Mario E. Corado, Project Coordinator/IPM Training Specialist
Agro-Biodiversity Conservation and
Pesticides Impact Assessment Project
I. Introduction
The FAO Regional IPM Programme and the Thai Education Foundation supported
the pilot implementation of Schools and Community Agro-Biodiversity Conservation
and Assessment of Pesticide Hazards activities in selected elementary and high
schools and FFS groups in Davao del Norte, Philippines. These initial project
activities were implemented in collaboration with the Provincial Government and the
Department of Education (DepEd) and the Provincial Agriculturist Office (PAGRO)
of Davao del Norte. The Provincial Davao government and the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) under projects GCP/RAS/209/NOR and GCP/RAS/229/SWE
provided funding and technical support for the project for the period September
2007 to April 2010.
The project generally aimed at building the capacity of local trainers, farmers,
teachers, and school children in conservation and sustainable utilization of agro-
biodiversity and assessment of pesticide hazards to community health and
environment through school and FFS educational activities.
General To build the capacity of local trainers, farmers, teachers, and school
children in conservation and sustainable utilization of Agro-BD and
assessment of pesticide impacts in the community through school and
Farmer’s Field School (FFS) educational activities.
2
2. Enhanced knowledge and skills on conservation and sustainable
utilization of agro-biodiversity;
3. Developed skills to monitor and assess hazardous effects of
pesticides on community health and farm ecosystems;
4. Integrated Agro-BD conservation and pesticides hazards concepts in
the core curriculum subjects in elementary and high schools and in
ongoing farmer’s education programmes;
5. Developed Agro-BD conservation and PIA learning materials such
scope and sequence charts, lesson plans, and portfolio assessment
methods.
3
IV. Capacity-Building Activities
Schools and farmer groups follow a process in deciding which species to select for
their conservation project. These steps are briefly discussed below:
4
Step 1. Meeting (Ground-working). The first
step in the process is the conduct of a
preliminary visit to the sites. Consultations are
made with stakeholders as to the project goal
and viability of implementing the project in their
school/community. During the groundworking
activity, a date is set inviting stakeholders to
attend the formal introduction of the project.
Step 2. Briefing and formation of Agro-BD Conservation Task Group (e.g., PTCA
and Teachers, Farmers). Concepts of agro-biodiversity, agro-ecosystems,
ecosystem services, and rationale for agro-conservation are discussed during this
phase. Conservation task force is elected by stakeholders to ensure the continuity
of the process.
Step 6. Develop a conservation and sustainable utilization plan. Once the species
of interest is selected, the group develops the conservation plan specifying goals,
expected results, activities, materials, persons responsible, and timetable.
Strategies to address issues that are important in ensuring the success of the
planned activity are discussed. Protocols and community regulations for sustainable
utilization of biodiversity species are also drawn up and agreed upon by
stakeholders.
Step 7. Implement the plan. After the comprehensive review of plan, the school/
community establishes the conservation project.
5
Step 8. Document the entire
process. The entire activity is
documented in the form of
periodic reports, portfolios,
and school records.
Step 9. Share results. Experiences and outputs from the activities are shared in
community meetings, congresses, field days, and other advocacy meetings to
generate support for the conservation activities.
6
Site Biodiversity Conservation Project
3. Brgy. Kiotoy, Municipality of Conservation of local earwig species
Panabo*
4. Island Garden City of Conservation of local fodder crop species
Samal*
*Provincial Government and LGU funded activities.
Catfish (Clarias macrocephalus) Eel species (Anguilidae family) Wetland Frogs (Discoglossidae family)
7
schools or communities and farmers seemed not observant on the proper disposal
of empty pesticide containers. (Annex 1).
Stakeholder Contribution
1.ProvincialGovernment/Provinci • Counterpart Funding
al • Technical Assistance
Agriculturist Office • Monitoring
• Staff availability to support documentation and
logistics during workshops and meetings
• Logistics (venue for conferences)
• Transport
2. Department of Education • Monitoring
• Transportation
• Training time for teachers participation in workshops
and meetings
3. NGO (NoCHEM) • Technical Assistance
4.Municipal LGU/Agriculture • Technical Assistance
Office • Traveling expenses for Agriculture Technicians
• Cost for transportation of materials
• Materials and supplies (office supplies, PVC pipes,
seeds)
• Snacks for participants
5. Parents Teachers Community • Labor (construction of ponds and nurseries, fence
Association (PTCA) materials, tree guards)
• Materials (wire nails, lumber)
• Snacks
6. Provincial Environment and • Technical assistance
Natural Resources Office • Billboards
7. Community/Farmer • Provide security against intruders
Cooperator • Transportation of tree seedlings
• Snacks for participants
• Resolutions to support the project, i.e., the
prohibition of collection of spiders, regulate
pesticide use among farmers in a given village
8. PAGRO, Fisheries Division • Nylon net for pond enclosure
• Technical assistance
9 Regional Facility Unit, • Logistics, monitoring, and technical backstopping
Department of Agriculture,
Region II
8
IX. Advocacy and Planning for Locally-Supported Agro-BD and PIA Activities
The pilot implementation of the Agro-BD Conservation and PIA Project in Davao del
Norte from September 2007 to April 2010 provided the following important lessons
and insights.
9
PTCAs, farmers, and NGOs in the sustained implementation of its Provincial IPM
program. Local DENR staff also participated in advocacy meeting and expressed
interest in supporting and helping upscale the efforts. The presence of such a
structure provided the institutional network and this support facilitated the
implementation of a community development initiative like the Agro-BD
conservation and PIA project.
4. Species focus important at project start but expansion to involve more species
important. Identification of one single species for community conservation and
sustainable utilization important for focused process implementation and sustained
intervention planning. However, once the schools and community at large have
started to appreciate and benefit from a single species conservation and
sustainable utilization plan and/or have run into implementation problems, it is
important to diversify the intervention to involve more species. This will help to
institutionalize the process and assist in drawing in more community stakeholders
for sustainability of the intervention.
10
Acknowledgments:
Mr. Jan Willem Ketelaar, CTA of the FAO ICP for providing funding and technical backstopping
support to the Agro-BD and PIA activities in Davao del Norte. The authors are also grateful for the
comments and suggestions he provided in finalizing the report;
Mr. Marut Jatiket, Executive Director,Thai Education foundation for the technical support;
The Provincial Government of Davao del Norte, for the various assistance extended to the project;
Mr. Dominador Encarnacion Jr, Provincial Agriculturist, Department of Agriculture, Davao del Norte,
for providing logistic support to the project;
Ms.Aurora B. Cubero (PhD), Superintendent, DepEd Division, Davao del Norte, for allowing
teachers to participate in the schools and community bioidiversity conservation initiative;
Mr.Jessie S. Binamira, Program Officer, National IPM Program (KASAKALIKASAN), for the
numerous technical assistance visits and support provided to the project;
Messrs. Alberto Dumo and Rogelio Doñes, Education Specialists at central DepEd, for their inputs
in facilitating integration of Agro-BD and PIA concepts in the school curriculum;
The teachers, extension workers, and farmers from the project sites, for their hard work and
cooperation;
Mr. Kazuyuki Tsurumi, FAOR-Philippines and his staff at the FAO Representation in Manila, most
notably Susan Castro, Glenda Aquino, and Auralyn Barcarse, for efficiently providing project’s
logistic requirements.
11
Annex 1 – Data on Pesticide Use in Rice and Banana
I. Rice
II. Banana
1. Aerial Spray
12
Amount
Common Type Active Ingredient WHO Hazard Spray Cycle Used/Cyc
Name Level le/
Hectare
Opal 7.5 EC Fungicide Epoxiconazole II Depends on 1.46 L
Calixin 86 OL Fungicide Tridemorph II disease 615 L
Manzate WP80 Fungicide Mancozeb IV monitoring & 1.18 kg
Daconil 720 SC Fungicide Chlorothalonil IV research 1.55 L
Twist 125 EC Fungicide Trifloxystrobin IV recommendati .68 L
Sico 250 EC Fungicide Difenoconazole IV on 1.0 L
Folicur 430 SC Fungicide Tebuconazole IV Usually 10-15 .27 L
Tilt 250 EC Fungicide Propiconazole III days interval .47 L
Vondozeb 42 Fungicide Mancozeb IV 1.18 L
SC Fungicide Bitertanol; IV .59 L
Baycor 300 EC Fungicide Mancozeb IV 2.93 L
Dithane 600 OS Fungicide Benomyl IV .33 Kg
Benlaki 50 WP Fungicide * .755 L
Impulse Fungicide Pyrimethanil IV .59 L
Siganex 60 SC Sticker Paraffin Oil IV 5.9 L
Sunspray Oil Emulsifier Alkyl Polyethylene IV .06 L
Lutensol Glysol Ether .06 L
Triton X Emulsifier *
3. Weed Control
Round-up Herbicide Glyphosate as IV Year round or 2 – 3 L
Basta Herbicide Potasium IV as need arises 2 – 3 L
Glyfosinate
Ammonium
13