Measuring IPM adoption poses complex analytical challenges. Even relatively simple methodologies will require lots of field-specific data, some of which will be costly to obtain. Since crop-pest-beneficial organism interactions are so dynamic, influencing the nature of IPM systems and control practices needed in a given year, measurement methodologies must somehow distinguish short-term changes from longer-range shifts in pest pressure and IPM system effectiveness.

In addition, because there are many reasons to measure IPM adoption, many different methodologies will be required. Most will draw upon common databases; some methods will require richer, more complete data on certain aspects of a cropping and pest management system.

Fifty years ago, in the wake of the dustbowl, the nation established a new agency -- the Soil Conservation Service -- with the mission of promoting conservation on private lands. Just like pest managers today, conservation experts faced great variablility in susceptibiltiy to erosion across the landscape, and as a function of cropping systems. As public investment in conservation cost-share programs expanded, the need for accountability challenged scientists and conservationists in the 1960s to develop a defensible tool to measure erosivity and the impacts of conservation systems on soil loss.

It took some twenty years for the Universal Soil Loss Equation to be developed as a nationally-consistent method of estimating average erosion rates. Indeed, USLE work is ongoing to develop more accurate measurement methods in unusual circumstances, to account for more types and causes of erosion, and to adjust estimates as new conservation tools, technologies and systems are developed. A farmer's ability to reduce erosion below acceptable levels, estimated by the USLE, now governs eligibiltiy for commodity program payments, enrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program, and is also a critical factor in a variety of state and local conservation programs.

For many of the same reasons leading to the investment of millions in the USLE, methods are now needed to measure the adoption of IPM, as well as the linkages between pest management systems and environmental impacts, food safety and human health. It will take many years to develop practical yet defensible systems that can be applied widely to monitor the effectiveness of pest control systems, technologies and policies.

Today, two factors are driving efforts to develop IPM measurement methods -- first, the need to further specify what the Clinton Administration's 1993 IPM adoption goal means, and to monitor progress toward its attainment; and second, to support "green labelling" efforts through which some IPM innovators will be awarded in the marketplace.

Need for Cooperative Efforts

Individuals working on IPM measurement methods are invited to periodically share reports of their work for posting in this section. If made available electronically, we will post abstracts, even full papers, that make important contributions to the literature on IPM measurement methods. We will also build links to other sites reporting the results of measurement activities. I am willing to develop this section of the PMAC web page to meet the needs, and respond to the interests of people using the page. Please forward suggestions and measurement project information via e-mail to Chuck Benbrook. Hard copies of reports should be sent to: Chuck Benbrook, 409 First Street S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003. Thanks.