|
t
<br /> 594
<br /> need for stronger chemical pesticides to control often coupled with review or approval by a nonstaff
<br /> aphids anywhere in Eugene's park system. Effi- oversight board. Such administrative systems may
<br /> cacy has not diminished. It could be argued that it so encumber the monitoring - analysis- treatment
<br /> has improved. Our rose garden staff developed a process that timely, needed control actions are in-
<br /> _.. disease - management strategy that eventually en- terfered with or delayed. This can allow pest popu-
<br /> abled them to forgo regular, preemptive fungicide lations to build to unnecessarily Large levels that
<br /> treatments.
<br /> may require extreme measures to control, thwart-
<br /> As positive as these results are, I do not feel we ing the very goals that motivated the initial interest
<br /> could have achieved them in "year one," or even in IPM.
<br /> now, if we had been faced with a comprehensive Avoid mistaking paper volume for progress, or
<br /> ban on pesticide use. In every case with which I am assuming that the former will lead to the latter. If
<br /> familiar, serious program efficacy problems have anything, an inverse relationship between the ad-
<br /> resulted wherever such a policy has been estab- ministrative /paper load and real progress in the
<br /> lished without a prior effort to develop workable field can be demonstrated by comparing successful
<br /> alternatives. IPM programs to those that have not produced the
<br /> benefits inherent to the historic methodology.
<br /> AVOID EXCESSIVE,
<br /> UNNECESSARY DOCUMENTATION INVOLVE FIELD STAFF IN
<br /> Another feature of so- called IPM programs that are PROGRAM DESIGN
<br /> less effective than the historic model is a tendency In building a successful IPM program, your field
<br /> 1 toward overdocumentation. Of course, some docu- staff is your most important resource. Those who
<br /> mentation is required to implement an IPM pro- have been responsible for vegetation and pest con -
<br /> gram on an agencywide basis, especially if these trol "in the trenches," and will continue to be so,
<br /> methods have not been fully followed in the past. are an invaluable source of accurate information,
<br /> What I've termed overdocumentation involves the essential to success. Often, this same group also is
<br /> preparation of written materials or mandating of a major source of innovative control strategies.
<br /> administrative procedures that are not truly neces- Beware, again, of political or philosophical zeal -
<br /> sary to effectively implement IPM in the field. ots who may seek to disenfranchise staff input
<br /> In my consulting work with other communities, because it is, or they perceive it to be, in conflict
<br /> 3 two forms of excessive documentation or proce- with their cherished notions of how the ideal sys-
<br /> dure have come up again and again. The first is tem "should" function. Watch out, too, for societal
<br /> production of voluminous "manuals" that attempt biases which view the ideas of blue -collar workers,
<br /> to anticipate all
<br /> p possible vegetation and pest con- especially those in horticultural and agricultural
<br /> trol problems and prescribe treatment strategies in vocations, as less valuable than those of managers
<br /> I advance. Often, field staff are restricted to only or consultants with impressive academic creden-
<br /> those treatment options listed "in the book." While tials.
<br /> well intended, such manuals are rarely successful When the Eugene program began in 1980, our
<br /> in anticipating every possible problem, often quickly first priority was training all staff involved in veg-
<br /> made obsolete by improvements in technology, and etation and pest control in IPM theory and method-
<br /> , less effective than direct training in teaching IPM ology. Next, we assigned field staff members to
<br /> methodology to field staff. research and propose IPM strategies for dealing
<br /> A loose -leaf manual, easily updated and avail- with our most frequently encountered pest and
<br /> able as a reference to all staff involved in vegeta- vegetation problems. With this foundation laid, our
<br /> tion or pest control, can be helpful, depending on practice was to encourage staff to continue to apply
<br /> the agency's size and communication system. Some what they had learned and build upon it. The result
<br /> use a computer file /network for this purpose. How- has been a sense of program ownership which, in
<br /> ever, you should avoid setting a policy that only turn, has led to a strong desire and motivation to
<br /> those treatments contained in your manual can be see the program succeed. It has become routine,
<br /> used. Such a policy inhibits the staff creativity that now, for staff to propose new control strategies that
<br /> has led to many of our most successful innovations. will enable us to further reduce pesticide use with -
<br /> The other common error is establishment of out adverse effects on program efficacy.
<br /> mandatory, overly ponderous systems of documen- In contrast, I am familiar with agencies where
<br /> tation for monitoring data, pretreatment analysis, so- called IPM programs have been established by
<br /> posttreatment evaluations, and the like. These are administrative fiat with minimal to no staff input
<br />
|