Organic and IPM Working Group

Home » Priorities

Priorities

We periodically reassess our priorities based on IPM and Organic publications such as the IPM Roadmap and the National Organic Research Agenda, and others listed on our Resources page. To ensure our priorities align with stakeholder needs, we survey broad-ranging organizations and individuals to revise and rank our priorities.

These priorities are posted publicly on our website for review by stakeholders, funders, and individuals looking for project ideas.

2016

Priorities

The 2016 priorities were generated from the collaboratively-written white paper, working group grant proposal, conference call discussions, member feedback and regional IPM center resources. The top five ranked priorities as identified by stakeholder working group members are:

  1. Outreach: maintain and expand an active member network of professionals, educators, policy makers, producers and stakeholders across the IPM and organic communities to share information and collaboratively work toward shared priorities.
  2. Research: identify common interests and opportunities for the organic and IPM communities to help focus research and spur further discussion and action.
  3. Communication: share information with the member network via listserv, conference calls and in-person meetings on grant opportunities, emerging research on IPM and organic agriculture, relevant conferences and events, discussion topics and group projects.
  4. Education: share open access information with the public via working group website, presentations and collaboratively developed publications (i.e. the special edition of Biological Control) on topics related to organic, IPM and synergies between the two.
  5. Policy: prepare guidance for and work with policy makers to encourage sustainable practices and discourage unsustainable practices.

Social Network and Knowledge Base

Twenty four respondents completed the survey (45% of active group members). Respondents were asked to detail how their working relationships and knowledge base has changed as a result of participation in the group. Fifty-three percent of respondents have developed a new working relationship since joining the group, and 19% have developed more than one. Half (50%) have strengthened a pre-existing relationship, and a third (31%) have strengthened more than one. 70.5% said they are more knowledgeable in organic systems and practices as a result of participation in the group and similarly 71% said they are more knowledgeable of IPM systems and practices.

In addition to ranking the priorities, they answered questions about their individual backgrounds. 38.5% identified their background as organic, 29% identified IPM, and 29% responded both organic and IPM. Respondents further identified their profession or area of expertise as:

  • Research 17%
  • Extension 12%
  • Education 6%
  • Farmer/Rancher 0%
  • Policy 6%
  • Nonprofit 35%
  • Private Industry 12%
  • Government 6%
  • Other (communications, grant makers, research/government) 6%


The survey was conducted from June through August of 2016. For more information on the results or methods of the survey contact Ali Loker.

This work is supported by the North Central IPM Center through the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, NC IPM Center projects AG 2012-51120-20252 and AG 2014-70006-22486.

If you would like to contribute priority ideas or take the next Organic and IPM priority ranking survey, enter your information and a brief description of how you’d like to be involved on our contact page

Advertisements