Southern Region IPM Priorities

SIPMC Approach to Priorities: All projects must address important IPM issues for the Southern Region. Indicators of regional importance could include:

  • Explicit references to existing, publicly available documentation of stakeholder prioritization of the issue.
  • Evidence of the setting's importance in the region and the area addressed.
  • Evidence of the importance of the IPM issue (e.g. pest) addressed.
  • Multi-state: Projects that offer benefits to two or more states in the region or that entail multi-state collaboration are preferred. The work need not necessarily occur in more than one state, but if not, then evidence of the project's potential value (e.g., letters of support, citations of stakeholder prioritization in other states, etc.) should be included.
  • Projects of value to only one state will also be considered for funding and have often been funded by this program.

Sources of Stakeholder Priorities: Priorities recently promulgated by Southern Region stakeholder groups include:

  • Southern Region Information Exchange Group for IPM (SERA003-IPM) comprises all IPM Coordinators and several IPM researchers in the Southern Region. As such it is probably the single body with the broadest and most accurate knowledge of IPM programs, policies, resources and needs in the region. These IPM Priorities resulted from the March 15, 2017 meeting of the SERA 003.
  • Southern School IPM Working Group: This group of school IPM experts developed priorities at its meeting in Little Rock, AR. Working group members each made several suggestions for priorities and then voted on them. The priorities in the list are not ranked; rather they are listed according to the number of votes they received: 2012 School IPM Priorities Document.
  • Southern Nursery IPM Working Group (SNIPM): Priorities for the nursery industry are based on stakeholder focus groups held in 2009, 2011, and 2014. A table of the high priority pests, plant diseases, and weeds is also provided. The pests were organized by focus group members who considered prevalence, difficulty to control, damage potential, and severity of injury into their final choices.  2014 SNIPM Priorities
  • Pest Management Strategic Plans (PMSPs) are an excellent source of stakeholder identified priorities. Access the online database of PMSPs for the Southern Region.
  • 2013 Special Priorities: In 2013, we undertook a regional online survey of Extension IPM priorities and used results to inform priorities for the 2013 IPM Enhancement Grants Request for Applications. 2013 Special Priorities

Discussion: Attributes of useful priorities: For a particular use, one priority may have more power than another. Here are some thoughts to keep in mind when you submit or view an IPM priority.

  • Stakeholder link: Usually proposals are strengthened by addressing priorities that are identified by a broad range of stakeholders. A priority identified as such by two stakeholder groups (say, a grower organization AND a research/extension committee) may be considered as having more value than a priority identified by only one group. Priorities agreed upon by many stakeholder groups are often considered more valuable than those agreed upon by few.
  • Needs v Priorities: The term "needs" is not synonymous with the term "priorities." Priorities are typically gleaned from a larger list of needs and represent those that are most important and/or should be addressed first.
  • Timeliness: The timeliness of a stakeholder-identified priority affects its value. The date that the priority is identified helps to indicate timeliness, but even a chronologically "old" priority may be as valid and timely as a newly identified priority. To evaluate timeliness one could survey stakeholders to find out if that priority is still important in the grand scheme of issues.