The approach taken in this study was to go through a four-stage assessment in order to build up a body of evidence on the impact of IPM research at the international Agricultural Research Centres. Both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ indicators were used based on: a participatory self-assessment process by the respondents from the Centres, analyzing the quantity and type of published materials, subjecting the perceptions expressed by the respondents from the Centres with the opinions of their clients and partners and a review of a sample of economic case studies on IPM. The first positive result is that work on IPM continues to be carried out in all Centres although little funding comes from the Centres’ core budget. IPM at the Centres is definitely more than just a fashionable catchword to attract donor funding and the lists of publications on IPM underline the high profile of this subject area. The high professional quality of IP research seems to be beyond any doubt. Scientists working in IPM have taken the original idea of the ‘integrated control concept’ seriously and have put their efforts into providing alternatives to the plant-protection products of the private sector, as shown by the high emphasis given to resistance breeding and biological control. There is a dominance of the technological paradigm of IPM but increasing appreciation is also given to the term ‘management’ in IPM. However, the role of agricultural and environmental policies, which can either precondition an environment conducive to IPM adoption or be an impediment to its spread, is not yet sufficiently recognised by the Centres. The future of IPM is perceived as being very dependent upon the developments in biotechnology that will determine the nature of future partnerships. In this regard, there is a tendency for Centres to increasingly assess the plant-protection products of the private sector as complementary to the development of ‘their’ IPM technology rather than as alternatives as in the past. There is little doubt that past investment in IPM was profitable.’ Whenever economic impact studies have been conducted similar rates of return to those produced in the studies on other agricultural research investment have been shown. However, investments in IPM are often of a ‘fire-brigade nature’. IPM is called in when farmers are confronted with a crisis situation - either the result of pests or pesticides - and private-sector technologies have either failed or are unavailable. Therefore, what is treated as a benefit in investments that aimed to overcome pest crises are actually off-time externalities of misguided interference in the past. The pest and pesticide treadmill helps to ‘inflate’ the rate of return on pest control.Investments in pest control must be treated differently from investments in pest management. Hence, a high rate of return in pest control must not be equated with successful crop and/or pest management. The opposite can also be true: If pest control is highly ‘profitable’ the cropping system could be in a bad shape. The yardstick for measuring the true economic impact of IPM can, therefore, not be limited to calculating the rate of return in a static economic efficiency concept. It needs to capture the feedback mechanisms that human interference, such as pest-control actions, produce in ecosystems and the interaction between environment and economy.