Crop Protection in Africa:

Situation Analysis and

Strategic Framework

Prepared for FAO Regional Office for Africa

byCABI Africa

April 2011

Acknowledgements

Many people contributed views, information and literature towards this document, as well as commented on draft versions. Each of those contributions is gratefully acknowledged.

2

Table of Contents

Summary 4

1. Introduction 14

2. Methods 14

3. The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme 17

4. Crops and Pests 27

5. Pesticides and Pesticide Management 43

6. Other Control Methods 58

7. National Crop Protection Systems 74

8. Education, Extension and Information Technology 102

9. Framework for Crop Protection in CAADP 110

References 122

Annexes 133

3

Summary

Background1. The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) provides the

general strategy for the sector. It touches on issues of crop protection, pest management, and phytosanitary systems in various places, but does not and cannot provide detail, so crop protectionists need additional guidance on how to align their work to CAADP.

2. This document seeks to provide that guidance in three ways:

a) CAADP is reviewed for explicit and implicit references to crop protection issues.

b) A review and assessment is made of the crop protection situation in Africa, covering crops and pests, pesticides and pesticide management, other control methods, national crop protection systems, and crop protection education, extension, and information.

c) Seven elements of a strategic framework are described, providing a set of entry points for addressing crop protection issues within CAADP.

A. Crop protection in CAADP

3. CAADP is NEPAD’s strategy for agricultural development, launched in 2002. It was initially conceived as a response to the crisis in African agriculture, and was intended to have an early and significant impact. The third and final phases were planned for 2011–2015, but many countries have only recently embarked on implementing what has become known as the CAADP process. There is thus both a need and the opportunity for ensuring crop protection issues are adequately reflected in country implementation.

4. CAADP has four pillars: extending the area under sustainable land management and reliable water control systems; improving rural infrastructure and trade related capacities for market access; increasing food supply and reducing hunger; agricultural research, technology dissemination, and adoption. Each pillar has a companion framework document.

5. Pillar 1. This does not explicitly refer to crop protection, but the framework document refers to integrated pest management (IPM) (p.27) and notes that climate change is likely to increase pest pressure (p.43). Crop protection can be seen as a component of integrated natural resource management, but more intensive land and water management, including a greater use of inputs, provides challenges as well as opportunities for crop protection. More intensive resource use often leads to more serious pest problems.

6. Rural infrastructure development in Pillar 2. This is related to crop protection as facilitating output and input markets will lead to intensified agricultural production with risks and opportunities. Trade related capacity for market access is clearly stated to include sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) capacity (pp.38, 39, 41). SPS capacity

4

supports trade, but must also be deployed to protect the natural resources on which that trade is based.

7. In Pillar 3 it is acknowledged that few farmers use IPM (p.47). The use of improved varieties is also noted to be low (p.47). Even though improved varieties may include those bred for pest resistance, they can also be more susceptible to pests than traditional varieties. The problem of postharvest losses is also recognized (p.47), which improved storage facilities (Pillar 1) could address. Pillar 3 includes consideration of the need to build preparedness and improved response capacity for emergencies, which include pest outbreaks (p.48). Thus, improved crop protection is clearly seen as a component in increasing food supply and reducing hunger.

8. Pillar 4 mentions weeds as a consequence of unsustainable land management (p.71), and this also applies to other types of pests. Of the four research themes identified, integrated natural resource management is stated to include pest management (p.73), while the theme on the adaptive management of appropriate germplasm envisages high yielding varieties that are also resistant to pests (p.74). The research themes on sustainable market chains and agricultural policies do not explicitly refer to crop protection, but the harmonization of standards and regulations for seed certification (which are related to crop protection) (p. 65), and research that will support the establishment of policy frameworks promoting ecologically sustainable production (p.75) are both envisaged. Building research capacity will include the area of IPM (p.76).

9. CAADP thus mentions the issue of crop protection both explicitly and implicitly. Addressing pest problems is a route to increased productivity and profitability, with IPM being seen as the appropriate strategy. The importance is emphasized of ecologically based integrated natural resource management (including IPM), but how this can be achieved with greater use of inputs in more market oriented production systems is not articulated. This is the challenge that CAADP presents, and which this document addresses.

10. Country implementation of CAADP now focuses on the process as much as on the areas to be addressed, and the round-table process is intended to be participatory and evidence based. It is important that crop protectionists engage with the process to ensure that the crop protection issues, referred to in general terms in the CAADP document, are addressed in more detail in the national agricultural investment plans that emerge.

B. Situation review and assessment

Crops and pests11. Spanning over 70 degrees of latitude, Africa has a very wide range of agro-ecological

zones. There are many different cropping systems producing a large number of different crops. The diversity of African crop production reaches down to the farm level, where numerous different crops may be grown in a small area.

12. Some of the most important crops in Africa are globally important; maize is Africa’s most widely planted crop, yet only about 7% of global production is in Africa. Cassava is the continent’s most important crop by production (> 120 million tonnes/year), which is over

5

50% of the global production. Yam is the fourth most productive crop in Africa where over 95% of the global production is grown. Some crops are important because of their export value, cocoa beans being the most valuable at over $3 billion/year, followed by cotton and tobacco. Horticultural exports (flowers, fruits, and vegetables) have expanded greatly in the last decade.

13. Much of the increase in crop production in Africa over the last decade has been through an increase in the area planted (extensification), rather than through increased yield (intensification), as envisaged by CAADP. A doubling of fruit and vegetable production is projected, supported by increased irrigation. More foreign investment in agricultural production is likely to result in greater use of fertilizer and pesticides. Biofuel production will bring new pest problems and the risks of creating new weeds. Crop pests include plant diseases caused by microorganisms; insects and other invertebrates; mammals and birds; and plants (weeds). Globally, about 70% of pests are introduced, i.e., not native to the area. In the twentieth century, 66 insects and mites, and 167 plant pathogens were reported as having been introduced to Africa, but this is likely to be an underestimate. Many plant protection or related acts provide for pests to be declared, allowing for strict measures to limit their spread in a country. But such declarations are often not systematic, and the implementation of the legal provisions is generally weak.

14. Accurate data on the potential and actual losses due to crop pests are scarce. A global study suggested potential losses in Africa are around 70–85%, with actual losses of about 30–55%. The effectiveness of control (i.e., the difference between potential and actual loss) was lowest in East and West Africa. Worldwide, the actual losses to plant pathogens, animal pests, and weeds are similar at 10–15% each, although the potential losses to weeds are the greatest. Crop loss rates have not significantly declined globally in the last four decades, although yields have increased.

15. Climate change will have many direct and indirect effects on pests. It will change their distribution, modify their impact, alter the effectiveness of control, lead to the introduction of new pests, and affect their rate of establishment. At the same time, there will be a change in what crops can be grown and where. The net effect on pests from climate change coupled with society’s responses is hard to predict, but pest problems will change more rapidly than in the past, requiring increased capacity to detect and respond to the changes.

16. Intensified crop production, the reduction in cropping system diversity, increased irrigation, and climate change will all cause new or different pest problems that will have to be addressed.

Pesticides and pesticide management17. Africa accounts for less than 5% of global pesticide use, but from 2001 to 2008, the

value of pesticides imported to Africa increased from about $0.5 billion to $1.25 billion. South Africa, Ghana, Morocco, Kenya, and Nigeria are the top importers, together accounting for over 50% of the total pesticide imports into the continent. Few pesticides are manufactured in Africa, so imports are an indicator of use. Ghana’s imports over the same period have increased by over 600%.

6

18. Pesticide use is very uneven. In staple crops, pesticide use is usually very low or absent, although the control of migrant pests, such as locusts, sometimes results in heavy pesticide use to protect food crops. Commodity crops, such as cotton and cocoa, have a higher use of pesticides, also horticultural crops for local urban markets. Export horticulture has used pesticides extensively in the past, but stringent market demands have caused a reduction.

19. Despite the relatively low volume of pesticides used in Africa, problems with their use occur throughout their life cycle from manufacture to the disposal of old stock. Weak capacity for regulation and enforcement leads to a range of negative effects from pesticides. Obsolete stockpiles are a particular problem, with an estimated $200 million or more required to dispose of current stockpiles.

20. Poisoning as a result of pesticides is not always reported or documented but, where pesticides are used and studies have been undertaken, there is a frequent occurrence of short and long-term illness, as well as fatalities, including suicide. Other results of pesticide mismanagement include environmental damage, pest resistance and resurgence, and trade problems.

21. Several international agreements aim to manage the risks from chemicals, including pesticides, and most countries in Africa are signatories to most of the agreements. But the domestication and implementation of the agreements are problematic for many countries. Numerous initiatives aim to build capacity in the management of chemicals, but whether the “safe use” of pesticides is an appropriate goal is open to debate.

22. The International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides was adopted by FAO in 1985, pre-dating the international conventions. The revised version (2002) includes greater emphasis on IPM, and a set of guideline documents provides practical guidance on the different aspects of pesticide use for the various stakeholders involved. A recent survey on the implementation of the code concluded that lower- income countries had made progress in some areas, but lag behind higher-income countries in a number of areas, including that of implementing IPM.

23. National policies affect pesticide use in many ways. Obvious price factors, such as Government or donor subsidies of various types, are now less common, but a hidden subsidy, such as the exclusion of externalities (damage to health or environment), encourages pesticide use. Hidden factors that can promote pesticide use include funding by Government of pesticide research rather than alternative approaches, education and training curricula, and the dominance of the pesticide industry as a provider of crop protection information.

24. National pesticide regulatory agencies license different aspects of the distribution and use of pesticides but often lack the capacity, in particular, for postregistration monitoring. Unsophisticated pesticide registration requirements can make the registration of less toxic products uneconomical, as they often have smaller markets. Regional collaboration can improve the efficiency of pesticide registration, and the Comité Sahélien des Pesticides (CSP) has succeeded in formalizing this cooperation. CSP recently banned Endosulfan, a broad spectrum insecticide that had been widely used, especially in cotton production.

7

Other control methods25. IPM emphasizes using different control methods in combinations, particularly resistant

crop varieties, biological controls, and agronomic practices. Environmental sustainability is also emphasized so, if pesticide use is seen as part of IPM, then its use should be minimized and in keeping with the principles of natural resource management. Empowering farmers to make informed decisions on pest management is a key aspect of attempts to implement IPM in developing countries.

26. Widespread enthusiasm for the principles of IPM is matched by widespread disappointment at the level of implementation. Where farmers grow low-value crops, production is risky, few inputs are used, and markets are weak, so investing cash or labor in IPM is not attractive. Thus, some of the best examples of the use of IPM are (not surprisingly) in cash crop production for export, particularly where markets are demanding reduced pesticide use.

27. Failure to understand and take account of the socioeconomic context of crop protection, including gender aspects, may therefore explain in part why the uptake of IPM has been poor. Conversely, if the socioeconomic context can be changed, such as through reducing risk or creating output markets, IPM uptake could be stimulated.

28. Crop plants that are resistant to pests provide an attractive approach to crop protection, as the protection is built into the seeds and there is little or no environmental impact. The breeding of cassava resistant to mosaic virus is one of several good examples of the success of the approach.

29. Plant breeding for resistance requires sustained investment, as it takes time and the durability of the resistance is not easy to predict. Recent developments in molecular genetics techniques allow more sophisticated plant breeding, but the capacity for using these techniques is, in many countries, limited. Regional and international collaboration provides opportunities for their application, such as through NEPAD’s centers of excellence.

30. The uptake of pest resistant crop varieties can be constrained by various factors, even where participatory approaches have been used to ensure traits match farmers’ needs. The related areas of the regulation of seed production and distribution, intellectual property protection, and commercialization can all be significant problems in the way of the adoption of a pest resistant crop variety.

31. Genetically modified (GM) cotton and maize with resistance to lepidopterous pests are grown only in South Africa, Burkina Faso, and Egypt. A number of other countries have established the necessary biosafety frameworks, and trials of GM pest resistant crops are in progress in various countries, so commercial production is projected to expand. Some countries remain concerned about the socioeconomic aspects of GM crops, as well as their environmental or health risks. Many countries lack the mechanisms for informed public debate on technologies such as genetic modification, including separating scientific risk assessments from policy decisions on risk management.

32. Biological control using introduced natural enemies of pests has achieved some notable successes, such as control of the cassava mealybug. Cost–benefit analysis indicates

8

that much greater investment in the approach would be justified, including building capacity and confidence in the risk analysis of biocontrol introductions. Microbial biological control (biopesticides) is also an underexploited approach, due to unfavorable regulatory systems and the limited understanding of commercialization among public sector scientists.

33. Semiochemicals, such as food attractants and pheromones, are little used in Africa, but also provide opportunities for use in IPM. Commercialization and regulatory issues again need to be addressed to promote uptake. Sterile insect technique (SIT) has been little used outside South Africa for agricultural pests, although capacity exists from the development of the technique for the control of pests of medical importance. SIT and other approaches are most effective when an area-wide approach is used, requiring good coordination and the effective implementation of centrally made decisions that can be difficult to achieve.

National crop protection systems34. In many countries, most or all of the functions required of a national crop protection

system are performed by a plant protection department or directorate within an agricultural ministry. These functions include providing advice to farmers, surveillance and response to new pests, emergency control operations, the regulation of pest control products, and phytosanitary inspections and certification. In a few countries, some of these functions, particularly those concerning regulation, are mandated to specific agencies.

35. The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) requires contracting parties to establish a National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO), with specific responsibilities as described in the IPPC, covering some but not all of the above functions. Most countries are parties to the IPPC, but none fulfills all the reporting requirements. In some cases this is because the plant protection legislation is outdated. NPPOs have responsibilities in the areas of policy and legislation as well as scientific and technical functions including diagnostics, risk analysis, surveillance, import and export inspection, and certification. In all these areas capacity is lacking, although there is some indication that the capacity for supporting trade (exports) is more developed than the capacity to protect plant resources from pests.

36. Emergency preparedness is required for non-quarantine pests, such as locusts, as well as for new pests, such as the fruit fly Bactrocera invadens. Some capacity for emergency response has been developed for tackling the major migrant pests, particularly through regional and international collaboration. But the capacity to detect and respond to incursions and outbreaks of new pests is severely limited, as the example of B. invadens demonstrates.

37. Thus, the IPPC has recognized the development of phytosanitary capacity as a major area for attention, and has recently developed a strategy for capacity development. The InterAfrican Phytosanitary Council (AU-IAPSC) is developing a similar strategy for Africa, which must be aligned to the IPPC’s strategy, promoted and supported by the African Union and member countries and vigorously implemented.

9

38. Most countries are signatories to the IPPC, the World Trade Organization, (WTO) and its SPS agreement, and the CBD, all of which aim (among other things) to limit the introduction and spread of pests. While non-signatories need to be supported to join, full participation in the workings of the agreements and national implementation of their provisions requires sustained assistance in the technical areas listed above, as well as in the development of ‘soft’ capacity such as leadership, the management of inter-organizational relationships, and adaptation to changing needs.

39. Several regional economic communities (RECs) have regional SPS agreements, but it is not always clear that they add value to the international agreements. RECs need support to identify and execute their appropriate roles in the SPS arena.

Education, extension, and information40. The crop protection content of educational curricula can influence attitudes and behavior

patterns over many years. School and university curricula that have not been revised recently may still reflect the notion that pesticides are the answer to pest problems. School curricula should include pesticides, emphasizing their drawbacks, but should also include other pest control methods, highlighting their benefits. Resource management and sustainability may be more difficult to teach, so require greater emphasis, not less.

41. Tertiary education in crop protection is widespread, but tends to be organized around the biology of pests, such as entomology or plant pathology. This can produce researchers who are not well equipped to undertake demand-driven research, who have limited ability to create constructive links with different stakeholders, and who do not appreciate that agriculture is an enterprise, and crop protection must therefore be developed in that context. Initiatives, such as the RUFORUM-supported PhD program in Agricultural and Rural Innovation Studies and FARA’s UNIBRAIN program linking university education, research, and business, are positive steps and need replicating.

42. Crop protection is one of the main areas in which farmers require extension advice, but many public extension services are unable to meet this demand. Farmer Field Schools (FFS) were first developed for IPM in rice in Asia and are widely used in Africa. The original concept has been broadened and adapted to many aspects of agricultural and rural livelihoods. While debate continues concerning their cost-effectiveness and sustainability, there are clear cases where FFS have changed farmers’ behavior and increased the use of IPM, such as in the West African program of FAO.

43. Rural or mobile plant clinics are another face-to-face extension approach, specifically for addressing crop protection problems. They provide demand-led advice and, like FFS, recognize the importance of linking different actors to provide effective extension services to farmers. They also provide a mechanism for monitoring farmers’ needs.

44. Face-to-face extension methods must be complemented with those that can reach large audiences quickly, such as the use of radio, print media and TV. A challenge for IPM extension is that the messages are not always simple, particularly in comparison with pesticides. Monetization of non-chemical pest control methods will bring the private sector into play, capitalizing on the fact that agrodealers can be an important source of extension advice. Modern information and communication technologies (ICTs) provide many new opportunities for making crop protection information available to farmers and

10

others, and different approaches are being tested. Those that seek to establish sustainable business models linked to mobile phone service providers are of particular interest.

45. ICTs are increasingly used in many aspects of crop protection, such as remote sensing of plant health, field digitization of pest surveillance data, precision agriculture, telediagnosis, and a host of other applications. Research is needed to test and capitalize on these opportunities while avoiding the pitfall of supply-led development.

C. Strategic framework for crop protection

46. CAADP envisages:

More market oriented production

Increased local and regional trade

Greater use of inputs

Increased production, productivity, and profitability

47. At the same time, CAADP recognizes that an integrated approach to natural resource management is required and with special consideration to be given to the poor and vulnerable.

48. Increased output per unit area with reduced environmental impact (despite the increased use of inputs) is described as ‘sustainable intensification’, but crop protection under intensified production has often been environmentally, socially, or economically unsustainable. The seven elements described here provide a route through which crop protection can contribute to sustainable intensification.

49. National organizational arrangements for crop protection must be able to meet the current and future needs of a country’s agricultural sector but, in many countries, they are still based on what was established in the colonial era. Mandates and responsibilities for the required crop protection functions must be clearly defined; linkages must be established between the different actors providing these functions; and a structure or mechanism is required to ensure coordination.

50. Policy in relation to crop protection must be aligned to CAADP and national plans and strategies for agricultural investment. National policies need updating to ensure that the many factors currently favoring pesticide use are minimized, and environmentally sustainable crop protection methods are favored. The domestication of international policy related to crop protection is often limited, with many countries failing to meet their obligations under the IPPC and other international agreements. Countries need to be signatories to the relevant agreements, be active participants in their workings, and pursue their implementation nationally and regionally.

51. Regulatory authorities have a major role to play in promoting sustainable intensification. Important areas for regulation are the distribution and use of pesticides and other pest control products; biocontrol; management of declared pests; GM crops; seeds and other planting materials; and exports and imports that may spread pests.

11

Regulatory bodies need clear mandates, strong technical capacity particularly in risk assessment, and resources for monitoring and enforcement. Independence from political influence is required.

52. Regionalism can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of crop protection functions. Some crop protection issues, such as migrant pests, can be effectively addressed only through a regional approach. Regional collaboration and cooperation can also make more efficient use of resources and capacity. Although countries need to build national capacity, in some areas, such as taxonomy, no country will ever have adequate capacity alone. Regional approaches also allow the harmonization of policies and practices, reduction of costs and increased efficiency, particularly in the regulatory areas listed above. But regional bodies must avoid duplicating what has already been established at international level, and should not undertake roles that are clearly national responsibilities. The Regional Plant Protection Organization for Africa has a key role to play but lacks the political support and resources to fulfill this role, a situation that needs to be rectified.

53. Capacity development is required in many aspects of crop protection, as identified in other sections of this framework as well as in CAADP. Capacity development has tended to focus on individuals, but many aspects of crop protection capacity reside in organizations or systems and this affects how capacity development should be addressed. The Paris Principles on Aid Effectiveness should be applied to the development of crop protection capacity, led by and building on points of national and regional strength.

54. Public-private partnerships and a strong and active private sector are necessary for CAADP to be successful. Governments must provide an enabling environment and work with the private sector to support the development of profitable enterprises based on sustainable crop protection. Public–private partnerships can facilitate the development and adoption of less damaging pest control methods, such as biopesticides. Public–private partnerships are also required to ensure that international trade meets appropriate phytosanitary standards and the risk of introducing damaging new pests is minimized.

55. Research, science and technology are widely acknowledged as critical to Africa’s development, and crop protection is a long-standing area of agricultural research. But many countries have fewer than two crop protection researchers / million farmers. The Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) emphasizes that the way research is done is important, so that research results lead to innovation – the application of new knowledge for economic and social benefit. Subject specialization and teaching methods in education do not always promote innovation in crop protection and other areas of agriculture, but improvements are being made. FARA has adopted an approach it calls Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) including the use of ‘innovation platforms for technology adoption’. Crop protection research must be more demand-led, addressing the needs of farmers as well as the other actors, and this requires more effective communication among the different stakeholders. ICT provides new opportunities in this regard, and their testing and use can improve the relevance of research and extension. For CAADP to succeed, much more research is needed on crop protection that minimizes pesticide use, but (as noted above) greater public–private

12

collaboration is required to ensure that such research leads to cost-effective crop protection products and services.

13

1. Introduction

1.1 ObjectivesCrop protection is a significant feature of many agricultural and related activities, with technical, social, economic and environmental dimensions. Notwithstanding the various interventions by FAO and other agencies operating in Africa, there is a perceived need to develop a strategic framework for crop protection that identifies actors, sectors, and appropriate points of intervention, which can be used by the various agencies involved as a working document for guiding, informing and advising on current and future programmes.

The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) provides the overarching strategy for the sector, and refers to crop protection, pest management and phytosanitary issues in several pillars. A document that draws all these issues together into a cohesive framework could assist implementation of CAADP, and ensure that crop protection issues are addressed in a coordinated manner.

A study was undertaken with the following objectives:

Make an overall assessment of the needs of crop protection programmes at national, sub-regional a nd continental levels

Review important literature on the current state of crop protection in Africa Develop a draft strategic framework for crop protection in Africa, specifically in

relation to CAADP and its different pillars and cross-cutting areas.

The study was wide ranging in scope, covering the major topics and issues in the area of crop protection, including diagnosis of plant pests and diseases, pest management methods and approaches, transboundary and emerging pest problems, pesticide management, policy in relation to crop protection, phytosanitary systems, and institutions and organisations providing crop protection services.

The Terms of Reference are provided in Annex 1.

2. Methods

2.1 ApproachInformation and views were collected in two ways: desk study and consultations.

The Desk study collected information using the following methods and sources: Documents provided by organizations and individuals Search of CAB Abstracts for published literature on relevant topics Searches on the World Wide Web Information from specific sites such as those for international conventions

The aim of the Consultations was to gain the views from a wide range of stakeholders including the following:

14

National research and extension systems including universities, national plant protection organizations (regulatory agencies), ministry departments

Regional/subregional organizations involved in agriculture or pest management issues

FAO (including headquarters, regional, sub-regional offices) International Agricultural Research Centres Agroinput suppliers, associations Farmers/growers associations/networks Northern research/training organizations involved in crop protection in Africa International networks, programmes, projects

Key informant interviews. Where possible key informants were interviewed face-to-face but telephone and/or e-mail contact was also used. Checklists of information/questions were prepared, but informants were encouraged to provide information they felt was important, rather than simply answering fixed questions. Key informants were requested for information in their particular area of expertise.

Side meetings. Opportunities were taken to hold side meetings at events where interested stakeholders were present. The meetings also provided opportunities for individual discussions.

Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (Rome 22-26 March 2010 and 14-18 March 2011). Meetings were organised as part of the series of official side meetings at the CPM.

African Agricultural Science Week and FARA General Assembly (Ougadougou, 19-24 July 2010).

Pan-African NPPOs’ Meeting for the Review of Draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (Lusaka, 9-13 August 2010)

FAO Sub-Regional Contingency Planning and Transboundary Emergency Plant Pests (EPP) Preparedness Workshop (Lusaka, 18-22 October 2010).

2.2 Structure of the documentThe document is presented in seven chapters.

Chapter 3 is about the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). It includes a summary of the CAADP, and the process through which it is being implemented, and within which there are opportunities for including and strengthening crop protection activities. An analysis is made of how crop protection is explicitly or implicitly included in the four pillars, and the possible implications for crop protection of the aims of each pillar.

Chapters 4 to 8 cover five key areas in relation to crop protection. In each area consideration is given to a set of generic issues and questions.

Current situation. What is the current situation, what are the challenges or problems faced, and what implementation issues are faced?

15

Past trends. How has the situation changed in the past, over the long term and more recently? This helps understand how the current situation has been arrived at.

Possible future trends. The framework must take account of what might happen in the future, so identifying expected changes is important. This includes identifying emerging issues that might present future risks, challenges and opportunities.

Major initiatives, activities. A complete catalogue of recent or current initiatives in the area of crop protection is not possible, but some examples of significant activities are mentioned.

Organisations. Which are the key organizations, in the public and private sector, nationally, regionally and internationally? What roles do different organizations play, and how might his change in the future?

Capacity issues. Inadequate capacity is frequently cited as a challenge, but often this is another way of saying there is a problem. Capacity has many facets, and reasons for a capacity deficit are diverse, so where appropriate an effort is made to make more specific observations on capacity, as well as on capacity development.

Policy issues. Policy is relevant to all areas, but specific policy issues are addressed where they are of particular importance.

Research. Pillar lV of CAADP covers research, so issues in crop protection research need to be considered. Important research issues or questions that could be addressed are identified.

Success stories and case studies. Short examples are given from which lessons can be learned. Building on strengths and success is often a more successful approach than focusing on weaknesses.

Main issues for the overall framework. Each section ends with a list of key points for inclusion in the overall framework.

Not all questions are appropriate for all the technical areas, and the scope of the study means not all questions can be covered in depth for every area. But in principle, each generic issue or question can be asked for each of the main areas covered in Chapters 4 to 8.

Based on Chapters 3 to 8, Chapter 9 presents a framework for crop protection in relation to CAADP, highlighting seven key areas or entry points for intervention.

16

3. The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme

3.1 Background to CAADPCAADP is the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) strategic document for agriculture. It was developed through a consultative process in 2002, facilitated by FAO, and endorsed with certain considerations and recommendations by a Meeting of African Ministers of Agriculture held at FAO Headquarters, 9 June 2002.

The CAADP document (NEPAD, 2003) makes it clear that it was conceived as a response to the “widely recognized crisis situation in African agriculture”. Thus the focus was on interventions that could “make the earliest difference to Africa’s dire situation”. Initially it contained three pillars, areas in which investment totaling USD41 billion was proposed over the period 2002-2015. This period was divided into the immediate future (2002-2005), the short term (2006-2010), and the medium term (2011-2015). Thus, as originally envisaged, CAADP should now be in the last of 3 stages of implementation.

However, the Ministerial Meeting in 2002 emphasised operationalization of CAADP, several of the considerations and recommendations foreseeing a “CAADP process”, with the emphasis on integrating implementation with existing national, sub-regional and regional plans. The process by which CAADP is implemented has therefore become an important aspect of the programme, and since 2002 there has been much work on developing and implementing a process that ensures appropriate participation and ownership. Despite the original interest being to respond to a crisis, only recently have many countries started making concrete steps to implementing it. Section 3.4 describes implementation of CAADP.

3.2 The CAADP PillarsThe original version of CAADP contained three ‘pillars’ or themes for priority interventions. Following the recommendations of the June 2002 Ministerial Meeting a fourth pillar on research was added, which was recognized as being a much longer term component of agricultural development. The meeting also requested that the fisheries, livestock and forestry sub-sectors be given adequate attention in NEPAD efforts, and a ‘companion documents’ on those topics was subsequently prepared, sometimes referred to as a ‘fifth pillar’. The CAADP document itself (NEPAD, 2003) contains just four pillars (see Box 3.1).

3.3 Crop Protection in the CAADPHere we review the explicit and implicit references to crop protection in the CAADP document, and where appropriate in the framework documents that describe the pillars in more detail.

1. Sustainable land and water Management: The CAADP Pillar 1 Framework (NEPAD, 2009a).

2. Framework for Improving rural infrastructure and trade related capacities for market access (NEPAD, 2009b).

3. Framework for African Food Security (NEPAD, 2009c).4. Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FARA, 2006).

17

Box 3.1. The Four Pillars of CAADPPillar 1. Extending the area under sustainable land management and reliable water control systemsIncreasing the area of irrigated arable land is seen as a major objective. Only 3.7% of arable land in sub-Saharan Africa is under irrigation, and coupled with low soil fertility and fertilizer productivity, this is a major constraint to improving crop production.

Pillar 2. Improving rural infrastructure and trade-related capacities for market accessA lack of rural infrastructure, such as roads, transport, storage and other elements of trade systems is also seen as a major constraint to agricultural development. It is also recognized that participation in global trade requires capacities beyond infrastructure, such as in trade negotiations for market access.

Pillar 3. Increasing food supply and reducing hungerOverall crop productivity in Africa is low, and this is partly due to lack of irrigation and markets. This pillar envisages increased productivity through enabling small scale farmers to access simple and low cost technology, which will require improved farm support services and a supportive policy environment.

A sub-component of this pillar concerns investment to respond to disasters and emergencies, which jeopardize longer term development, and require the establishment of targeted safety nets.

Pillar 4. Agricultural research, technology dissemination and adoptionThis long term component aims to deliver: (a) Enhanced adoption of available technologies; (b) Technology delivery systems that bring innovations to farmers and agribusinesses, especially through use of ICTs; (c) Renewed capacity of agricultural research systems; (d) Mechanisms to reduce the costs and risks of adopting new technologies. Four research themes are described. 1. Integrated natural resource management. 2. Adaptive management of appropriate germplasm. Development of sustainable market chains. 4. Policies for sustainable agriculture.

The possible implications for crop protection of implementing the pillars are also identified.

3.3.1 Pillar 1: Land and Water Management

Explicit references. There are no explicit references to any aspects of crop protection in the CAADP document. However, the pillar framework document mentions integrated pest management in several places, and points out that one of the effects of climate change is likely to be increased pest pressure.

Implicit references. Linked to, and in reference to public investments in water control infrastructure, the pillar envisages flows of national private investment to underwrite supporting services such as availability of seed, fertilizer and other input supplies. Such inputs would include those for crop protection, often in the form of pesticides. It is also stated that there are synergies between irrigation and other sources of agricultural growth, which encourage farmers to invest in land improvements and other inputs.

Implications for crop protection. Irrigation and better land husbandry for improved soil fertility at both farm and area levels are envisaged. These will create changes to the agroecology that are bound to have an impact on pest populations, some of which may be beneficial, while others may be detrimental.

18

Irrigation often means there are crops present in the field for a greater proportion of the year, increasing the availability of resource to herbivores and thus encouraging their populations.

The health and vigour of plants affects their susceptibility to pests. Healthy plants can be more attractive to pests, but at the same time better able to withstand pest attack. However, improved control over the agroecology of crop production affords some new opportunities in crop protection, such as:

o Timing/manipulation of irrigation to reduce pest problems. This is more feasible in large scale schemes with area-wide control of water management

o Adjustment of soil fertility or land husbandry practices to reduce pest problems.

3.3.2 Pillar 2: Rural Infrastructure and Trade-Related Capacities for Improved Market Access

Explicit references. There are no explicit references to crop protection in relation to the development of rural infrastructure. Trade-related capacities for improved market access are clearly stated to include sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) capacity to meet SPS standards. Meeting the standards “remains a major challenge for all African countries”. Capacity to participate in international standard setting bodies such as the International Plant Protection Convention is highlighted as an area that needs strengthening. In support of intra-regional trade, it is noted that regional standards for various sectors including plant protection will be required. The pillar framework document mentions SPS standards once, as an example of the types of information that ICTs can disseminate. Standards are mentioned a number of times, particularly their harmonisation, although it is not stated whether SPS or other types of standards are referred to.

Implicit references. Rural roads are principally discussed in terms of access to output markets. However, some reference is made to infrastructure in relation to private sector supply of technical inputs, which could be taken to include crop protection inputs. Expansion of infrastructure for crop storage is envisaged, and though primarily in the context of the market chain, one of the functions of storage is protection against post-harvest pests.

Implications for crop protection. The pillar envisages much greater trade of agricultural produce at all levels; locally, regionally and internationally. Trade and transport is an important pathway through which pests are spread or introduced to new countries, so increased trade presents increased pest risks, and this is why SPS capacity is important. One emphasis is on international export markets such as for horticulture. These are highly demanding, and in the horticultural sector this is resulting in a growing use of integrated pest management (IPM). This effect will only be seen at the regional level if expanded trade is accompanied by development and enforcement of regional standards. Peri-urban agricultural production for local markets has witnessed misuse and overuse of pesticides, because there is little or no capacity or demand for enforcement of food safety standards.

In general Africa is a receiver of international standards. Increasing capacity to develop and implement regional standards, as well as participate in international standard setting, would result in standards more relevant to the needs of African agriculture.

Post harvest losses due to pests are often severe, and better storage could reduce such losses, depending on where the stores are and how they are managed (mentioned specifically under Pillar 3).

19

3.3.3 Pillar 3: Increasing food supply and reducing hunger

Explicit references. In describing the status of food insecurity in Africa, it is stated that “In terms of technology use, few farmers yet apply integrated pest management methods or any other pest control”, and the framework document mentions “a range of pests” on several occasions when identifying both the causes of food shortages and options for increasing supply. It is noted that use of improved varieties is low, as much as 80% of cropped areas being planted with traditional varieties (although farmers may have selected these in part for their resistance to pests).

It is also noted that “Africa still faces the problem of high post-harvest losses for lack of affordable storage, processing and other treatment and because of weak linkages with markets”. The framework document cites stored grain pests as an example of how assets can be depleted directly.

One of the strategies proposed to reduce food insecurity is building preparedness and response capacity to emergencies. The types of emergency described are natural disasters, such as droughts and floods, and human-caused calamities such as civil strife and conflict, and pests are also referred to in this context in the framework document. It is noted that the number, scale and intensity of emergencies in Africa has been increasing. Six areas of focus are described, one of which is emergency prevention systems for plant and animal pests and diseases. It is noted (although with specific reference to livestock) that pests and diseases hamper both production and trade.

The pillar includes consideration of programmes to enhance food security through improving agricultural production. The role of national governments is emphasized, but it is noted that regional considerations include the control of trans-boundary pests and diseases. FAO’s special programme for food security (SPFS) is seen as an example of the approach required to achieve food security, and the summary of the elements of agricultural development the SPFS covers mentions integrated plant nutrient and pest management systems, with a minimum dependence on purchased inputs, as well as improved post harvest technologies.

The special considerations for fisheries and forestry notes that infestation of some inland lakes and waterways by aquatic weeds has reduced fish catches.

Although national food security strategies are seen as of prime importance, addressing regional constraints is also required, and regional economic communities are developing such regional programmes for food security. Addressing SPS issues as barriers to trade, and harmonizing policies on transboundary problems such as diseases and pests, are both clearly identified as part of such programmes.

Implicit references. Enhanced early warning and coordinated action to prevent emergencies due to pests and diseases implies a number of activities that are not listed. Forecasting is referred to in the context of weather, but can also be applied in the area of pests and diseases. This is also related to the analysis of the risks of new pest problems appearing. Early detection of pests and disease requires effective surveillance systems, which in turn depend on the capacity to recognize or diagnose the organisms.

Raising agricultural productivity, in part through improved pest management, implies application of the range of strategies and tactics that are available. Improved varieties usually means high yielding ones, but pest resistance can also be a component of this, either through traditional breeding approaches or genetic engineering.

20

Implications for crop protection. Increasing the food supply requires crop protection issues to be addressed, to reduce the losses to pests both pre- and post-harvest. At the same time, efforts to increase productivity through improved soil and water management and other methods, will affect the type and severity of pest problems that occur. The intensification of agricultural production, even at small scale farm level, carries potential risks of new or exacerbated pest problems, so must be undertaken with this in mind.

3.3.4 Pillar 4: Agricultural research, technology dissemination and adoption

Explicit references: Crop protection issues are only explicitly referred to in section 5.5 on the NEPAD Research Agenda. In describing the challenges faced, noxious weeds are referred to as one of the consequences of unsustainable land management and environmental degradation caused by extensification rather than intensification of agriculture. The need to address research problems holistically is emphasized, and interactions with pests, diseases and noxious weed are cited as one of the aspects to be included in such an approach.

4 research themes are proposed.

1. Integrated national resource management. It is clearly stated that coping with pest, disease and weed problems is part of integrated natural resource management.

2. Adaptive management of appropriate germplasm. Plant research is envisaged that will develop high yielding plant varieties, with traits including resistance to diseases and pests.

3. Development of sustainable market chains. No mention of crop protection issues.4. Policies for sustainable agriculture. No mention of crop protection issues.

The cross cutting theme of scientific capacity building will, amongst other things, enhance NARS capacities in agricultural research, in a number of areas including integrated pest management.

Implicit references. Research theme 3 aims to improve market opportunities for smallholders by focusing on niche markets and improved input supply systems. Niche markets might include organic or other labels that relate to crop protection practices; and inputs include crop protection services and products, including planting material of pest resistant varieties.

Research will focus on the “interface between technological change, institutional change and policy environments”, which relates to crop protection as it does to other aspects of agricultural research. Policy research will support the establishment of policy frameworks that ensure production is ecologically sustainable, and crop protection practices are one component of ecological sustainability.

The Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) (FARA, 2006) makes no mention of crop protection or related issues, but the FAAP is a general document concerning approaches to technology generation and adoption. Thus much of FAAP applies to crop protection as it does to other areas of agricultural research.

Implications for crop protection. Improved agricultural research, technology dissemination and adoption should improve the development and implementation of crop protection at a range of levels, from smallholder farm, to policy, to regional transboundary contexts. The existence of research outputs ‘on the shelf’ is perhaps an indication of a shortcoming in the research process. Pillar 4 places emphasis on making research

21

Box 3.2. CAADP Described

“CAADP is a common framework, reflected in a set of key principles and targets, to guide country strategies and investment programmes; stimulate and support policy dialogue and review, organisational and capacity development, (regional) peer learning, private sector engagement and agriculture related entrepreneurship development and growth; and facilitate greater alignment and harmonisation of efforts of development partners, international and local institutions, knowledge centres and think-tank institutions.”

From (NEPAD, 2010a). Accelerating CAADP

effective, as laid out in more detail in the FAAP, which has been designed as a tool to guide implementation of CAADP Pillar IV.

3.3.5 Summary of crop protection in CAADP

Detailed discussion of crop protection issues in either the CAADP or pillar framework documents would not be expected. However, as the discussion above has shown, there are both explicit and implicit references to different aspects of crop protection, with a number of implications. Table 3 summarizes some of the main themes of CAADP and the related issues for crop protection.

Table 3.1. Summary of some major themes in CAADP and the associated crop protection issues.

CAADP theme Crop protection issueIntegrated natural resource management

Need for integrated pest management; integration not only of different pest management methods, but integration with other aspects of plant production such as soil fertility management.

Increased area under irrigation Changes in composition and relative importance of pest complexes as a result of modified agroecology.

Climate change New and probably increased risks from pests.Market oriented agriculture Pest management becomes economically justified. Increased

use of pesticides likely.Improved input supply and access

Greater use of pest resistant varieties, pesticides and other crop protection related inputs.

Rural infrastructure including storage

Possibilities for reducing post harvest pest damage.

Capacity to access markets Need for improved sanitary and phytosanitary capacity.Increased productivity Increased demand for pest management.Disaster preparedness Preparing for outbreak pests or new invasive species.Improved germplasm Improved varieties that may be more, or less resistant to pests.

3.4 Implementing CAADPAlthough the original CAADP document concerned priority interventions in Africa’s agriculture, the focus has shifted away from the details of what needs to be done, and more towards the establishment and implementation of a process for agricultural development. Despite the ‘P’ standing for “Programme”, CAADP is now frequently referred to as the “CAADP framework” (see Box 3.2).

Thus the overall scope and strategy of CAADP is described as ‘five core strategic functions’ (NEPAD, 2010a).

1. Country process for better investment programmes

2. Mobilizing partnerships for investment3. Pushing for commitments4. Advocacy for agriculture5. Strategic thinking, positions and

scenarios for the future

22

It is emphasized that these functions are integrally linked and provide the basis for a set of strategies for CAADP implementation that describe the ‘intervention thrusts’ in more detail. Implicit in these strategies are several NEPAD-CAADP core principles and values:

1. Partnerships and alliances2. Dialogue, (peer) review and mutual accountability3. Exploitation of regional complementarities and cooperation

An important aspect of CAADP’s value-added approach is expected to come from ‘fundamental institutional and policy changes in implementation mechanisms, including in the linkages and collaboration among the core players and institutions’. This should result in changes at continental, regional and country level, but the latter is particularly important.

3.5 Country implementationAlthough the implementation guide (NEPAD, 2010a) acknowledges that “making CAADP operational is more than just the country process”, the guide also says that “the backbone of CAADP is the country implementation process”. This is often termed the roundtable process, which is described as “ultimately flexible, the CAADP framework does not even dictate where or how to start”. Nevertheless, common pathways, milestones and benchmarks are identified, summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Country roundtable benchmarks (from NEPAD, 2010).

Component Process benchmarks

1. Engagement with stakeholders and public

1. Government buy- in and assumption of leadership responsibility2. Key stakeholders engaged around a common commitment to move

with the CAADP agenda (including development partners)3. Public awareness and information support on the CAADP agenda4. Formal launch of the CAADP agenda implementation

5. Evidence-based analysis - deepening understanding around common priorities

5. Stocktaking and analytical work commissioned6. Reports of studies submitted

7. Development of investment programs, partnerships and alliances

7. Working groups suggest best options for intervention8. Validation workshop: national consensus on the drivers of growth and

priorities and levels of investments required9. Agreement on the identified priority areas of investments by national

and international partners (compact)10. Assessment and

learning from process and practice and adaptation and re-planning (as from benchmark 14)

10. Initial set of core investment programmes developed11. Clearly articulated implementation modalities with the roles of key

players clarified12. Capacity requirements for programme implementation defined and

integrated in the programme design13. Cost assessed and required resources mobilised and committed

(including government investment financing)14. M&E framework agreed upon15. Monitoring mechanism in place linked to the peer review mechanism

23

At the country/national level, the key competence required for CAADP implementation is said to be the process management capacity of the country teams. The institutional arrangements, roles and responsibilities envisaged have substantially changed since the country round table processes started in 2005, reflecting the emphasis CAADP places on learning as a result of experience. Table 3.2 shows the stage of implementation in each country.

Table 3.2. Status of country round tables as of July 2010 (NEPAD, 2010b)

Country Compact Status Investment PlanAlgeria Newly engaging/launchingAngola Benin Signed Oct 2009 YesBurkina Faso Signed Jul 2010 Yes – still to be reviewedBotswana Newly engaging/launchingBurundi Signed Aug 2009 In processCameroon Pre-compact implementationCape Verde Signed Dec 2009 YesCentral African Republic Pre-compact implementationChad Pre-compact implementationComoros Congo Pre-compact implementationCote d’Ivoire Signed Jul 2010 In processDR Congo Pre-compact implementationDjibouti Egypt Expected to sign by Apr 2011Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Signed Sept 2009 YesGabon Gambia Signed Oct 2009 YesGhana Signed Oct 2009 YesGuinea Signed Apr 2010 YesGuinea Bissau Expected to sign by Apr 2011Kenya Signed July 2010 YesLesotho Pre-compact implementationLiberia Signed Oct 2009 YesLibya Newly engaging/launchingMadagascar Pre-compact implementationMalawi Signed Apr 2010 YesMali Signed Oct 2009 YesMauritania Pre-compact implementationMauritius Morocco Newly engaging/launchingMozambique Expected to sign by Apr 2011Namibia Newly engaging/launchingNiger Signed Sept 2009 YesNigeria Signed Oct 2009 YesRwanda Signed Mar 2007 YesSao Tome and Principe Senegal Signed Feb 2010 YesSeychelles Expected to sign by Apr 2011Sierra Leone Signed Sept 2009 Yes

24

Somalia South Africa Sudan Expected to sign by Apr 2011Swaziland Signed Mar 2010 In processTanzania Signed Jul 2010 In processTogo Signed Jul 2009 YesTunisia Newly engaging/launchingUganda Signed Mar 2010 YesW. Sahara Zambia Expected to sign by Apr 2011Zimbabwe Pre-compact implementation

To support the country process and necessary capacity development, a CAADP Resource Group is envisaged. In addition, a CAADP Partnership Platform has been established which convenes twice a year. The goals of the Partnership Platform are to:

Facilitate a mutual review of progress, performance and challenges within CAADP Create dialogue on implementation priorities and processes

The Partnership Platform does not consider technical or thematic issues, so a CAADP Africa Forum meets annually which enables stakeholders to:

Exchange and learn about best practices in agriculture and rural development Inform country processes in relation to CAADP implementation

Even at country level, CAADP can appear to be a relatively high level process involving several ministries. The question therefore arises as to what CAADP means for those directly involved in crop protection, including plant protection departments, regulatory agencies (phytosanitary, pest control products), plant protection researchers and others? In short, crop protection stakeholders need to be involved in the CAADP process wherever possible, and particularly in the activities associated with the process benchmarks in Table 3.1.

With appropriate engagement of state and non-state (Randall, 2011) crop protection stakeholders in the country process, the national investment plan should reflect priority crop protection issues. It is not clear to what extent crop protection professionals are aware of the CAADP process in their country, but certainly in several cases it appears that involvement and awareness is low. However, in some countries where an investment plan has been produced, crop protection issues are well addressed.

3.6 Issues for crop protection framework CAADP and the four pillar framework documents refer to crop protection explicitly and

implicitly, including in the context of sustainable land management, trade-related capacity for market access, increasing food supply and agricultural research.

The interventions envisaged in CAADP hold potential for both improving crop protection policy and practice, but may also create additional crop protection problems.

Integrated pest management (IPM) is seen as a preferred approach in CAADP. CAADP envisages policy research to support the establishment of policy frameworks

that ensure production is ecologically sustainable. But there is little consideration of what this means in the context of crop protection and IPM.

25

Many crop protection stakeholders have little awareness and involvement in the country CAADP process. They need to be proactive in seeking engagement so that crop protection issues are appropriately reflected in national agricultural investment plans.

26

4. Crops and PestsIn this chapter the crops and cropping systems that need protecting are reviewed, together with some of the related trends that will affect crop protection under CAADP identified. The types of pest that must be addressed are summarized, and data presented on the level of losses they cause. The possible effects of climate change on crops and pests are discussed, and their implications for crop protection.

4.1 Crops and Cropping SystemsMany different crops are grown in Africa, and Figure 4.1 shows that there are 10 crops grown on 5 million or more hectares; maize, sorghum and millet are the only crops grown on more than 20m hectares. Yield per hectare is very different for different types of crop, so in terms of production (Figure 4.2), cassava is the most important crop at over 120m tonnes/year (also having the 4th largest crop area). At nearly 60m tonnes/year maize is the 3rd most important in terms of production.

Figure 4.1. Area of crops in Africa in 2009 (FAO, 2010a)

Figure 4.2. Crop production in Africa in 2009 (FAO, 2010a)Some of the most widely grown crops in Africa are also important worldwide. Africa produces only about 7% of the global production of maize (Figure 4.3), and a smaller fraction of global sugar cane production. But almost all the world’s production of yams and cow peas is in Africa, and over 50% of global cassava, plantain, millet and taro is produced in Africa.

27

Figure 4.3. Percentage of global production produced in Africa in 2009, for Africa’s top 30 crops by total production (FAO, 2010a)

These continental data can obscure the fact that some crops can be very important in just a few countries, or are of high value so are not grown in as large volumes as the staples. Two-thirds of the world’s production of cocoa is in Africa, although this amounts to less than 3m tonnes, and over a third of the world’s dates are produced in the continent.

Another factor affecting the importance of a crop is its export value. A number of commodity crops have very high export value, with cocoa beans by far the most important (Figure 4.4). (Note the data in Figure 4 do not include flowers, of which Kenya alone exports over US$0.5bn worth per year).

Although some crops are grown in large scale intensive monocultures, a feature of African agriculture is that there is diversity even at individual farm level. Dixon, Gulliver, & Gibbon (2001) categorized farming systems based on the natural resource base, dominant livelihoods, degree of crop-livestock integration and scale of operation (Table 4.1). In general cropping systems with greater diversity are thought to be more ‘stable’ and less prone to pests, although the nature of the relationship between diversity and stability is still debated, even though both theoretical and empirical studies indicate they are positively correlated (McCann, 2000, Ives & Carpenter, 2007).

Figure 4.4. Value of major export crops in Africa (mean for 2005-2007; data from FAOStat)

Population increase, urbanization and increasing wealth will all affect demand for food and other crops. Rosegrant et al. (2001) estimate a 4.9% per year per capita increase in the demand for grain between 1997 and 2020. The main increase will be in rice and wheat, part of the increase being for animal feed, as meat-eating tends to increase with wealth. Demand for root and tuber crops is expected to increase by around 65% over the same period.

28

Figure 4.5 shows that for almost all the top 30 crops by area, the area cropped in Africa is increasing. Indeed the increased production of crops in Africa is reported to be largely due to extensification (i.e. increased area planted) rather than intensification (increased yield per unit area). This contrasts with the scenario presented in the CAADP, in which increased production is planned through yield rather than area increases. CAADP also envisages a shift in the balance between cereals and fruit/vegetables from 92.5% (cereals) and 7.5% (fruit/vegetables) at present, to 85% (cereals) and 15% (fruit/vegetables), as a result of increased irrigation and water management. Thus fruit/vegetable production is expected to double.

29

Table 4.1 Farming systems in Africa (from Dixon et al., 2001).

Farming system Land area(% of region)

Agric. popul. (% of region)

Principal livelihoods

Region: Sub Sahara AfricaMaize mixed 10 15 Maize, tobacco, cotton, cattle, goats, poultry, off-farm

work Cereal/root crop mixed

13 15 Maize, sorghum, millet, cassava, yams, legumes, cattle

Root crop 11 11 Yams, cassava, legumes, off-farm incomeAgro-pastoral millet/sorghum

8 9 Sorghum, pearl millet, pulses. sesame, cattle, sheep, goats, poultry, off-farm work

Highland perennial 1 8 Banana, plantain, enset, coffee, cassava, sweet potato, beans, cereals, livestock, poultry, off-farm work

Forest based 11 7 Cassava, maize. beans, cocoyamsHighland temperate mixed

2 7 Wheat barley, teff, peas, lentils, broad beans, rape, potatoes, sheep, goats, cattle, poultry, off-farm work

Pastoral 14 7 Cattle, camels, sheep, goats, remittancesTree crop 3 6 Cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, yams, maize, off-farm

workCommercial – largeholder and smallholder

5 4 Maize, pulses, sunflower, cattle, sheep, goats, remittances

Coastal artisanal fishing

2 3 Marine fish, coconuts, cashew, banana, yams, fruit, goats, poultry, off-farm work

Irrigated 1 2 Rice, cotton, vegetables, rainfed crops, cattle, poultryRice/tree crop 1 2 Rice, banana, coffee, maize, cassava, legumes,

livestock, off-farm workSparse agriculture (arid)

18 1 Irrigated maize, vegetables, date palms, cattle, off-farm work

Urban based <1 3 Fruit, vegetables, dairy, cattle, goats, poultry, off-farm work

Region: North Africa/Middle EastHighland mixed 7 30 Cereals, legumes, sheep, off-farm workRain fed mixed 2 18 Tree crops, cereals, legumes, off-farm workIrrigated 2 17 Fruits, vegetables, cash cropsDryland mixed 4 14 Cereals, sheep, off-farm workPastoral 23 9 Sheep, goats, barley, off-farm workUrban based <1 6 Horticulture, poultry, off-farm workSparse (arid) 62 5 Camels, sheep, off-farm workCoastal artisanal fishing

1 1 Fishing, off-farm work

30

Figure 4.5. Percentage change in area 2000-2009 for top 30 crops in Africa by area (FAO, 2010a).

Another trend that will change crop production patterns and so affect crop protection is the large scale acquisition of land in Africa by international agribusiness, investment funds and government agencies (Cotula & Vermeulen, 2009). For example, Karuturi Global Ltd., an Indian food processor, has recently leased 311,000 hectares in Ethiopia for large scale agricultural production (www.karuturi.com). Foreign investment in agriculture in developing countries has been shown to increase pesticide and fertilizer use (Jorgenson & Kuykendall, 2008), and crop protection in large scale commercial operations is sometimes associated with misuse of pesticides causing damage to the environment and human health. However, an alternative scenario, as has been seen in some export horticulture, is that intensive production promotes implementation of integrated pest management, particularly where there is strong market pressure. So agribusiness investment in Africa could result in two very different outcome trajectories in terms of crop protection.

A further trend is the development and promotion of crops for the production of biofuels. Two factors suggest that production of biofuel crops is set to increase in Africa. High oil prices and diminishing supplies of wood fuel make the prospect of locally produced and used biofuels an attractive prospect, while energy policies especially in the Americas and Europe are encouraging investors to seek large areas of land for commercial production (FAPRI, 2009). There is vigorous debate over whether biofuels actually do reduce carbon dioxide production, as well as over the social or environmental costs of large scale production (such as competition with food production), and over the economies of production, all of which will affect how and over what area biofuels will be produced. However, there are two issues in relation to crop protection. First, biofuel crops, like any other, will be subject to attack by a range of pests. Although plants such at Jatropha have been present in Africa for some time, now that more intensive cultivation is being considered ‘new’ pests are being found, some of which may also be pests of other crops. Second, a number of biofuel crops, particularly the ‘second-generation’ woody species, are known to be, or have characteristics of invasive weeds, (Buddenhagen et al., 2009; Witt, 2010). The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels production (RSB, 2010) elaborated 12 principles of production, including complying with international agreements, and preventing biofuels invading areas outside the operation site. Weed risk analysis should clearly be part of biofuel development programmes, and in South Africa, for example, this has resulted in Jatropha being banned there (A.Witt, personal communication).

4.2 PestsThe term “pest” is used in different ways by different people. Table 4.2 gives some important definitions from ISPM5, the Glossary.

Table 4.2 Pest definitions according to ISPM5 (FAO, 2009).Pest Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants

or plant productsPlants Living plants and parts thereof, including seeds and germplasmPlant products

Unmanufactured material of plant origin (including grain) and those manufactured products that, by their nature or that of their processing, may create a risk for the introduction and spread of pests

31

Quarantine pest

A pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled

Thus plant pests include those attacking uncultivated as well as cultivated plants, and include all types of organisms. The commonly used phrase ‘pests and diseases’ which implies pests are animals and diseases are pathogens, is not consistent with IPPC terminology so should be avoided. Table 4.3 shows some categorizations of pests that are commonly used in different situations. It is emphasized that these categories are not IPPC definitions.

Worldwide these are estimated to be around 67,000 species of crop pest (Nellemann et al., 2009): 9,000 insects, 50,000 pathogens and 8,000 weeds, with up to 70% of them introduced. This is only a small fraction of the total number of species described. Nevertheless, any one crop species may have up to several tens of different types of pest that can cause damage at one or other point in the crop’s different stages.

There are many types of indigenous pests, some causing severe damage, but some of the most damaging are exotic species. It is the introduction and spread of such pests that the IPPC is particularly concerned with and which the CBD terms ‘invasive species’. Exotic pests have sometimes been introduced intentionally because they are perceived to be beneficial (such as Prosopis in various countries), while in other cases they are introduced unintentionally but as a result of human activity, including trade and all forms of travel and transport. Planting materials and food aid shipments are two such introduction pathways (Wittenberger & Cock, 2001). Pests can also be introduced as a result of natural events, although it is human activities that transfer pests over the longest.

A recent study by Waage et al. (2009) found that during the 20th century the rate of pest introductions to Africa appeared to decline, despite the widespread perception that increasing trade and travel is probably transporting more pests than previously (Figure 4.6). The data could represent the true picture, but the more likely explanation is that the detection and reporting of new pests is declining (J Waage et al., 2009).

32

Table 4.3 Some pest categorizations

Pest characteristic

Category Description

Pest origin Exotic Recently introduced in the country or areaIndigenous Native to the country

Type of organism

Insects The most numerous type of animal with many pest speciesOther arthropods Mainly mites; a few crustaceansNematodes Plant parasitic wormsVertebrates Rodents, birds, large mammalsPlants Free living and parasiticFungi Many types of specialized and unspecialized pathogensBacteria Few specialized species; many unspecialized with wide host

rangeViruses Obligate pathogens, often transmitted by insectsOther micro organisms

Phytoplasmas, spiroplasmas

Susceptible crop stage

Seed/planting material

Seed borne diseases or on tissue cultured and vegetative planting materials

Seedling/nursery Pre- and post-emergence damping off diseasesField All plant parts are attacked, above and below groundPost harvest Stored products pests such as insects and fungi, including

toxin-producing speciesLife cycle Resident Pests that live their life cycle where they cause damage

Migrant Pests whose lifecycle involves long distance movement, such as locusts and Quelea birds

Ecosystem attacked

Natural Uncultivated plants (although they may be harvested and have economic value)

Forest Planted trees and forestsField agriculture Open-air irrigated or non irrigated field cropsProtected agriculture

Crops grown in greenhouses or other protected environments

Some plant protection acts specifically mention outbreak (or migrant) pests, and quarantine pests are referred to explicitly or implicitly. Some acts provide for pests being ‘declared’ which confers further powers and obligations on different stakeholders including the public.

33

Figure 4.6. Reported introductions of plant insects and mites, and bacteria, fungi and viruses, and both categories combined, during 20-year periods of the 20th century in Africa (from Waage et al., 2009).

4.3 Losses to PestsPre-harvest losses due to pests occur in a variety of ways including removal of tissue or plant assimilates, reduction of photosynthesis, competition for light, nutrients or water, and transmission of other pests. Together these cause losses in both quantity and quality of yield. Information on what these losses are is necessary for various types of crop protection decision making. Farmers need crop loss information to decide if, when and what pest control is undertaken. Nationally or regionally information on crop losses due to pests is necessary to guide policy such as research prioritization.

Following a symposium convened by FAO in 1967, methods for crop loss assessments were developed and published in the 1970s (Chiarappa, 1981). Since then numerous estimates of losses due to particular pests on specific crops at particular locations have been made, providing much useful information. However, estimates of overall losses are less frequent, and Oerke (2006) has pointed out that a distinction must be made between potential losses in the absence of crop protection practices, and actual losses, the difference being a measure of the success of pest management.

While individual pests may each be capable of causing a high percentage of loss, the combined loss is clearly not a simple function of the individual values. Oerke (2006) has made overall estimates of actual and potential losses due to pests for a number of crops worldwide (Table 4.4). Tropical areas generally have higher losses, and the potential and actual losses in West and East Africa are the highest in the world (Figure 4.7). The figure showing the percentage crop loss saved indicates that in West and East Africa crop protection is less effective than most regions, allowing considerable scope for improvement, although the crops used in the analysis do not include all the major crops in the region.

34

Figure 4.7. Potential and actual losses due to pests, 2001-2003, in different regions, based on estimates of monetary losses in barley, cottonseed, maize, oilseed rape, potatoes, rice, soybean, cotton, sugar beet, tomatoes and wheat (from Oerke, 2006)

35

Table 4.4. Estimated loss potential of weeds, animal pests (arthropods, nematodes, rodents, birds, slugs and snails), pathogens (fungi, bacteria) and viruses and actual losses due to pest groups in six major crops worldwide, in 2001-03 (from Oerke, 2006)

Crop losses [%]1 due to Crop Attainable

production[M t]

Weeds Animal pests Pathogens Viruses TotalPotential Actual Potential Actual Potential Actual Potential Actual Potential Actual

Wheat 785.0 23.0(18-29) 7.7(3-13) 8.7(7-10) 7.9(5-10) 15.6(12-20) 10.2(5-14) 2.5(2-3) 2.4(2-4) 49.8(44-54) 28.2(14-40)Rice 933.1 37.1(34-47) 10.2(6-16) 24.7(13-26) 15.1(7-18) 13.5(10-15) 10.8(7-16) 1.7(1-2) 1.4(1-3) 77.0(64-80) 37.4(22-51)Maize 890.8 40.3(37-44) 10.5(5-19) 15.9(12-19) 9.6(6-19) 9.4(8-13) 8.5(4-14) 2.9(2-6) 2.7(2-6) 68.5(58-75) 31.2(18-58)Potato 517.7 30.2(29-33) 8.3(4-14) 15.3(14-20) 10.9(7-13) 21.2(20-23) 14.5(7-24) 8.1(7-10) 6.6(5-9) 74.9(73-80) 40.3(24-59)Soybean 244.8 37.0(35-40) 7.5(5-16) 10.7(4-16) 8.8(3-16) 11.0(7-16) 8.9(3-16) 1.4(0-2) 1.2(0-2) 60.0(49-69) 26.3(11-49)Cotton 78.52 35.9(35-39) 8.6(3-13) 36.8(35-41) 12.3(5-22) 8.5(7-10) 7.2(5-13) 0.8(0-2) 0.7(0-2) 82(76-85) 28.8(12-48)1 Figures in parentheses indicate variation among 19 regions2 Seed cotton

36

Worldwide weeds have greater potential to cause loss, but actual losses for pathogens, animal pests and weeds are all around 10% (Figure 4.8). More detailed data from Africa are given in Tables 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7.

Figure 4.8. Potential and actual worldwide losses due to different types of pest, 2001-2003, based on estimates of monetary losses in barley, cottonseed, maize, oilseed rape, potatoes, rice, soybean, cotton, sugar beet, tomatoes and wheat (from Oerke, 2006).

Table 4.5 Sub-Saharan Africa countries with the highest food production losses due to Striga (Gressel et al., 2004)

Country Estimated % yield lossa Yield loss (‘000 tons)Burkina Faso 35-40 710-820Eritrea 20-60 30-90Ghana 35 170Kenya 35-40 50-60Mali 40 580Mozambique 35 40Niger 40-50 930-1160Nigeria 35 3750Sudan 30 1230Tanzania Up to 90 550Togo 35 70Total/mean 39-45 8110-8520aLoss includes sorghum, millets, and maize

Table 4.6 Estimated production losses due to stem borers in Africa on maize and sorghum (Gressel et al., 2004).

Total affected 16.48 million haEstimated yield loss 20%Estimate of total annual loss in production 3.9 million tonsTotal annual production 19.5 million tonsPotential annual loss $390 milliona

aValue calculated at $100/ton

37

Table 4.7 Losses due to larger grain borer (Prostephanus truncates) in stored maize in selected countries in Africa (Gressel et al., 2004).

Country Area planted (‘000 ha)

Yield(kg/ha)

Estimated yield loss (%)

Yield loss (‘000 tonnes)

Botswana 83 112 19-27 1.8-2.5Cameroon 350 2429 31 263Congo 1463 799 18-28 210-327Ghana 713 1315 20.0 188Kenya 1500 1800 23-41 621-1107Malawi 1446 1099 14-18 222-286Mozambique 275 896 23-39 57-96Sierra Leone 10 928 40 3.6Tanzania 1457 1795 34 889Uganda 652 1801 50 2114Burundi 155 1087 29-47 49-79

Table 4.8 suggests that actual global crop losses in three major crops have declined slightly in recent years but Oerke (2006) nevertheless concludes that the “increased use of pesticides since 1960 obviously has not resulted in a significant decrease of crop losses”.

Table 4.8. Estimates of actual crop losses due to weeds, animal pests, and diseases in worldwide production of wheat, maize and cotton for the years 1964/65, 1988-90 and 2001-03 (Oerke, 2006)

Yield Actual loss [%]Period (kg/ha) Weeds Animal Pests Diseases TotalWheat1964/651 1250 9.8 5.0 9.1 23.91988-902 2409 12.3 9.3 12.4 34.02001-03 2691 7.7 7.9 12.6 28.2Maize1964/651 2010 13.0 12.4 9.4 34.81988-902 3467 13.1 14.5 10.8 38.32001-03 4380 10.5 9.6 11.2 31.2Cotton1964/651 1029 4.5 11.0 9.1 24.61988-902 1583 11.8 15.4 10.5 37.72001-03 1702 8.6 12.3 7.9 28.81 Cramer (1967)2 Oerke et al. (1994)

One way that crop losses to pests can be mitigated is through crop insurance (Hazell et al., 2010). In the last few years pilot micro-insurance schemes have been established in Rwanda, Ethiopia, Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania and other countries. One of the constraints to micro-insurance has been that transaction costs make it prohibitively expensive. The rapid expansion of mobile phone usage for financial transactions has provided opportunities to greatly reduce these costs. Another cost of insurance schemes is loss assessment, but assessing thousands of small scale farms is impossible. Indexed-based schemes get round this problem by using data from one (automatic) weather station to represent an area surrounding the station; a radius of about 20km may be used. Claims are paid to all the insured if the weather data predict yield below a threshold. In a pilot project in Kenya,

38

insurance is sold by input suppliers, and costs 5% of the inputs purchased (with an equal subsidy from the funders of the pilot). Provision of credit may also be required to enable the farmer to buy the inputs in the first place. Crop insurance is linked to crop protection in a number of ways.

Insurance reduces the risk of buying inputs for crop protection. This could encourage use of pesticides, increasing the need to find economically viable alternatives.

Weather index insurance can address the risk of pest problems when the level of pest damage can be related to weather patterns. A scheme in India was designed to cover potato crop losses due to late blight, which is associated with indexable weather patterns

Index-based insurance schemes are based on science. One avenue for crop protection research is therefore to develop the quantitative relationships that would support an insurance scheme covering pest losses.

4.4 Climate changePests are directly affected by climate in many ways, so climate change will have a profound effect on crop protection. But climate change also affects other components of ecosystems with which pests interact, potentially negating or amplifying the direct effects. How climate change will affect a particular situation is thus hard to assess, particularly as the predictions about how the climate will change are themselves uncertain.

Global circulation models suggest that in Africa climate change will probably lead to increased temperatures, with the greatest warming over the interior of semi and margins of the Sahara, and in Central parts of Southern Africa (McCarthy et al., 2001). Equatorial and subtropical Eastern Africa are predicted to experience more droughts, with fewer rain events during the dry seasons. Extreme events such as floods are also expected to increase in frequency.

The biology of all pest organisms is linked directly and indirectly to climate, so climate change will have a large number of impacts on pests’ biology and ecology. Table 4.9 lists some examples in relation to some of the broad climatic changes. Climate driven models such as CLIMEX allow investigation of the direct effects of climate change on pests to be modeled, but all the other ecological interactions are not included, so outputs of the models are only indicative. What will actually happen also depends on how different factors interact, as well as on how individuals and societies respond to climate induced effects. Some human activities will offset the changes, others may aggravate them.

Useful predictions about the effect of climate change on crop protection can therefore only be rather general. Hellmann et al., (2008) identify five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species, modified here to include indigenous pests as well as exotic invasives.

39

Table 4.9. Some biological effects of climate change on crop pests.

Change in climate Example effectsHigher temperature Shorter insect development periods, so faster population

build up and potentially more generations in a season. Harder for organisms to avoid heat stress. Less dew production, which is needed by some insects

for moisture Changes (increase, decrease, collapse) in crop

resistance to pests.Higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere

Enhanced canopy growth promotes diseases Increased growth of weeds (especially woody weeds) Changed carbon/nitrogen ratios in crops, reducing

nitrogen availability to insects Changes (increase, decrease, breakdown) in crop

resistance to pests.Increased climate variability and frequency of extreme events

Disturbed ecosystems more prone to invasion by pests Extreme events disperse pests more (especially weeds) Drought stressed weeds are harder to control with post-

emergent herbicides than actively growing plants Increased variability reduces parasitism (natural control)

levels of insects.

1. Altered distribution of pests. Climate is a limiting factor in the geographic distribution of pests, so climate change will allow particular species to expand their range as new areas become climatically suitable. Warming will mean that areas where the climate is currently too cool may become suitable, so pests may move into highland or semi-tropical and temperate areas. The converse is that some areas that are currently suitable for a pest may become too hot or too dry. So distribution will certainly change, though not necessarily become wider.

2. Altered impact of pests. The total impact of a pest is some function of overall range, abundance and per capita impact. There are suggestions that within the new range of a pest abundance may increase, and the per capita impact could change; for example a crop may be more susceptible to water stress than the weed, so under conditions of stress the weed has greater impact. The actual impact also depends on the area or amount of crop produced. Given particular climate changes, it is possible to predict new distributions of crops, and in some cases quite dramatic changes are expected, such as for coffee in Uganda (see Figure 4.9).

3. Altered effectiveness of control. As noted in Table 4.9 above, climate change may affect host plant resistance to pests positively or negatively. Climate can also affect the susceptibility of weeds to some herbicides. Natural enemies of pests, whether introduced classical biological control agents, indigenous predators and parasites, or applied microbial biopesticides, are also affected by climate as pests are, so how the interaction plays out will probably be different in different parts of a pest’s range. Thus the relative importance or ease of control of different pests will change.

4. Altered mechanisms of pest transport and introductions. Extreme events such as storms and floods can disperse and transport pests to new areas that they might normally reach much less frequently. Thus an increase in extreme weather events is likely to increase the rate at which pests are introduced and spread. Many pest species

40

are accidentally or intentionally introduced to new areas as a result of human activities. Trade patterns are expected to change, changing the risks of pest introductions. For example, the Northwest Passage shipping route is already open for part of the year, and as the period extends, shipping patterns will change, journeys will be shortened, and pests perhaps more likely to survive the journey than previously. Intentional introductions will change too as a result of the search for new crops and varieties that are suited to new climatic conditions.

5. Altered rates of establishment. Pests transported or introduced to new areas often do not establish for a number of reasons, including unsuitability of the climate. Climate change will mean that pests previously arriving in an unsuitable location may now find it suitable. Disturbed ecosystems are thought to be more easily invaded, so extreme weather events could increase the probability of establishment as well as of transportation.

Figure 4.9. Impact of Temperature Rise on Robusta Coffee in Uganda. In UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. from http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/impact-of-temperature-rise-on-robusta-coffee-in-uganda

Table 4.10 shows some major crop diseases in Africa and expert opinion on how they might be affected by climate change, illustrating that some pests may become less serious, and others more serious. However, there is a widespread perception that climate change will present new challenges in pest management, and that the new challenges will appear at a higher frequency than in the past.

41

Table 4.10. Possible impacts of climate change on some important crop diseases in sub-sahara Africa (adapted from Chancellor & Kubiriba, 2006).

Disease Crops affected Likely impacts of climateLeaf blights Helminthosporium maydis and H. turcium

Maize, sorghum, wheat, sugarcane

Uncertain, importance may be reduced in regions with prolonged drought

Sorghum head smut, Sporisorium holci-sorghi

Sorghum, maize, sudan grass, beard grass

Long term likely increased pathogen development and survival.

Maize streak virus Maize and many other graminae

Higher vector (leafhopper) abundance likely in areas where rainfall not limiting resulting in increased incidence of virus. In marginal maize cultivation areas maize will probably no longer be grown.

Cassava mosaic virus Cassava Increased disease incidence due to increased vector (whitefly) abundance and dispersal. Decreased rate of pathogen development may modify vector factors.

Sweet potato virus complex. Feathery mottle virus (SPFMV) and chlorotic stunt virus (SPCSV)

Sweet potato and other Ipomea spp

Likely outcomes similar to those of cassava mosaic virus

Cowpea mosaic virus Cowpea Uncertain. Importance may be reduced in regions with prolonged drought.

Groundnut rosette virus Groundnut Uncertain. Importance may be reduced in regions with prolonged drought.

Thus while it may be possible to make some predictions about specific pests, particularly those that have been well studied, for most pests this will not be possible, and especially for those exotic pests that are not yet recognized as such. The emphasis in coping with the impacts of climate change on crop protection must therefore be in developing the capacity to:

Detect new problems rapidly. The problems may be current pests becoming worse, control strategies becoming less effective, or new pests arriving.

Respond to new problems rapidly and effectively. In some cases this may simply mean making current information readily available to those who didn’t previously need it. In other cases it might require the rapid deployment of eradication campaigns. And in others it might mean the prompt establishment of research activities.

Identifying and responding to new challenges thrown up by climate change is part of what (FAO, 2010b) has termed ‘climate smart agriculture’. It is pointed out that while climate smart practices already exist, agriculture in developing countries must undergo a significant transformation in order to meet the related challenges of food security and climatic change.

42

4.5 Issues for crop protection framework Crop production in Africa is diverse. A few crops are grown widely, but there are many

different cropping systems, and many different crops. CAADP is likely to result in reduced diversity; ecosystem diversity is correlated with

stability. Much of the recent crop production increase has been achieved through increasing the

area planted, rather than through increased yield or intensification as envisaged by CAADP. Intensive crop production can suffer greater pest attack than diverse, low intensity production, requiring improved crop protection.

Over 230 new insect, mite and pathogen pests were recorded as introduced to Africa in the 20th century. This is likely to be an underestimate, and the rate of introductions is likely to increase with increased trade and travel, as well as due to climate change.

Climate change will change the intensity and nature of pest problems. Part of the capacity to adapt to climate change will need to be the ability to detect and respond to changing pest problems quickly.

A global study suggests crop losses are potentially 70-85% in Africa, but crop protection reduces this to 30-55%. Globally crop losses have not declined over the last few decades, so although crop yields in Africa may increase, the percentage losses due to pests will probably not decline greatly.

Detailed crop loss data in Africa are scarce; this constrains planning.

43

5. Pesticides and Pesticide Management

5.1 Pesticide usePesticide use in Africa represents a small fraction of global use – less than 5% - but detailed data on pesticide use in Africa are not readily available. Pesticide consumption data in FAOStat are reported for only a few countries each year though fuller data are available for import value, which gives some indication of consumption. Table 5.1 shows the pesticide import values for each country in Africa from 2001 to 2008. During this time the annual import value of pesticides rose by around 150% from about half a billion dollars to over one and a quarter billion dollars. According to these data, South Africa is the leading importer, followed by Ghana, Morocco, Kenya and Nigeria. These countries together account for over 50% of imports.

Table 5.1. Total pesticide import value ($000) (FAO, 2010a)

Countries 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Rank

Algeria 24732 21087 28288 76141 95466 29788 49376 77092 6Angola 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52Benin 8225 14156 13312 5650 1335 920 2650 1650 38Botswana 3987 2962 3554 4916 4248 4964 4481 5464 27Burkina Faso 5986 8161 8966 22216 26201 10212 18200 14200 18Burundi 1392 1532 1024 2334 3644 1034 884 686 45Cameroon 19343 22462 33223 33505 29592 32957 31275 32100 12Cape Verde 714 705 670 670 998 1130 1477 1826 36Central African Republic

96 245 512 299 201 540 650 650 46

Chad 3500 1000 2400 3300 2500 3300 3400 1950 35Comoros 44 144 28 42 46 59 32 45 51Congo 2700 2500 3700 4000 2500 4400 7500 3600 31Côte d'Ivoire 22385 28455 37908 29583 34441 34291 38300 42309 9DR Congo 1250 1800 2300 2550 2050 2700 3200 2900 34Djibouti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52Egypt 28093 26674 30520 30391 23438 40230 33423 59890 7Eritrea 1000 800 664 600 600 600 600 600 47Ethiopia 15479 8415 10571 24476 18612 22244 29310 35602 11Gabon 2585 1934 1579 2214 4601 3764 4150 3400 32Gambia 996 840 1305 503 711 1311 681 1096 41Ghana 20372 33334 63196 73370 11757 81501 110098 151745 2Guinea 2483 2621 3597 3600 4257 4829 4890 4715 30Guinea-Bissau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52Kenya 38961 40167 36615 43181 54793 63795 70725 84181 4Lesotho 420 243 1018 908 998 35406 880 950 42Liberia 1000 1000 700 1000 800 1115 1760 1790 37Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

8524 9350 4479 10713 10600 9000 8900 8750 22

Madagascar 4085 2131 3181 1718 4224 6923 6779 5375 28

44

Malawi 9100 7682 9836 8833 10616 11107 13360 16168 16Mali 7257 17584 19778 25965 25398 17641 17271 10456 20Mauritania 147 54 68 557 211 84 127 164 49Mauritius 8516 9069 11005 11072 11210 13326 11408 15677 17Mayotte 482 805 620 698 687 2551 1404 1550 39Morocco 53112 54803 81939 100651 88017 94429 102878 124559 3Mozambique 11446 10571 8743 14333 12649 17749 10500 14173 19Namibia 2319 2032 2657 3929 4809 5744 4503 5311 29Niger 662 4311 3994 2407 1466 1427 2072 2996 33Nigeria 12721 108313 28029 49688 36095 60906 169082 82338 5Réunion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52Rwanda 1801 1923 1479 861 2224 2600 2717 6505 24Saint Helena 30 15 60 40 75 40 45 60 50Sao Tome and Principe

90 65 57 200 180 260 190 200 48

Senegal 6284 7397 8329 12038 11099 8925 9800 9305 21Seychelles 200 13427 803 998 1193 997 1010 840 43Sierra Leone 500 585 750 612 649 670 700 700 44Somalia 400 400 300 400 1000 700 1600 1400 40South Africa 91625 98001 126321 153665 150407 170051 178434 238790 1Sudan 6141 7805 8217 15844 11490 17610 12295 5845 26Swaziland 4898 3489 5273 8932 8524 5129 5170 6300 25Togo 5036 9972 7184 3293 2824 20389 2372 8611 23Tunisia 20203 16827 20787 27702 30980 26846 33021 41407 10Uganda 6214 7873 10716 10931 13894 3* 20511 30715 13United Republic of Tanzania

15378 13495 17990 16124 18148 21003 19263 45293 8

Zambia 10292 12515 15354 18462 18350 17954 17192 28096 14Zimbabwe 23467 19914 21128 22342 5095 23439 39873 23507 15

Total 516673 661645 704727 888457 911723 938593 1110419 1263532*Value as in FAOStat, appears erroneous.

These data may not include pesticide donations, which in some years are substantial, although generally donations have reduced considerably. The data also do not include locally manufactured pesticide, but while several countries formulate and package imported pesticides, very few have manufacturing capacity. The data for different types of pesticide are less complete, but insecticides appear to be imported most, followed by herbicides and then fungicides.

A number of different situations occur in Africa with regard to pesticide use.

Commodity crops grown for export markets, such as cotton, cocoa and coffee. Sometimes these crops have substantial volumes of pesticides used on them (see Box 5.1).

Horticultural crops for local consumption. Fruit and vegetable production for expanding local urban markets uses significant volumes of pesticide (Dinham, 2003). In addition there is frequent misuse.

45

Horticulture crops grown for export. Pesticides are used on horticultural crops grown for export, but the stringent demands of those markets in some cases limit use (Williamson, Ball, & Pretty, 2008) and have promoted the adoption of IPM.

Staple crops grown for local consumption. Overall pesticide use on these crops is usually low, although sometimes farmers use chemicals from other crops (Williamson et al., 2008). Farmers may lack the finance or opportunity to purchase the pesticide, even if it was thought to be beneficial.

Transboundary and migrant pest control. When outbreaks of pests such as desert locust occur, governments or regional organizations may apply significant volumes of pesticides.

Given the large area of staple crops grown for home or local consumption, it is not surprising that overall pesticide use in Africa is low in comparison to other regions; Repetto & Baliga (1996) reported 1.23kg a.i./ha in Africa, 3.12kg a.i./ha in Asia, and 7.17kg a.i./ha in Latin America.

Because many farmers are resource poor, the pesticides offered for sale tend to be the older, cheaper ones. In some cases they are cheaper because they have already been banned in some countries but are still legal in Africa. Novel compounds with lower toxicity to non-target organisms are available, but these tend to be more expensive so are as yet little used in Africa.

5.2 Problems with pesticidesDespite the relatively low overall rate of pesticide use, problems with pesticides occur in Africa as they do elsewhere, although often they are not as well documented. Problems can occur at all stages of the pesticide life cycle (Table 5.2).

The outcomes of these problems are serious:

Poisoning due to pesticides is widespread. There are no comprehensive data on pesticide poisonings in Africa, but where studies have been done, short and long term illnesses as well as fatalities are frequently found (WAHSA, 2004). Suicide is a major cause of pesticide fatalities (Gunnell et al., 2007). While the wish to commit

46

Box 5.1 Pesticide use on Cotton in West Africa (summarized from EJF, 2007)

About 10 million people in West Africa depend on cotton for their livelihoods, including over half the population of Benin. Globally over $2bn is spent on pesticides in the cotton industry, including 16% of all insecticides used, and the cotton industry in West Africa is one of the heaviest pesticide users in the continent. Previously state-owned cotton corporations have been at least partly privatized, but they continue to provide pesticides on credit, and instructions on pest control practices based on local research. The development of synthetic pyrethroid insecticides greatly reduced use of the more toxic and less effective chemicals previously used (DDT, endosulfan, methyl-parathion). But in the late 1990s resistance to pyrethroids appeared, and the resistance management strategy devised involved the re-introduction of endosulfan for the first two sprays of the season. Studies by an NGO showed that 69% of the subsequent fatalities and poisonings caused by pesticides in cotton growing areas were due to endosulfan. Poisoning was widespread, due to a range of problems including limited use of safety equipment, poor disposal of pesticide containers, use of inappropriate or poorly maintained application equipment, limited availability of water for washing. The systems for supply, credit, advice and training do not seem to take into account the risks involved, and the re-introduction of endosulfan has been described as ‘at best ill advised, and at worst irresponsible’. Endosulfan has now been banned in CILSS countries (See Box 5.5).

suicide may not be caused by pesticides, their ready availability and high toxicity contributes to the high death toll. Better regulation including banning more hazardous pesticides would undoubtedly reduce the death toll due to both intentional and unintentional poisonings. London and Bailie, (2001) show that reporting of non-fatal pesticide poisoning in South Africa may be as low as 10%, with under-reporting more prevalent amongst women.

Table 5.2. Problems occurring during the pesticide life cycle

Stage Problem Manufacture Impure productDistribution and storage Unsecure and inappropriate methods, facilitiesPackaging Inadequate labeling

Repacking into unsuitable containers Adulteration

Marketing Unlicensed vendors and re-sellingStorage by purchaser Unsafe storage, such as in houses

Unsafe containers, such as drink bottlesPreparation for application Inadequate safety equipment and procedures

Incorrect dilution Inappropriate mixing of different chemicals

Application (equipment) Uncalibrated equipment Poorly maintained equipment Use of incorrect equipment

Application Inadequate safety equipment and procedures Unregistered use (wrong pest and or crop) Wrong volume application Application during unsuitable conditions Application at wrong time of season

Post application Failure to observe crop re-entry period Failure to observe pre-harvest period

Container disposal Container not disposed of safely Container recycled for other uses

Obsolete stockpiles Inadequate storage or disposal facilities

Environmental damage is occurring. This area is much less studied in Africa than in other continents, but some studies show pesticides accumulating in the environment. Manirakiza et al., (2002) found chlorinated hydrocarbons in fish from Lake Tanganyika, although they concluded that there was no evidence that the concentrations were higher than in other African lakes.

Pests develop resistance to pesticides. Various factors lead to the development of pesticide resistance, but it is correlated with heavy and/or inappropriate use. There are a number of examples of resistance reported in Africa (see Table 5.3), although the global database of arthropod resistance (www.pesticideresistance.org) contains few data from Africa.

47

Table 5.3. Examples of pesticide resistance

Pest Crop Location Pesticide ReferenceHelicoverpa armigera African bollworm

Cotton West Africa Pyrethroids Martin et al., (2005){Please_Select_Citation_From_Mendeley_Desktop}

Helicoverpa armigera African bollworm

Cotton Cameroon Pyretrhoids Achaleke & Brévault, ( 2010)

Plutella xylostellaDiamondback moth

Brassicas South Africa Pyrethroids, organophosphates, carbamates

Sereda, Basson, & Marais, (1997)

Bemisia tabaci Tobacco whitefly

Cotton Benin, Togo, Burkina Faso

Pyrethroids, organophosphates, neonicotinoids

Houndété et al., (2010)

Other pest problems are created. Inappropriate pesticide use can also create or worsen other pests, through killing natural control agents such as predators and

48

Box 5.2 The Stockpile Problem (Summarised from http://www.africastockpiles.net/)Stockpiles of obsolete pesticides are a significant problem in Africa, because they cost money to maintain, they are a hazard to human health and the environment, and they are expensive to dispose of. Often stockpile maintenance is inadequate, resulting in severe contamination in the vicinity of the stores. It is estimated that there are at least 50,000 tonnes of obsolete pesticides in Africa and possibly as much as 120,000 tonnes. As clean up and disposal costs approximately $3,500 per tonne, Africa needs to spend $200m or more just to get rid of the waste. Why do stockpiles of obsolete pesticides accumulate? Weak regulatory systems mean that unsold stock is sometimes stored rather than disposed of. Another contributing factor is the emergency response to major pest outbreaks. Large quantities of pesticide may be required at short notice, so governments import, and third parties donate, the amount expected to be required. If, in the event, a lower amount is used than imported, the balance contributes to the stockpile. A positive trend in this context is that countries are increasingly reluctant to donate pesticides even in an emergency, resulting in increasing use of less toxic products such as biopesticides.

The Africa Stockpiles Programme (ASP) addresses the stockpile problem. ASP was originally proposed in 2000 by the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) and the WorldWide Fund for Nature (WWF), who, together with FAO, World Bank and CropLife International comprise the implementing committee. It is funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and phase 1 undertook activities in Ethiopia, Mali, Morocco, Nigeria, South Africa, Tunisia and Tanzania. Programme activities include:

Making inventories of stocks and their location Clean-up and safeguarding of existing stockpiles to reduce the risks of contamination Disposal of wastes according to recognized standards, including shipping wastes to

incinerators in Europe Building capacity through training and awareness raising in different groups of

stakeholders Reviewing, and where possible, revising national legislative and regulatory frameworks Piloting or promoting IPM to reduce build up of stocks Inviting civil society participation through networks of local NGOs.

parasitoids. For example, Dennill & Pretorius (1995) showed that high infestation levels of diamond back moth were the result of excessive insecticide spraying, and where spraying was only once every three weeks, parasitism reached high levels and the pest did not cause losses.

5.3 International agreementsBecause pesticides represent a serious threat to human health and the environment, there are several international conventions which aim to manage the risks (see Box 5.3). Table 5.3 shows which countries are parties to which agreement; most countries are signatories to most agreements. In early 2010 simultaneous extraordinary meetings of the Conferences of the Parties to the Basel (http://www.basel.int), Rotterdam (http://www.pic.int) and Stockholm (http://chm.pops.int) conventions were held in Indonesia, at which decisions were made for much closer collaboration in the management and implementation of the conventions, nationally, regionally and internationally. Progress will be reviewed in 2013.

The Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) (http://www.saicm.org) is another international policy framework concerned with safety of chemicals including pesticides. The World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 resolved that by 2020 chemicals should be produced and used in ways that minimize significant adverse impacts on human health and the environment. This was adopted by SAICM as its goal when SAICM was established by the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM) in 2006. The activities described in the SAICM plan of action have many similarities to the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (FAO, 2006a). An African Core Group holds regular regional meetings on SAICM.

The International agreements all recognize that developing countries require capacity development to support implementation. For example, Article 12 of the Stockholm Convention calls for arrangements for capacity building and technical assistance for developing countries, including the establishment of regional and sub-regional centres for the purpose. A wide range of different capacity building activities are in progress (Wandiga, Mahadi, & Olum, 2009), including several under a SAICM Quick Start Programme which includes a trust fund administered by UNEP for implementing SAICM objectives.

49

Table. 5.3. Signatories to international chemicals agreements

Country Rotterdam Basel Stockholm MontrealAlgeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep.

50

Box 5.2. International agreements concerning pesticides

Rotterdam Convention. The text of the convention was adopted in 1998, but it entered into force on 24 February 2004. The objectives are to promote shared responsibility in the trade of hazardous chemicals, to protect human health and the environment; and to contribute to the environmentally sound use of the chemicals. The convention creates legally binding obligations for implementing a procedure of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) regarding cross-border trade of specified chemicals. Chemicals covered are agreed by the parties, but include pesticides whose use has been banned or severely restricted by the parties.

Stockholm Convention. This convention aims to protect human health and the environment from Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). The convention was adopted in 2001 and entered into force in 2004, and requires parties to take measures to eliminate or reduce release of POPs into the environment. Due to their persistence, POPs may cause harm remotely in time and space from when they are released. Pesticides listed in the convention include aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex and toxaphene. The parties can add chemicals to the list through a defined process. The Convention requires parties to develop and implement a plan to phase out use of POPs.

Basel Convention. The convention was adopted in 1989, and entered into force on 5 May 1992. It regulates transboundary movement of hazardous and other wastes, such as obsolete pesticides. The provisions aim to limit the distance over which the wastes are moved, and ensure that their movement is consistent with environmentally sound management. A procedure for prior informed consent is included.

Montreal Protocol. This agreement aims to phase out the production and use of substances that deplete the ozone layer. It entered into force on 1 January 1989, but has been modified a number of times since then. Methyl bromide, a fumigant used in crop protection and quarantine treatments is addressed by the protocol. By 2002, developing countries were required to freeze methyl bromide production and consumption at average levels for 1995-1998. By 2005 they were to have reduced use by 20%, and by 2015 they should phase out methyl bromide entirely, apart from certain specified uses.

Côte d'Ivoire Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia, The Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe

5.4 International Code of Conduct

51

The International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides is a voluntary code that was first adopted by the 25th Session of the FAO Conference in 1985. In 2002 FAO Council approved a revised version including greater emphasis on IPM (FAO, 2002)

{Please_Select_Citation_From_Mendeley_Desktop}, and a further revision is expected in 2011 (FAO, 2010c). The code provides guidance for public and private sector entities involved in any stage of pesticide distribution and use contained within 20 articles. The pesticide management work of FAO’s Plant Production and Protection Division has produced (in collaboration with other organizations) a series of guidelines to support implementation of the code (Box 5.4) .

A questionnaire survey in 2008 (FAO, 2010d) assessed countries’ implementation of the code. In Africa only Burundi, Ethiopia, Guinea, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania, Mauritius replied to the survey, although like most of the respondents, replies were made by agricultural entities (except Mauritius where the organization responsible for labour replied). Conclusions from the survey were as follows.

Lower income countries lag behind higher income countries in implementing the provisions of the code.

Since 1993 progress in lower income countries has been made in establishment of poison control facilities; data collection on pesticide import and control, pesticide labeling and storage.

Little progress in 15 years has been made in lower income countries on implementation of IPM and resistance management, pesticide quality, access to quality control facilities, availability of less hazardous products, disposal of empty containers, post-registration health and environmental monitoring.

Priority areas for strengthening pesticide management in lower income countries are: capacity building of staff, establishment of post registration monitoring systems and laboratory facilities, management of obsolete pesticides and empty containers, the development and promotion of IPM, awareness raising of stakeholders.

FAO’s current strategic programme for implementation of the code (FAO, 2006b) includes 4 important principles:

Pesticide use as part of integrated pest or vector management Multistakeholder collaboration Coordination of interventions at the country level Evidence – and needs-based priority setting.

52

Box 5.4. FAO’s Pesticide GuidelinesThe following guidelines support the code of conduct on distribution and use of pesticides. Monitoring and observance of the code Pest and pesticide management policy Pesticide legislation Implementation Registration of pesticides Registration of pesticide application

equipment Compliance and enforcement Distribution and sales Pesticide use Training and awareness building Prevention and disposal of obsolete

stocks Post registration surveillance Harmonized glossary

Using these principles, the strategy identifies objectives for capacity building, provision of technical guidance, building awareness and monitoring implementation of the code.

5.5 Pesticide policySeveral types of legislation relate to the management and use of pesticides in a country. Some specifically concern pesticides, such as pest control products acts which may cover regulation, sale, use, import and export of the products covered. Such an act usually specifies a regulatory authority, and in many cases this is a department within the Ministry of Agriculture, but in some cases there may be an organization established for the purpose of regulating pest control products. For example, the Pesticides Controls and Management Act of Ghana (Act 528, 1996) established the Pesticides Technical Committee at the Environmental Protection Agency, within its broader remit of managing chemicals (Gerken, Suglo, & M. Braun, 2001). Other legislation affecting pesticide use relates to environmental management and protection, factories and places of work (where pesticides may be manufactured, formulated, packaged or used), food safety (concerning pesticide residues), and product standards.

Legislation is only one part of the overall policy environment affecting pesticide use. Waibel (1991) identified a range of obvious and hidden price and non-price factors that encourage pesticide use (Table 5.4). A subsequent set of studies in 8 countries, including Benin (Affognon, 2003), Cote d’Ivoire (Fleischer et al., 1998), Ghana (Gerken et al., 2001) Mali (Ajayi et al., 2002) and Zimbabwe (Mudimu et al., 1999) showed that many of these occurred (Table 5.5).

Hidden price factors relate especially to external costs. The damage to public health caused by a farmer using pesticides is not usually included in its price, so the level of pesticide use that is economically justifiable for an individual farmer is above the level that would be economic for society as a whole. found that in cotton-rice systems in Cote d’Ivoire, greater pesticide would be economical at the farm level.

Table 5.4. Factors encouraging pesticide use (Waibel, 1991).

Price factors Non-price factorsObvious factors

Government sells or gives pesticidesDonors provide pesticides at low or no costsGovernment refunds pesticide companies’ costsSubsidized credit for pesticidesPreferential rates for tax and exchange rate

Misguided use of governments’ activitiesin reducing pesticide damageGovernments’ investments in pesticideresearchInadequate government research inenvironmentally benign pest management

Hidden factors

Plant Protection Service outbreak budgetPesticide production externalitiesPesticide use externalities

Lack of adequate procedures for:• pest definition• crop loss definitionLack of information on agroecological parametersLack of transparency in regulatory decision makingCurricula of agricultural education and extensionDominance of pesticide industry in the market for

53

crop protection information

54

Table 5.5 Examples of direct and indirect pesticide price subsidies (Fleischer & Waibel, 2003)

Country(year)

Type of price subsidy

Benin(1999)

Distribution of donor-financed pesticides through government at prices below cost Direct price and interest rate subsidy for cotton growers Exemption from import duty (29%) and sales tax (18%) Compound subsidy rate for cotton insecticides: 44%

Côte d’Ivoire(1998)

Distribution of donor-financed pesticides through government at prices below cost (subsidy of over 50%)

Exemption from import duty (18%) for cotton, banana and pineapple growers (2/3 of total market value)

Mali(2000)

Distribution of donor-financed pesticides through government at prices below cost Reduction of import duty (7.5% instead of 12%), exemption from sales tax (20%)

Ghana(2000)

Distribution of donor-financed pesticides through government at prices below cost (budget of about US$1.2 million)

Exemption from import duty (10%) and sales tax

Non-price factors contributing to pesticide use include research and regulatory systems that tend to favour pesticides over less damaging alternatives. An important hidden non-price factor is agricultural education curricula, in schools, colleges and universities. Even where these have been modernized, they may still reflect the earlier widespread perception that pesticides are the primary solution to pest problems, and fail to include more recent knowledge on the range of negative impacts of pesticides.

Gerken et al. (2001) collected expert opinion on the factors promoting or discouraging pesticide use (Figure 5.1). While the 35 experts were not necessarily fully representative, the results show that a range of price factors are perceived to have a strong effect on pesticide use. KR2 was an aid programme which subsidized pesticide sales, and even though the volume subsidized was small, it was seen as strongly encouraging pesticide use.

The three factors seen as having the greatest influence in reducing pesticide use all concerned information; on alternatives to chemicals, health costs and residues. However, it is unlikely that these would overcome the price factors mentioned, and thus other policy interventions or changes should be considered if pesticide use is to be limited as the emphasis in CAADP on IPM implies.

An important part of pesticide policy is the pesticide registration regime; registration is a legal requirement for a pesticide to be imported, sold, stored, distributed, advertised, packaged or used. To register a pesticide, various data must be submitted including the product’s identify, formulation, biological properties, toxicology, and environmental impact. Data from field trials of efficiency may also be required. While few would argue that registration is necessary, there is debate on what level of detail of data is required for different products. Greater detail reduces risk, but increases the cost of registration. Products that are lower risk but for smaller or niche markets may therefore be effectively excluded from registration. A registration system designed to reduce risk may thus end up promoting the use of broad-spectrum mass-market products, and prevent lower risk products from entering the market.

55

3.143.23.2

3.093.03

-0.34

1.91-0.91

0.311.4

-1.77-1.54

2.71-1.11

-2.63-2.11

0.63-1.94

-2.71-1.8

-2.771.63

-0.892.6

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

Higher level of output prices Distribution via KR2-programme

Distribution via Cocoa Board Exemption from import duties

Exemption of pesticides from VAT Reduction of subsidies on pesticides

Promotion of intensive crops Effective implementation of legislation

Effective education and extension Public funding pesticide research

Stringent specifications for export Limitations by import restrictions

Information given by pesticide dealers Introduction of genetically modified crops

More information on non-chemical methods Spread of IPM extension

Information on costs of pesticides More information on environmental issues

More information on health costs More information on pesticide resistance

More information on residues Level of illegal pesticide import

Promotion of less hazardous pesticides Urbanisation

Level of influence

Institutional framework and information

Price Factors

State Policy

Figure 5.1. Expert assessment of factors encouraging or discouraging pesticide use in Ghana (Gerken et al., 2001)

One way to improve pesticide registration is to use harmonized procedures across a number of countries. SADC and EAC have developed draft guidelines for registration of crop protection products, but so far these have not been fully implemented. In contrast, the Comité Sahelién des Pesticides is a fully operational sub-regional pesticide registration system. In 1992 CILSS adopted the ‘Réglementation commune aux états membres du CILSS de l’homologation des pesticides’ (CILSS, 1999). Under this regulation the Comité Sahélien des Pesticides (CSP) was established as the pesticides regulation body for all member states, and countries are directed to set up national pesticide management committees for implementing CSP decisions. The aim of the regulation is to share expertise in evaluating and regulating pesticides to ensure their rational and wise use, and the protection of human health and the environment. Each member state is represented on CSP and registration approved by CSP is applicable to all member states.

A recent notable decision was to ban the distribution and use of endosulfan, widely used in cotton (see Box 5.5). This sub-regional approach thus makes best use of limited capacity; reduces costs of the regulatory authorities; reduces costs of the companies registering products; and reduces the risks of unregistered pesticides moving across borders. Additional articles of the regulation establish measures for post-registration control, maintaining toxico-vigilance of products, and monitoring compliance.

Capacity to monitor implementation of a regulatory regime is necessary. This requires laboratories that can conduct analysis for pesticides, either as residues on crops, or elsewhere in ecosystems including in humans. Without this capacity, either the testing is not done or samples must be sent away for testing which is costly and inefficient. Table 5.6 shows the results of an audit of pesticide laboratory capacity in the SADC region (WAHSA, 2008). Only 4 countries in the region have pesticide laboratories, and not all of these can conduct all the necessary analyses. However, although this represents a limited capacity, enhanced sub-regional collaboration could perhaps make more use of, and build on such capacity.

56

Box 5.5 Endosulfan’s days are numberedEndosulfan is a broad-spectrum chlorinated hydrocarbon, that controls a wide variety of insects and mites. It is classified by WHO as class II, moderately hazardous (although in US it is class Ib, highly toxic). It is an endocrine disruptor, and accumulates in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems (POPS Pesticides Working Group, 2009). In the last 12 years it has been widely used in West African cotton production. In 1999 Cote d’Ivoire purchased 1,350,000l, Benin 917,000l, Burkina Faso 1,1000,00l, Togo 183,000l, Mali 200,000l, (Martin et al. 2005). Due to widespread subsequent problems, CILSS banned its distribution in 2007 and its use from the end of 2008. The 6th (2010) meeting of the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC) of the Stockholm Convention recommended that Endosulfan be added to Annex A of the Convention (with exemptions). Annex A contains chemicals whose use is to be eliminated, the initial list containing 8 pesticides: aldrin, chlordane, DDT dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, mirex, toxaphene. The Convention includes a rigorous science-based procedure for adding chemicals to the list. The final step is for the Conference of the Parties to consider the recommendation by POPRC, due to take place in 2011.

57

Table 5.6. Pesticide analysis laboratories in SADC (WAHSA, 2008)

Country Name of laboratory Conduct analysis of pesticide residues

Conduct bio-monitoring (testing for pesticides in samples)

Mauritius National Environment Laboratory

Yes No

Forensic Science Laboratory, Government Analyst Division

Yes; in water only No

Agricultural Chemistry Laboratory, Mauritius Sugar Industry Institute

Yes; in sugar, soil and aqueous samples

No

South Africa Hearshaw & Kinnes Analysis Laboratory, Cape Town

Yes; in fruit, vegetables, soil and water

No

Forensic Chem, Laboratory, Cape Town

No Blood, urine, stomach contents of post mortem cases

Biocrop, Johannesburg Yes; in soil, water, milk, honey, meat, fat, nuts, dried fruit and vegetables

No

NIOH Analysis Laboratory, Johannesburg

No Biomarkers in humans

CSIR Biosciences, Johannesburg

Yes; in water and plants Mother’s milk

SABS Pesticide Residues, Chromatographic Services, Pretoria

Yes; in food, soil and water

No

ARC (OVI) Pretoria Yes; in animal tissue No SMI Analysis, Johannesburg Yes; in air, soil and water

down to PPT levelsNo

Agricultural Research Council, Pesticide Science Division, Roodeplaat Campus, Pretoria

Yes; in environmental samples, such as air, soil and water

No

Tanzania Government Chemist Laboratory Agency, Dar es Salaam

Yes No

TPRI Yes; in water, soil and food

Human body fluids

University of Dar-es-Salaam Yes; in water, soil, food, sediments, vegetables and milk

No

Zambia Food and drugs control, Lusaka

Yes; food, soil and water No

UNZ, Dept of Chemistry, University of Zambia, Lusaka

Yes; food, soil and water, vegetation, sediments and wildlife samples

Biomarkers in humans

5.6 Issues for crop protection framework Pesticide use in Africa is low compared to other regions, but is rising rapidly. Countries importing most pesticides are those countries where agriculture is already

most advanced. This suggests that further development of agricultural production will cause further increases in pesticide use.

58

Pesticide use is generally greater on crops grown for market. However, where the market exerts stringent quality standards (such as European horticultural markets), pesticide use appears to reduce.

Major problems arise with pesticides at all stages of their life cycle from production to disposal. Poisonings are poorly reported in Africa, but are thought to be common.

Stockpiles of obsolete pesticides are a serious problem in Africa. Most countries are signatories to the international agreements in relation to pesticides,

but most have difficulty in implementation. The International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides provides

clear guidance for all those involved with pesticides. Some progress has been made in its implementation, but many countries lack the capacity to implement it fully.

Many policies encourage pesticide use, sometimes unintentionally. Policies need to be consistent in promoting IPM as in the Code.

Registration of pesticides is an essential tool in pesticide risk management. But “one size fits all” registration schemes can result in lower risk products not coming to market. Appropriate risk assessment procedures are required as part of registration procedures.

59

6. Other Control Methods

In this chapter we consider control methods apart from those based on chemical pesticides. We begin with Integrated Pest Management, which CAADP envisages as the basis for crop protection.

6.1 Integrated pest management

There is no agreement on what is meant by IPM – as recently as 2009 an International IPM Symposium was unable to develop a definition, and instead concluded that IPM is a broad, ever changing palette of activities that underpin environmentally acceptable and cost-competitive crop management interventions. Box 6.1 contains some example definitions, which generally include the following principles:

Environmental sustainability, particularly in relation to pesticide use. Where pesticide use is seen as part of IPM, its use must be ‘judicious’ or minimized.

Informed decision marking. Rather than apply control measures blindly, they are selected based on observations and information, such as pest density. Some notions of IPM include economic thresholds, the pest density at which control is economically justified.

Using different approaches in combination. The ‘integration’ may be between different control methods, or between pest management and other crop management practices.

IPM was originally envisaged as a new technology (Huffaker, 1980), to solve the problems being experienced particularly in the New World caused by pesticide use. It was thus seen as a technical solution to a technical problem. In contrast, the development of IPM in rice in Asia, although also triggered by pesticide-induced pest problems, emphasized the empowerment of farmers to make pest management decisions, and pioneered the use of Farmer Field Schools. IPM has long been championed in Africa by FAO, but especially in the last 15-20 years based on the FFS approach (see Chapter 8).

There has been much enthusiasm for IPM in Africa, as the principles are not really ones that can be argued with; IPM should deliver economic, environmental and social benefits. However, a widespread view is that IPM is not living up to its promise, prompting questions such as ‘can we make IPM work for resource-poor farmers in sub-saharan Africa?’ (Van

60

Box 6.1 IPM defined

The combined used of multiple pest control methods, informed by monitoring of pest densities (Gurr et al., 2004).

A flexible and holistic approach which views the agroecosystem as an interrelated whole and utilizes a variety of biological, cultural, genetic, physical, and chemical techniques as required to hold pests below economically damaging levels with a minimum amount of disruption to the cropping system and the surrounding environment (Malena, 1994).

Integrated Pest Management is a decision support system for the selection and use of pest control tactics, singly or harmoniously coordinated into a management strategy based on cost/benefit analyses that take into account the interests of and impacts on producers, society and the environment (Kogan, 1998).

Huis & Meerman, 1997). Nwilene et al. (2008) say ‘the potential of IPM to contribute to poverty alleviation and food security is still poorly realized in Africa due to a myriad of factors’. While citing various example of successful IPM from other parts of the world, Way & van Emden (2000) note there are few examples of significant IPM advances in food crops in sub-saharan Africa. The example that is often cited (eg Nwilene et al. (2008); Way & van Emden (2000); (SP-IPM, 2010)) is the classical biological control of cassava mealy bug (Neuenschwander et al., 2003) but it is also noted that there was relatively little involvement of resource-poor farmers in that campaign, and a single control method was unusually effective in reducing the pest population. It was therefore a highly successful programme (see Box 6.4), but perhaps not really a good example of IPM.

Explanations for the low adoption of IPM by resource-poor farmers in Africa include (Orr, 2003):

Inadequate extension systems Complexities of IPM decision making requiring costly investment in farmer training Farmers are encouraged to use pesticides by industry, and by policies such as input

subsidies IPM strategies are developed by researchers without involving farmers, so are not

appropriate to farmers’ needs.

All these explanations can be supported with examples, but Orr (2003) argues that these are supply-side issues, and what we really should be looking at to explain low adoption is the demand and need for IPM. Because much small-scale farming in Africa is low-input and low-output, the benefits of crop protection do not justify the costs. Orr (2003) points out that although IPM may be labour rather than capital intensive, the opportunity costs of farmers’ time is not as low as is commonly assumed. He contrasts conditions for successful IPM (adapted from Morse & Buhler (1997)) with those pertaining in smallholder farming in Africa, the differences highlighting the contention that IPM is unlikely to be widely adopted in resource-poor farming systems (Table 6.1).

Table 6.1. Contrast between conditions for successful IPM and conditions in African smallholder agriculture (Orr, 2003).

Component Conditions for successful IPMa Smallholder farming systems in Africa

Prices High value crops plus a stable marketStable prices for crop protection inputs

Low-value staplesInput price hikes following structural adjustment

Agro-ecosystem Monoculture over wide areas Mixed cropping systemsSoil fertility Stable DecliningProductivity Green Revolution increases yields of

staple food cropsLow yield of staple food crops

Pest complex A small number of important pests Multiple pestsPesticide use Pesticide treadmill caused by

excessive useLow pesticide use on staple food crops

Research/extension base

Strong Weak

61

Box 6.2 Push-pull approach in cereals (summarized from Hassanali et al. (2008))Stem-borers such as Busseola fusca (Noctuidae) and Chilo partellus (Crambidae) can cause serious damage to maize and sorghum. This can be reduced by planting trap crops, such as Napier grass, Pennisetum purpureum next to the crop; the stem-borers are more attracted to the Napier grass for oviposition, reducing oviposition on the adjacent crop. In contrast Desmodium unicantum repels the pests, so intercropped with cereals, also reduces pest damage. The ‘push-pull’ system thus combines 2 to 3 rows of napier grass round the edge of a field, with alternate rows of cereal and Desmodium. Yields are substantially increased, due to a combination of factors. As well as reduced oviposition on the crops, parasitism by natural enemies is higher in push-pull fields. In addition Desmodium has an allelopathic or allelobiotic effect on African witchweed, Striga hermonthica, another serious pest of cereals. ICIPE and Rothamstead Research have developed a detailed understanding of the semiochemicals involved in this system, and suggest that the knowledge could be used in conventional breeding or genetic modification to produce plants with more or less attractiveness to the pests. In principle the approach is possible for many pests, including those of livestock.

aAdapted from Morse & Buhler (1997).

Thus some of the best examples of IPM are found where at least some of these conditions hold, such as the high value horticultural export sector (see for example Okello & Okello, (2010)).

A number of techniques that can be used in IPM are known as habitat management or ecological engineering (Gurr et al., 2004). The structure of the agroecosystem is modified or engineered to reduce pest damage though a variety of mechanisms, but often by the encouragement of natural enemies. Mixed cropping, intercropping, rotations, trap crops, companion crops and agroforestry can all be viewed as habitat management, techniques that are used in Africa for a variety of reasons, often with little or no understanding of the mechanisms involved. Much of the increasing research on habitat management has been in developed countries, where the reintroduction of heterogeneity into agroecosystems at a range of scales can have multiple benefits. However, the push-pull strategy for managing cereal pests in Africa is a well researched and documented example of habitat management (Box 6.2).

The US funded IPM-CRSP programme has supported much research on IPM in a number of countries in Africa. As well as addressing technical issues, the programme has promoted socio-economic and participatory approaches, and has been notable for its work on gender (Hamilton & Norton, 2001; Heinrichs, 2005). Their research in Uganda, for example, has suggested that women have a greater appreciation of the benefits of IPM, and that targeting women can expedite IPM adoption.

6.2 Host plant resistance

Heritable resistance to arthropods and pathogens has long been recognized in crops, and the land races developed by farmers through repeated saving of selected seeds often include some resistance to the major pests of a region. Plant breeding is a well established science, and has led to the development of numerous pest-resistant varieties of many different crops including perennial and tree crops where the process can be slower. In

62

Morocco, for example, bread wheats resistant to Hessian Fly have been reported to give a 9:1 return on the investment in their development (Azzam et al., 1997), but breeding for resistance to plant diseases has also provided some major success (Box 6.3).

Often breeders must take into account a range of traits when developing new varieties, which can complicate the process. For example, farmers may have preference for traits related to storage, cooking and taste, and failure to take this into account can result in a high yielding pest-resistant variety not being used by farmers. Participatory approaches for the identification and selection of desirable traits have therefore become more common. Sometimes a trade-off may be required; for example maize streak resistant varieties appear to have lower nutritional value in the stover, which is fed to cattle, than susceptible varieties (Barker et al., 2006), emphasizing the need for participatory approaches to breeding.

If varieties combining pest resistance with other desirable traits can be found, they provide two major benefits in terms of crop protection. First, with the crop protection ‘built in’ to the seed, it reduces the need for other pest management activities and inputs. Second, host plant resistance has little impact on the environment, so fits well within the IPM or integrated natural resource management approaches.

A disadvantage of resistance based on single or multiple genes in that the resistance may not be durable, particularly against pathogens that are genetically variable. Predicting the durability of resistance is difficult, but it appears to be associated with one or more genes conferring partial resistance which are expressed in adult plants. Durability is also related to the nature of the pathogen, and those with mixed reproductive systems, large population sizes and high mutation rates are more likely to overcome resistance. Understanding the biology of a plant disease can thus help guide the development of resistant crop varieties.

The development of techniques in molecular genetics now allows plant breeding to be much more sophisticated in the identification and utilization of resistance genes. Understanding of the detailed mechanisms of resistance can be investigated in the crop plant and in the pest. This can guide the search and selection for genes that are more likely to be effective. Genetic mapping and marker assisted selection allow selection of plants based on their genotype before the resistance is expressed, but require prior identification of molecular markers linked to the resistance. The capacity to use such approaches in NARS in Africa is limited, so partnership and collaboration is required if they are to be utilized, such as through NEPAD’s centres of excellence (Table 6.2).

63

Box 6.3 Mosaic resistant cassava Summarised from Nweke (2009)Cassava Mosaic Disease has been a problem in Africa since the 1890s, and over many years a range of germplasm was collected with different desirable traits including resistance to disease. In the 1970s IITA began cassava breeding, and successfully combined genes for high yield, good quality roots and low cyanide content with those from a mosaic-resistant but poor variety. By 1977 high performing disease resistant varieties had been developed which also showed some resistance to other pests including bacterial blight, cassava green mite and cassava mealybug. The varieties improved yields by 90% and were rapidly adopted in Nigeria. Uptake was slower in Ghana, but a drought in the early 1980s triggered wider use. In Uganda use of the varieties rose from 20% in 1993 to 80% in 1998, with a decline in disease occurrence from 90% on local varieties to less than 20% on the resistant varieties.

Deployment of resistant varieties raises a number of technical and policy issues which can constrain the rate or benefits of their use. In Africa only Kenya, Morocco, South Africa and Tunisia are members of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) as of October 2009, with Egypt, Mauritius and Zimbabwe in the process of joining, along with the African Intellectual Property Organisation (UPOV, 2009). UPOV provides protection of plant breeders’ intellectual property rights, so encourages the commercialization and trade between countries of new crop varieties. However, policies regarding the production and sale of seed vary between countries, constraining seed trade and the development of a strong private sector. For example, some countries require all marketed seed to be registered, and sold only by licensed vendors, while other countries have less rigorous regulatory environments. There are also phytosanitary considerations in relation to seed trade. COMESA has commenced a process of harmonizing varietal release, import and export, and phytosanitary regulations in relation to seed, building on work already done by SADC and ASARECA.

Multiplication of resistant varieties to provide for wide uptake can be a constraint. In Uganda, for example, there is demand for NERICA rice, which can only be met by private sector production and marketing of seed (Odogola, 2006). They in turn rely on farmers to produce seed, who may lack the experience and knowledge to produce high quality seed. Foundation seed is provided to the seed companies by the NARS, but capacity development is required there too to ensure the required volume and quality can be produced. At the same time, NGOs or other development organizations may provide subsidized seed to farmers, reducing the market opportunities for the private sector, thus inhibiting the development of a sustainable seed supply system.

Tissue culture provides an option for producing planting materials in some cases, and a number of countries have or are developing their capacity in this area. Again regulatory issues are important, as tissue culture can result in crop diseases being inadvertently spread.

The technical development of a resistant variety is thus only part of the process by which it becomes a practical crop protection tactic. Addressing regulatory and intellectual property issues, as well as involving the private sector to ensure planting material is widely available, are important activities to which sufficient attention has not always been given. A number of initiatives are now working on some of these areas, such as AGRA's Programme for Africa's Seeds Systems (PASS).

6.3 Genetically modified crops

The first genetically modified crops were approved for planting in U.S. in 1995, since when the area planted worldwide has steadily increased. GM crops are of particular relevance to the current discussion, as two of the most widespread modifications concern crop protection. One is the insertion of genes from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) into several crops, which then produce the bacterial protein that is toxic especially to Lepidoptera larvae, but also to some Diptera and Coleoptera. The other common modification confers tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, sold by Monsanto under the name Roundup; the herbicide

64

tolerant crops are thus referred to as ‘Roundup Ready’, allowing the herbicide to be sprayed on a field, killing the weeds but not the crop.

65

Table 6.2. NEPAD Centres of Excellence in Biosciences (Makinde et al., 2009)

Networks Nodal Point

Hub National

Centre Focus Area of Work

NABNet (North African Biosciences Network)

Egypt Research Centre (NRC)

Bio-Pharmaceuticals

North Africa: to lead the continent in research into bio-pharmaceuticals, drug manufacturing and test kits.

WABNet (WestAfrican Biosciences Network)

Senegal Senegalese Institute of Agricultural Research (ISRA)

Crop Biotech West Africa: to carry out research using biotechnology tools to develop cash crops, cereals, grain legumes, fruits/vegetables and root/tuber crops.

SANBio (Southern African Network for Biosciences)

South Africa

CSIR, Bioscience Unit

Health Biotech Southern Africa: to deliver benefits from health biotechnology by researching into the causes and prevention methods of a range of diseases, in particular, TB, malaria and HIV/AIDS.

BecANet (Biosciences East and Central Africa)

Kenya International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)

Animal Biotech East Africa: to focus on research into livestock pests and diseases in order to improve animal health and husbandry. Central Africa: to build and strengthen indigenous capacity by identifying, conserving and sustainably using natural resources and also researching into the impact on biodiversity of events such as climate change and natural disasters.

In Africa only 3 countries plant GM crops commercially (Table 6.3), although South Africa has the 8th largest area of GM crops globally, and first approved insect resistant maize in 1997. By 2008 1.8m ha of GM crops were being planted, over 80% of which is maize, representing around 60% of maize cultivation in the country. Bt cotton planted in the Makhatini flats in Kwazulu Natal has been much studied because it is grown by smallholders, and there has been vigorous debate over the costs and benefits, and reasons for its adoption, and the suitability of GM crops for smallholders (Hillocks, 2005; Witt et al., 2006). In 2007, 64% of the GM maize was insect resistant, 17% was herbicide tolerant and 19% had stacked traits.

Table 6.3 Commercially grown Bt crops in Africa. Year is the year of environmental approval or first cultivation (Raybould & Quemada, 2010).

Country Crop Year Main target pestsSouth Africa Maize 1997 Stem borer (Busseola fusca)

Pink stalk borer (Sesamia calamistis)Cotton 1998 Cotton bollworms (Helicoverpa spp)

Red bollworm (Diparopsis castanea)Spiny bollworms (Earias spp)

Burkina Faso Cotton 2008 Cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armijera)Egypt Maize 2008 Durra stem borer (Sesamia cretica)

European com borer (Ostrinia nubilalis)Purple-lined stem borer (Chilo agamemnon)

66

Burkina Faso commenced commercial Bt cotton cultivation in 2008, the 10 th country globally to do so, and the result of 5 years field testing. In 2009 it is estimated about 120,000ha of Bt cotton was planted, around a quarter of total cotton planted (Karembu et al., 2009). The two varieties released were developed by INERA (National Agricultural Research Organization) and Monsanto.

Egypt has been conducting research on genetic engineering since the 1990s and in 2008 released its first GM crop, Bt yellow maize (Karembu et al., 2009). Research on a range of crops in progress, using traits for tolerance to drought and salinity as well as resistance to insects and viruses.

Thus with the exception of S. Africa, uptake of GM crops has been relatively slow in the continent. There are several reasons for this (Zoundi et al., 2006), including the need to develop the appropriate biosafety frameworks. Under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity to which most countries in Africa are signatories (see Table 7.1), countries commit to develop national biosafety frameworks for implementing the protocol. Components of a national biosafety framework are:

A policy on biosafety, which may be part of a wider policy such as biotechnology A regulatory regime, usually a law or an act and associated regulations A system for monitoring and enforcement A mechanism for informing stakeholders and involving them in implementing the

NBF.

Through UNEP, the Global Environment Facility supported 42 countries in Africa to develop their NBFs, but as of June 2009, only 11 countries had fully functional frameworks (Table 6.4).

Table 6.4 Status of National Biosafety Frameworks (NBFs), as of June 2009 (Makinde et al., 2009).

NBF Status CountriesFunction NBF Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritius, Kenya,

Zimbabwe, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia.Interim NBF Senegal, Ghana, Nigeria, Namibia, Zambia, Tanzania,

Mozambique, Ethiopia, Uganda, Madagascar, Rwanda, Malawi

Work in Progress Botswana, Burundi, DR Congo, Congo, Gabon, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Benin, Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Niger, Libya, Eritrea, Djibouti, Burundi, Swaziland, Lesotho, Guinea, Gambia, Madagascar, Seychelles

No Action Yet Angola, Somalia, Equatorial Guinea, Chad, Guinea Bissau, Western Sahara, Morocco

While it is important that countries develop their NBFs, Morris (2008) points out that in most cases these have focused on their own needs, rather than achieving sub-regional and

67

regional alignment. Consideration of sub-regional trade in GMOs has not been a major feature of any NBF. Similarly there is insufficient integration between regional biotechnology research and biosafety approaches. With limited scientific and regulatory capacity, greater consideration to sub-regional cooperation and harmonization is encouraged, such as in mutual recognition and acceptance of data, or regional risk assessment and decision making (Morris, 2008). Raybould & Quemada (2010) also advocate using existing data from other countries for risk assessments where possible, to reduce the cost of meeting regulatory requirements. They also emphasize that scientific risk assessments can only follow policy decisions on what constitutes ‘harm’, otherwise risk assessment studies can become open-ended attempts to measure ‘anything and everything’, thereby wasting resources.

Despite concerns about the potential risks of GM crops, results to date indicate that GM crops provide a number of benefits. In terms of crop protection, they appear to reduce pest damage (Table 6.5), with significantly greater benefits in developing countries. For insect resistant crops, insecticide use is reduced, by 14-76% in terms of number of applications (Carpenter, 2010).

Table 6.5 Average impact on yield, by technology, for developed and developing countries (Carpenter, 2010).

Technology Differences in yield (%)

Number of

results

Minimum (%)

Maximum (%)

Standard error of the mean (%)

Developed countries 6 59 -12 26 1.0

Herbicide-tolerant cotton 0 6 -12 17 3.8

Herbicide-tolerant soybean 7 14 0 20 1.7

Herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant cotton

3 2 -3 9 5.8

Insect-resistant corn 4 13 -3 13 1.6

Insect-resistant cotton 7 24 -8 26 1.9

Developing countries 29 107 -25 150 2.9

Herbicide-tolerant corn 85 1

Herbicide-tolerant soybean 21 3 0 35 11

Insect-resistant corn 16 12 0 38 4

Insect-resistant corn (white) 22 9 0 62 6.9

Insect-resistant cotton 30 82 -25 150 3.5

Yield difference for adopters was calculated as (GM yield-conventional yield)/conventional yield, averaging yields across surveys, geographies, years and methodologies. The difference in the number of results reported in Tables 1 and 2 is due to two results reported as ‘positive’ with no numerical value. A two-tailed t-test shows a significant difference between the average yields of developed and developing countries (t-7.48, df =134, P<0.0005).

However, these results are from a relatively short period of time in some countries, and there are two problems that may limit the benefits of Bt crops (Raybould & Quemada, 2010). First, resistance to Bt crops may develop. Tabashnik et al. (2009) report several instances of field

68

resistance to Bt maize including Busseola fusca in South Africa. Thus an important component of widespread adoption of Bt crops is a strategy for managing and reducing the risk of resistance developing. Usually this is based on ensuring the crop delivers a high dose of Bt protein, along with the use of refuges or areas where non-Bt crop is planted, so that any resistant homogygote insects mate with a susceptible homozygote. Refuges may also include alternate host plants. Implementing such area wide strategies is likely to be more difficult in developing countries. A further way of prolonging the efficacy of Bt crops is to ‘pyramid’ two or more genes that produce proteins targeting different receptors in the insect gut, an approach that reduces the need for farmer education and area-wide management of refuges.

The other possible problem with Bt crops is that other pests may develop that are not affected by the resistance. This has been reported in other continents, such as in Bt cotton in China (Lu et al., 2010).

A number of countries in Africa have been conducting trials on GM crops in recent years, and others are planning to commence. These include modifications to confer pest resistance, but also on other characteristics such as drought tolerance. This will mean crops can be grown in areas where they have not previously been grown, so the pest problems they will encounter is difficult to anticipate. Thus in the coming years, a significant expansion of GM crop production can be expected in Africa.

6.4 Biological control

6.4.1 Classical biological controlClassical biological control, or the introduction of a non-native natural enemy of a pest, was first attempted in mainland Africa in 1892, when the ladybird Rodolia cardinalis was introduced to both Egypt and the Cape Colony (now South Africa), following its successful introduction four years earlier in California for control of cottony cushion scale, Icerya purchasi (Greathead, 1971; 2003). South Africa has been a leader in biological control ever since, while the Imperial Bureau of Entomology, subsequently becoming the Commonwealth (then International) Institute of Biological Control and now CABI, has been involved in many of the biological control programmes in Africa.

From the 1930s onwards, many natural enemies were released in Africa against a range of pests. However, particular targets were the pests of commodity crops: Planococcoides njalensis, a vector of swollen shoot virus on cocoa in Ghana; Planococcus kenyae, the coffee mealy bug in Kenya; Chilo sacchariphagus, stem borer, and Clemora smithi, white grub, both on sugar cane in Mauritius. South Africa continues to undertake biological control, though in Africa as a whole there was a marked drop in introductions in the 1990s, matched by a higher rate of establishment (Greathead, 2003). Reasons for this include the use of a more scientific approach in the selection of candidate agents, along with increasing recognition of the need to reduce the risk of any non-target effects.

Relatively little biological control of weeds has been undertaken in Africa apart from in South Africa. However, water hyacinth Eicchornia crassipes is a well known exception, with successes recorded in various parts of Africa (Greathead, 2003).

69

{Please_Select_Citation_From_Mendeley_Desktop} The main terrestrial weeds for which biological control has been attempted are Lantana camara, Chromolaena odorata and Opuntia spp. South Africa has also implemented biological control for several agroforestry species that were intentionally introduced but have subsequently become invasive.

Biological control in Africa received a significant boost form the large and successful programme against the cassava mealy bug (Box 6.4). As well as showing the excellent returns that can be obtained from biological control, the programme built national capacity in a number of countries. Despite this, biological control appears not to receive the support at national level that the cassava mealy bug and other examples suggest it deserves. As well as the extensive capacity and expertise in South Africa, there are various international organizations (such as IITA, ICIPE, CABI) able to support and coordinate regional biological control efforts. Many national programmes have scientists with expertise and interest in biological control, but both national and international funding for biological control appears to be limited. In this respect the cassava mealybug programme might have had an adverse effect in creating an impression that biological control requires a large well-funded initiative to succeed. While well funded programmes are more likely to succeed, there is much that could be done through more modest efforts.

6.4.2 Biological control of pathogensBiological control of crop pathogens is now possible through the deployment of microorganisms that out-compete the pest, that have an antibiotic effect, or that parasitise or prey on the plant pathogen. A particular biocontrol agent may show more than one effect. An example of biocontrol by competition is the product developed to control Aspergillus which produces aflatoxins. Using experience from U.S., a product has been developed in West Africa based on an Aspergillus strain that is atoxigenic and out-competes the aflatoxin-

70

Box 6.4 Biological control of cassava mealybug

The cassava mealybug Phenacoccus manihoti appeared in Africa in 1973 and spread rapidly through most cassava growing areas. By 1986 it had reached 25 countries and affected 70% of the cassava belt, causing initial tuber losses of around 80%, declining to 20-40% as a result of local natural enemies and use of resistant varieties. An international effort was mounted to implement classical biological control, but due to taxonomic difficulties, only in 1981 was P.manihoti located in its area of origin in South America. Amongst the natural enemies found there was Anagyrus (Epidinocarsis) lopezi, that had been described in 1963, but unfortunately from an unidentified mealybug host. After appropriate quarantine procedures, A. lopezi was first released in late 1981 in Nigeria, where it established readily and spread rapidly, 3 years later being found in 70% of cassava fields in Nigeria. By the end of 1986 A. lopezi had been released at 50 sites in other countries and by 1988 was confirmed to have established in 16 countries in West, East, Central and Southern Africa. A few years later another species A. diversicornis was released in 14 countries, but no permanent establishment was recorded. Several predatory coccinellids and a hemorobiids were also released in several countries, but only Hyperaspis notate and Diomus hennesseyi persisted in a few countries. Field, laboratory and simulation studies confirmed A. lopezi successfully controlled the mealybug. An economic analysis showed the benefit cost ratio of the biological control programme to be around 200 to 500:1. The programme leader, Hans Herren, subsequently won the World Food prize.

Summarized from Neuenschwander & Herren (1988) and Neuenschwander (2003)

producing strains (F. Wu & Khlangwiset, 2010). Plans are now being made to develop local versions of the product in other countries in Africa using strains collected in each country. This will circumvent concerns about moving Aspergillus strains around the continent, and may also reduce the registration costs. However, while the technology is effective, devising a sustainable model for its widescale uptake is challenging, as many growers lack the finance or incentive to use such a product. Some sort of public private partnership will be necessary, perhaps involving regulatory incentives, although implementation and enforcement would then be a challenge.

Trichoderma spp and other microorganisms contribute to soil health, including suppressing soil-borne crop pathogens. Trichoderma is already available for purchase in some countries, where it is used particularly in high value horticulture, but there are other opportunities for its use, such as in seed dressing to control seedling blight of cowpea. Seed dressing is an appropriate technology for resource-poor farmers, and local production is possible (Barker, et al., 2006). Some companies are already taking up this opportunity.

The benefits of some cultural practices may be through reducing the impact of soil-borne pathogens, although the biology of the processes involved is not well understood. Composting, cover crops and reduced tillage can contribute to reducing crop loss to pathogens such as Rhizoctonia, Pythium, Fusarium and Phytophthora, perhaps by encouraging naturally occurring biological control agents. Biocontrol of post harvest pathogens is also a possibility, again particularly in high value horticulture where product quality is important and fungicide use is being restricted.

Endophytes are microorganisms that live in or on plants, and as understanding of their biology increases, opportunities for using them as biocontrol agents are developing, but none has yet been commercialized (Backman & Sikora, 2008).

6.4.3 Biopesticides

Biopesticides are a form of biological control in that living organisms are released into the environment to control a target pest. However, biopesticides are based on pathogenic microorganisms, so in their formulation and application they appear like conventional pesticides. There are a large number of microorganisms pathogenic to pests, and as this would appear to be a sustainable alternative to chemical pesticides, the question arises as to why their use has not become more widespread. Harris & Dent (2000) polled a large number of experts worldwide, and concluded that although there is much expertise in developing countries on the early stages of biopesticide development, including exploitation, identification, and multiplication, there is much less capacity in the subsequent areas leading to a product. These areas included formulation, socio-economics, registration and commercialization. Much of the funding for biopesticide research is in the public sector, where many developing countries lack experience of working with the private sector to turn research into commercial products.

Despite these constraints, a number of biopesticides have been developed in Africa. One of the best-funded programmes in this field has been LUBILOSA, which developed a biopesticide for locusts and grasshoppers, now commercially produced in Senegal and South Africa (Magor, 2007). In East Africa at least two companies are establishing

71

production facilities to produce nuclear polyhedrosis viruses (NPV) for armyworm, Spodoptera exempta, diamond back moth, Plutella xylostella, and bollworm, Helicoverpa armijera.

6.4.2 Regulation of Biological ControlBecause classical biological control involves the introduction of a non-native species, it is appropriate that the process is regulated. There is a risk that the biocontrol agent may attack non-target species. In the past these risks were not well understood, but a few spectacular disasters, such as the introduction of Rosy Wolf Snail Euglandina rosea to Mauritius show that concerns are legitimate. Introduced to control the giant African snail Achatina fulica, it preyed on other indigenous species, and 24 of 106 snail species endemic to Mauritius have become extinct (Wittenberger & Cock, 2001).

ISPM3 (FAO, 2005) concerns the introduction of biocontrol agents or other beneficial species, and requires that a risk analysis is undertaken. The standard details who has what responsibilities, and is based on a code of conduct developed earlier by FAO. As in other areas of crop protection, the capacity of countries in Africa to effectively regulate the introduction of biological control agents (or implement ISPM3) is variable. In some countries there is a technical committee, convened by the NPPO, which reviews applications to import biocontrol agents, and grants permits and lays down conditions. In other countries there is no formal mechanism for receipt and review of dossiers as set out in ISPM3 .

There are two possible negative impacts of inappropriate regulation of biological control. The first is that biological control agents are imported (legally or illegally) that affect non-target species with resulting economic and or environmental damage. However, there are very few examples of this in Africa, and they generally involved the introduction of non-specific predators. Most organizations involved in biological control are now much more careful than they used to be; the days of the ‘try it and see’ approach to biological control have passed. Thus while there are still risks and regulation is necessary, introduction of dangerous biological agents is not the main impact of weak regulation.

The more frequent impact of weak regulation of biological control is that the approach is delayed and made more expensive than it might be. This can result in biological control not being implemented, and the potential benefits of successful biological control being missed. In other cases host-specificity tests might be required that are not appropriate, in that non-target hosts to be tested are so remotely related to the target species that attack is practically impossible. This situation arises when regulatory authorities are rightly concerned with managing the risks of biological control, but are not aware of the advances in host range testing that have been made.

Biological control of weeds presents a particular problem to regulatory agencies for two reasons. First there is concern that a biocontrol agent might attack a crop plant. Second, many weeds also have some uses, so if a biological control agent is to be introduced, a mechanism is required that effectively takes into account the costs and benefits of the weed and its control. In Kenya, for example, a biological control agent for Prosopis juliflora has been imported to quarantine, but permission to release it has not yet been granted. Although it has been shown that in an area studied there were more costs than benefits (Swallow &

72

Mwangi, 2008) another view is that Prosopis has benefits that the biological agent would destroy.

Regulation of biopesticides can also hinder their registration. If they are classed as conventional pesticides (as in an unsophisticated regulatory system), the ecotoxicological tests can be prohibitively expensive. Some countries now have separate registration protocols for biopesticides.

6.5 Semiochemicals

Semiochemicals are organic compounds that carry messages between individuals of a species or between individuals of different species. The term was coined in 1971 (Regnier, 1971), and is now in general use. Semiochemicals are usually divided into pheromones for intraspecific communication, and allelochemicals, for those acting interspecifically. Pheromones are further divided by their biological function, including alarm, trail, sexual and aggregation. Chemically semiochemicals are often quite simple molecules. A large database of such chemicals is available (www.pherobase.com), describing around 8,000 molecules. Double bonds and cis-trans isomers are common, and often the chemicals are volatiles of low molecular weight, though a few are heavier and non-volatile. Semiochecmicals have a range of uses in crop protection (Table 6.6).

Table 6.6. Uses of semiochemicals in crop protection (adapted from Gut et al., 2004)

Objective MethodsPest monitoring Detecting presence/absence of species

Assessing phenology, population levels for forecasting or control decisions

Evaluating control effectiveness Assessing levels of insecticide resistance

Pest control Mass trapping Lure-and-kill methods combining semiochemicals Mating disruption Interfering with host finding by pests Oviposition or feeding deterrence Encouraging and attracting natural enemies Enhancing pollination

Although semiochemicals and particularly lepidopteran pheromones have been identified for many crops and pests, relatively few have been commercialized in Africa. Not all semiochemicals afford opportunities for practical application, but several factors constrain the development of commercial products in Africa:

Small market for pest control products, particularly those based on semiochemicals which are often species specific

Regulatory regimes that make commercialization and registration too expensive relative to the market size.

73

Limited capacity amongst national programmes to undertake the sometimes complex chemistry

Limited experience in national programmes of commercializing research findings.

Several semiochemicals are in use in Africa, mainly for pest monitoring including methyl eugenol for fruit flies, and the synthetic sex pheromone of armyworm, Spodoptera exempta. Although the pheromone for Spodoptera exempta has been known for many years, it has never been registered for sale. However, in Kenya the registration of semiochemicals has recently been reviewed, and it is expected that registration of straight chain lepidopterous pheromones for monitoring (as in this case) will become much easier (Musebe et al., 2010), as is the case elsewhere.

6.6 Area wide control

Area Wide Pest Management (AWPM) is an approach that is often linked closely to IPM, although it is defined by scale rather than control methods used (Koul et al., 2008). Features of AWPM programmes are that they:

Are conducted on a large geographical area Are coordinated centrally, rather than simply being the sum of individual farmers’

decisions and actions Involve reduction or eradication of a pest population from a wide area May involve mandatory actions, to ensure effectiveness

AWPM gained recognition through the successful eradication of screwworm, Cochliomyia hominivorax from USA, Mexico and parts of Central America. That programme used the sterile insect technique (SIT), but other control methods are used including pesticides, biological control and pheromones. In Africa AWPM is used for migrant pests such as desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria, but key to all AWPM programmes is good coordination and effective implementation of centrally made decisions. This is often challenging in Africa, where roles and responsibilities are not always clearly defined, and communication and other logistic constraints are encountered. Strategic control (and area wide approach) of African Armyworm Spodoptera exempta in Eastern Africa was attempted (Odiyo, 1990), and in theory could have been effective, but in practice it was not possible to implement effectively enough to be worthwhile. Other examples of AWPM in Africa include SIT and other methods for false coding moth control in South Africa (Vreysen et al., 2010), pheromones for control of cotton pests in Egypt, and fruitfly control in Tunisia. AWPM principles can also be used to reduce the risk of pesticide resistance developing, such as in cotton in Zimbabwe, or of reducing the likelihood of breakdown of pest resistance conferred by genetic modification.

6.7 Sterile insect technique

By mass rearing and release of sterile insects, the mating success of wild insects can be reduced and their population reduced or even eliminated from an area. The approach is more likely to be successful where immigration to the treated area is minimal (such as ecological or actual islands). To be economical, sophisticated rearing, sterilization and distribution systems as required. The approach has recorded some notable successes, and

74

in 1992 Edward Knipling and Raymond Bushland were awarded the World Food Prize for developing SIT.

Because sterilization of insects can be effected with radioactive isotopes, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been much involved with the development of the approach, and has a joint programme with FAO on nuclear techniques in food and agriculture. In Africa there has been more work on the use of the technique to control insects of medical or veterinary importance, such as mosquitoes and tsetse, but there are some notable examples of SIT in crop protection (Table 6.7).

Table 6.7. Recent technical cooperation projects on SIT for agricultural pests in Africa (IAEA, 2010).

Country Project titleMadagascar Developing strategies for integrated management of fruit fly using SITMauritius Feasibility study for the suppression of the Melon Fly (Bactrocera) in selected areas

of MauritiusSeychelles Feasibility of integrating the sterile insect technique to the ongoing area-wide melon

fly eradication programmeSouth Africa Refining an integrated application of SIT against some key Lepidopteran pests of

Southern African agricultural crops

SIT has been developed over a number of years in South Africa, where it is used for control of Codling Moth Cydia pomonella and False Codling Moth Thaumatotibia leucotreta (Vreysen et al., 2010).

Although the use of SIT is relatively limited in African agriculture, capacity in the approach is more widespread than the above table suggests, due to the more widespread programmes on medical and veterinary pests. Thus there is potential for further development of the approach, particularly as a public good.

6.8 Issues for crop protection framework

Despite much effort and enthusiasm, there has been difficulty in achieving widespread adoption of integrated pest management.

Adoption of IPM in subsistence agriculture is always likely to be difficult. Greater success has been achieved in commercial production, and where market forces (cost or market requirements) favour its use.

Host plant resistance can be very effective, and is in keeping with the goals of CAADP. Development of resistant crop varieties requires sustained investment, and new approaches require equipment and facilities that are not available in many countries.

Efficient seed regulatory systems are needed that promote private sector involvement in seed production and marketing, and encourage partnership between the public and private sector. Regional harmonization of seed regulatory policy can assist in making new varieties widely available.

Crops genetically modified to resist pests are grown in only a few countries in Africa, but trials are in progress in many more, so their use will become much more widespread.

75

Although pest-resistant GM crops are generally beneficial for pest management, as with other methods, they need to be deployed wisely. Costs and benefits beyond pest management considerations must be taken into account in making decisions regarding their use.

Biological control can give very high benefit:cost ratios, and merits wider consideration and application for various kinds of pests. Regulatory frameworks sometimes inhibit implementation, particularly for weed biocontrol.

Biopesticides hold promise for many pests, but few have been commercialized to date. Enhanced understanding of commercialisation processes amongst NARS, closer partnerships between public and private sector, and appropriate regulatory frameworks would all be beneficial.

Semiochemicals also provide opportunities for environmentally benign control methods. As well as more biological research, their use could be promoted in the same ways as for biopesticides.

Area wide approaches to pest management can be cost effective because they are implemented over large areas, not just in individual fields. They require a high level of planning, organization and coordination.

76

7. National Crop Protection Systems

A national crop protection “system” is a collection of organizations and institutions rather than a discrete entity, providing a range of different crop protection services and functions. The combination of different organizations into a system is sometimes intentionally planned, while in other cases it develops over a period of time, with organizational needs being addressed as and when they arise. However, the way in which crop protection systems are configured has consequences for service delivery, and countries must consider what is appropriate for their context.

An important part of a national crop protection system’s function is concerned with preventing the introduction and spread of pests, as provided for by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). However, the name of the convention can be misleading, as the term plant protection can be interpreted as including the full range of pest management activities, whereas the scope of the IPPC is actually narrower. Crop protection activities specifically related to implementation of the IPPC are described as “phytosanitary”, as in the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures (although the word phytosanitary literally means plant health, and all aspects of crop protection could be said to concern plant health).

Under the IPPC, countries are required to establish a National Plant Protection Organisation (NPPO). Its responsibilities in relation to the IPPC are specified by the convention, but in practice the NPPO is usually also involved in providing services and functions outside the scope of the convention.

Thus what is meant by a national crop protection organization, a plant health service, or a plant protection organization is not always clear. Some of the functions, such as the regulation of pest control products, have been addressed elsewhere. This chapter therefore refers mainly to activities that fall within the ambit of the IPPC, recognizing that there is overlap with other aspects of crop protection, and that some of the functions discussed are outside the scope of the convention.

We therefore begin by looking at the IPPC and other relevant international and regional agreements before focusing on how national crop protection systems operate.

7.1 International agreements

7.1.1 IPPCThe International Convention on Measures to be taken against Phylloxera vastatrix was the first international phytosanitary agreement, signed in 1878 in the wake of the catastrophic invasion of European vineyards by the American vine louse (now called Viteus vitifolii). It is noteworthy that a new version of the convention was signed only 3 years later in 1881, and another in 1889. The IPPC itself was approved by the FAO conference of 1951 (Ling, 1953). It was revised in 1977, and again in 1997. Table 7.1 shows contracting parties to the convention.

77

Article I.1 states the objective of the IPPC. “With the purpose of securing common and effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products, and to promote appropriate measures for their control, the contracting parties undertake to adopt the legislative, technical and administrative measures specified in this Convention and in supplementary agreements pursuant to Article XVI.” There are 23 articles in total (Box 7.1).

Under article IV of the convention, contracting parties are required (to the best of their ability) to make provision for an official national plant protection organization (NPPO) with specific responsibilities, and this is discussed further in section 7.2 below.

Table 7.1. Signatories to international agreements limiting the introduction and spread of pests of plants. (IPPC=International Plant Protection Convention; PSCA=Phytosanitary Convention for Africa; CBD=Convention on Biological Diversity; CP=Cartagena Protocol; WTO=World Trade Organisation)

Country IPPC PSCA CBD CP WTOAlgeria Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Comoros Congo, Dem. Rep. Congo, Rep. Côte d'Ivoire Djibouti Egypt Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia, The Ghana

78

Box 7.1 Articles of the IPPCI Purpose and responsibilityII Use of termsIII Relationship with other international agreementsIV General provisions relating to the organizational

arrangements for national plant protectionV Phytosanitary certificationVI Regulated pestsVII Requirements in relation to importsVIII International cooperationIX Regional plant protection organizationsX StandardsXI Commission on Phytosanitary MeasuresXII Settlement of disputesXIV Substitution of prior agreementsXV Territorial applicationXVI Supplementary agreementsXVII Ratification and adherenceXVIII Non-contracting partiesXIX LanguagesXX Technical assistanceXXI AmendmentXXII Entry into forceXXIII Denunciation

Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Morocco Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Somalia South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania Togo Tunisia Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe

7.1.2 The Phytosanitary Convention for Africa

The Phytosanitary Convention for Africa was established at Kinshasa, DRC, in 1967, replacing a 1954 convention that had been amended in 1961 (OAU, 1967). Its current status is not clear, and as Table 7.1 shows, many countries are not signatories, and many national crop protection organizations are not aware of it.

However, the Phytosanitary Convention for Africa does provide for the establishment of what is now called the Inter-African Phytosanitary Council of the African Union (IAPSC), which is the Regional Plant Protection Organization (RPPO) for Africa. The role of an RPPO is describe in Article IX of the IPPC, focusing on regional coordination, gathering and disseminating information, and cooperating with the IPPC secretary and the CPM.

The IAPSC is a technical agency of the African Union, its Director reporting to the Commissioner for Rural Economy and Agriculture. Its headquarters are in Yaounde,

79

Cameroon. IAPSC has a limited budget, and achieving its objectives is therefore challenging. Some of the difficulties that face IAPSC include the following:

IAPSC covers more countries than any other RPPO. Many of the NPPOs whose activities IAPSC should coordinate are themselves weak,

so their contribution to its effective operation is limited. No single language can be used for all countries within the region. In the past there

has been a perception amongst some Anglophone countries that IAPSC inclines toward francophone countries.

Involvement of activities in the continent depends on the availability of project funds, and this can result in IAPSC becoming diverted from some of its regional level objectives.

Recent activities of IAPSC include participation in the EU-funded project on Participation of African Nations in Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standard Setting Organizations (PAN-SPSO) and development of a Phytosanitary Capacity Building Strategy for Africa (see Box 7.2) GTZ implemented a project to build IAPSC’s capacity, but the organization is still somewhat overshadowed by its equivalent in the animal health sector, the InterAfrican Bureau of Animal Resources. There is no similar AU technical agency in the third SPS area, food safety, and one suggestion has been that IBAR and IAPSC merge to form a single AU SPS organization, with the food safety component also included.

Recognizing that coordinating such a large constituency is difficult, IAPSC identified three countries where sub-regional plant protection offices or organizations could be established, though the plan has not been formally implemented. However, in 2010 SADC countries decided that they would themselves establish a sub-regional plant protection organization, and the Centre of Phytosanitary Excellence (COPE) recently established in Kenya (also serving as COMESA’s regional reference laboratory) could be seen as contributing to the goal of having subsidiary organizations supporting IAPSC.

7.1.3 The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of the World Trade OrganizationThe Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement is one of around 60 agreements that are part of the treaty establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). It therefore applies to all WTO Members (Table 7.1), and provides binding rules, backed up by a dispute settlement mechanism. The aim of the SPS Agreement is to allow members to adopt measures to protect human, animal and plant life from the risks arising from the entry, establishment or spread of pests, diseases or disease-carrying organisms, but ensuring that such measures are not disguised barriers to trade. Responsibility for international standards is designated in the SPS Agreement, in the case of plant health to the IPPC. Key elements of the agreement are:

International standards as the basis for SPS measures Risk assessment based on scientific principles and evidence Consistency in the application of appropriate levels of protection (non-discrimination)

80

Box 7.2. Components of IAPSC’s draft capacity building strategy1. Awareness, advocacy, resource

mobilization2. Policy, legislation, regulation3. Roles and mandates of regional and

sub-regional organizations4. Human resources5. Infrastructure, facilities, equipment6. Surveillance, emergency response, risk

analysis7. Import and export control systems8. Standard setting and implementation

Acceptance of equivalence of measures Transparency through notification of SPS measures

The capacity of a country not only to follow these rules, but to negotiate with a trade partner how they apply in a particular situation, is thus critical in supporting trade while protecting plant health. The nomination of the IPPC as the body responsible for international standards in plant health has given renewed significance to the IPPC, even though it predated the WTO by several decades.

SPS issues at the WTO are dealt with by the SPS Committee, in which members participate. Often a country’s representative in Geneva is not technically acquainted with phytosanitary issues, so needs to be well briefed and supported by the NPPO, but the level of representation and support is very variable amongst African countries.

7.1.4 Convention on Biological DiversityThe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was established at the 1992 Rio Conference, and came into force in 1993. Parties to the CBD commit to conserve biological diversity, ensure the sustainable use of biological resources, and promote the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. The CBD thus has relevance to various aspects of crop protection including biological control, development of pest resistant varieties and genetically modified crops (under the CBD’s Cartagena Protocol). The CBD is also particularly relevant to phytosanitary systems because in Article 8(h), parties commit to prevent the introduction of, control, or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystem, habitat or species.

There is thus overlap between what CBD calls an invasive alien species, and what IPPC calls a quarantine pest (Box 7.3). Quarantine pests cover some but not all of what are considered as invasive alien species, and this overlap has led to some confusion. For most practical purposes, most quarantine pests are invasive alien species, while those invasive alien species which are directly or indirectly injurious to plants are quarantine pests (Lopian, 2005).

Decision VI/23 of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) to the CBD laid out ‘guiding principles for the prevention, introduction and mitigation of impacts of alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats and species’ (CBD, 2002). Although one member registered a formal objection during the decision’s adoption process, the principles provide a useful set of guidelines (Box 7.4). Lopian (2005) analyses how these principles relate to the IPPC and its standards.

81

Box. 7.3 Quarantine pests & invasive alien species

Quarantine pest: A pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered but not widely distributed and being officially controlled (FAO, 1997).

Alien species: A species, subspecies or low taxon, introduced outside its natural past or present distribution; includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagules of such species that might survive and reproduce (CBD, 2002).

Invasive alien species: An alien species whose introduction and/or spread threaten biological diversity (CBD, 2002).

At national level, therefore, there should be close collaboration between the organization responsible for implementing the IPPC (the NPPO), and the one responsible for implementing the CBD. The CBD focal point is often within the Ministry of Environment, and in many countries there is scope for increased cooperation.

The IPPC and CBD have established a joint work programme, but this constructive interaction is not always reflected at the national level. National reports to the CBD indicate that although work is being undertaken to implement Article 8(h) in Africa, in many countries it is the NPPO and phytosanitary work where most progress is being made. A recent GEF/UNEP project in Ghana, Ethiopia, Uganda and Zambia entitled “Removing barriers to invasive plant management in Africa” aimed to support implementation of Article 8(h) through policy, information and awareness, implementation and capacity building activities, including building closer links between organizations responsible for agriculture and environment.

7.1.5 Regional SPS FrameworksRecognising the importance of SPS issues in supporting trade, many Regional Economic Communities (RECs) have developed or are developing regional SPS policy frameworks, which include phytosanitary considerations (Table 7.2).

A recent review of these regional SPS frameworks (Magalhães, 2010) made a number of observations.

Several of the frameworks are based on the WTO SPS Agreement, sometimes modifying the original text or using it out of context. This risks overlapping with the SPS Agreement (so not adding value), or contradicting it.

Multiplication of transparency requirements risks overburdening countries who already do not meet the reporting requirements of the WTO SPS Agreement or the IPPC.

Most countries are members of more than one REC, so there is a risk of conflict between different frameworks if they are not effectively harmonized.

Where regional frameworks go beyond general principles, there is danger of conflict with international standards. It is suggested that RECs could more beneficially use scarce resources to support participation in international setting than in developing regional standards.

Many RECs have limited capacity in SPS matters, and their role in SPS matters is not always clearly articulated. Regional coordination and harmonization of SPS issues is the most prominent role.

Regional coordination and harmonization requires good national coordination, which is often limited, both between different public sector entities and between the public and private sector.

82

Box 7.4. Guiding principles for the implementation of CBD Article 8(h)A. General1: Precautionary approach2: Three-stage hierarchical approach3: Ecosystem approach4: The role of States5: Research and monitoring6: Education and public awarenessB. Prevention7: Border control and quarantine measures8: Exchange of information9: Cooperation, including capacity-buildingC. Introduction of species10: Intentional introduction11: Unintentional introductionsD. Mitigation of impacts12: Mitigation of impacts13: Eradication14: Containment15: Control

Table 7.2 Membership of RECs and their international observer status (Magalhães, 2010). (CEMAC, comprising Cameroon, Chad, Central African Republic, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, was not in the original table).

Regional Economic Community

Countries WTO SPS

IPPC

CEN-SAD Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Libya, Kenya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia

Yes No*

COMESA Angola, Burundi, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe

No No

EAC Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda No No

ECCAS Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Congo DR, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Sao Tome and Principe

No No

ECOWAS Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo

Yes Yes

IGAD Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda No No

SADC Angola, Botswana, Congo DR, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Yes Yes

WAEMU Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo

Yes ?

*Request pending

The review (Magalhães, 2010) recommended that RECs should:1. Ensure that regional policy frameworks focus on the most effective use of resources

to enhance member states’ benefits2. Participate actively in the ISSOs and WTO SPS Committee, and develop the

capacity for African countries to effectively participate3. Assist with the strengthening and training of national coordination bodies4. Increase awareness of SPS matters at the political and general public levels5. Focus capacity building efforts on demand-driven activities identified through

capacity evaluations, and involve all relevant stakeholders6. Avoid multiplication of transparency requirements and use existing tools.

83

A study by Cassidy (2010) concluded that the SADC SPS Annex has yet to have any significant effect on SPS sensitive trade. COMESA, SADC and EAC now have a tripartite trade agreement, which includes an Annex on SPS Measures under Article 29 (3) (Anon, 2009). The general provisions, and Part Three on Plant Health, are in Annex 2 of this document. Given recent discussions on a continental free trade area, there is the possibility that the tripartite SPS annex may eventually form the basis of an Africa-wide document.

7.2 Organization of National Crop Protection

7.2.1 Organizations

Table 7.3 shows the organization of crop protection systems in a number of countries. In several countries all the functions fall within a single government department. In some countries most activities are performed by one department, but with one or two being the responsibility of other departments. In a few countries, the functions are divided between a number of organizations; Kenya for example has a separate semi-autonomous agency for phytosanitary inspections and related functions (KEPHIS), and another for registering pesticides and other pest control products (PCPB). Every arrangement has advantages and disadvantages; where the functions are all within a single department there is the potential for better coordination, while having separate agencies perform particular functions allows them to specialize and exercise independence.

84

Table 7.3 Organisations undertaking crop protection activities in 15 countries.

Activity Botswana Burundi Comores Congo EritreaPhytosanitary inspection of imports and exports

Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Crop Production, Division of Plant Protection

Département de la Protection des Végétaux (DPV)

INRAPE( institut national de recherche pour l’agriculture)

Direction de la production agricole et de la protection des vegetaux (DPAPV)

Regulatory Services Department, Ministry of Agriculture

Controlling outbreaks of migrant pests (eg locusts)

Division of Plant Protection

Département de la Protection des Végétaux

DPAPV Agricultural Extension Department, Ministry of Agriculture

Registration and regulation of pesticides and other pest control products

Division of Plant Protection (Registrar of Agrochemicals)

Département de la Protection des Végétaux (pour les produits phytosanitaires)

CAPAC (centrale d’achat des produits agricoles des Comores)

DPAPV Regulatory Services Department, Ministry of Agriculture

Giving permits for import of biocontrol agents

Division of Plant Protection

Département de la Protection des Végétaux

INRAPE DPAPV Regulatory Services Department, Ministry of Agriculture

Responding to new pests

Division of Plant Protection

Département de la Protection des Végétaux et l’Institut de Recherche

INRAPE DPAPV Regulatory Services Department, Ministry of Agriculture

Pest surveillance Division of Plant Protection

Département de la Protection des Végétaux

INRAPE DPAPV Regulatory Services Department and Agricultural Extension Department, Ministry of Agriculture

Giving crop protection advice to farmers

Division of Plant Protection

Département de la Protection des Végétaux

INRAPE DPAPV Agricultural Extension Department, Ministry of Agriculture

Activity Ethiopia Kenya Lesotho Madagascar MalawiPhytosanitary inspection of imports and exports

Ministry of Agriculture Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services (KEPHIS)

Ministry of Agriculture – Department of Agricultural Research

Service de la Quarantaine et de l’Inspection Frontalière (Direction de la Protection des Végétaux)

Department of Agricultural Research Services (with specialized issuance by Forestry Research Institute of Malawi – for Forestry and Forestry products and Tea Research Foundation – for Tea and coffee)

85

Controlling outbreaks of migrant pests (eg locusts)

Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture – Crop protection division

Ministry of Agriculture – Departments of Crops and Research

Centre National Antacridien (CNA) et Service de la Surveillance Phytosanitaire (Direction de la Protection des Végétaux pour la lutte contre les criquets migrateurs

Department of Crop Development

Registration and regulation of pesticides and other pest control products

Ministry of Agriculture Pest Control Products Board (PCPB)

No office has been given this mandate. At the moment there is no pesticide registration in Lesotho, therefore very difficult to regulate

Service de la Phytopharmacie (Direction de la Protection des Végétaux) et Comité Technique d’Homologation des Pesticides

Pesticide Control Board which in principle is under Research Department

Giving permits for import of biocontrol agents

Ministry of Agriculture KEPHIS once approval has been given by the standing technical committee on imports and exports

Department of Agricultural Research

Service de la Quarantaine et de l’Inspection Frontalière (Direction de la Protection des Végétaux) et le Centre National de la Recherche Appliquée aux Développement Rural (CenRADéRu)

Department of Agricultural Research Services

Responding to new pests Ministry of Agriculture No specific body responsible

Department of Crops and Research

Service de la Surveillance Phytosanitaire (Direction de la Protection des Végétaux et Cenraderu

Department of Agricultural Research Services

Pest surveillance Ministry of Agriculture and Bureaus of Agriculture of Regional State governments

KEPHIS/ KARI/ MOA Department of Crops and Research

Service de la Surveillance Phytosanitaire (Direction de la Protection des Végétaux)

Department of Agricultural Research Services and to some extent Department of Crop Development

Giving crop protection advice to farmers

Ministry of Agriculture and Bureaus of Agriculture of Regional State Governments are mandated for the activity. However, other development initiatives on limited geographical locations follow the extension system

Ministry of Agriculture Department of Crops Services

Service de la Surveillance Phytosanitaire,Service de la Phytopharmacie, Service de la Quarantaine et de l’Inspection Frontalière (Direction de la Protection des Végétaux) et les services régionaux en charge de l’Agriculture et de la

Department of Crop Development, Department of Extension Services and DARS

86

designed by the MoA. Protection des Végétaux

87

Activity South Africa Sao Tome et Principe Sierra Leone Uganda ZambiaPhytosanitary inspection of imports and exports

Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries (DAFF)

CIAT/STP (Centre de Recherche Agronomique)

Crop Protection Services, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security (MAFFS)

Crop protection Department MAAIF

PQPS (NPPO)

Controlling outbreaks of migrant pests (eg locusts)

DAFF & provincial Departments of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries

CIAT/STP (Centre de Recherche Agronomique)

Crop Protection Services, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security

Crop Protection department /MAAIF

Ministry of Agriculture coordinates

Registration and regulation of pesticides and other pest control products

DAFF CIAT/STP (Centre de Recherche Agronomique)

Crop Protection Services, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security / Sierra Leone Standards Bureau, Environmental Protection Agency

Crop protection department MAAIF

ECZ (Environmental Council of Zambia)

Giving permits for import of biocontrol agents

DAFF CIAT/STP (Centre de Recherche Agronomique)

Crop Protection Services, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security

Crop Protection department MAAIF

PQPS

Responding to new pests DAFF CIAT/STP (Centre de Recherche Agronomique)

Crop Protection Services, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security

National Research Organisation /Crop protection department

PQPS

Pest surveillance DAFF CIAT/STP (Centre de Recherche Agronomique)

Crop Protection Services, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Sierra Leone Agricultural Research Institute (SLARI)

Crop Protection department, Crop science department of universities, National agricultural Research Organisation

PQPS

Giving crop protection advice to farmers

DAFF provincial Departments of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries

CIAT/STP (Centre de Recherche Agronomique) DAER (Direction de l’Agriculture)

Crop Protection Services, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security, IITA, SLARI,

Local government production departments, National agricultural advisory services (NAADS), NGOs, Civil society organisations

PPQD (Plant Protection and Quarantine Division)

88

7.2.2 IPPC requirementsUnder the IPPC, contracting parties are required to establish an official NPPO (FAO, 1997). Article IV goes on to describe the functions that an NPPO should perform. Annex 3 of this document gives the full text of Article IV, but the functions can be summarized as follows:

Issuing phytosanitary certificates Surveillance of growing plants (cultivated and wild) and plant products for pests Inspection of consignments Treatment of consignments to meet phytosanitary requirements Protecting areas threatened by establishment of a pest Establishing and maintaining pest free areas and pest free places of production Conducting pest risk analyses Ensuring phytosanitary security of consignments after certification Training staff Disseminating information (in the country) on prevention and control of regulated

pests Research Issuance of phytosanitary regulations Communicating information on the NPPO and its work to the IPPC Secretary Other functions required to implement the IPPC

Different countries organize and administer their phytosanitary systems in different ways. Table 7.4 summarises the different types of arrangements for the designated NPPO. The commonest arrangement is for the role of the NPPO to be undertaken by a department within a Ministry of Agriculture. In two countries, the NPPO is an independent agency.

Table 7.4 Types of organization designated as National Plant Protection Organisations.

National Plant Protection Organisation No. countriesPlant protection (or similar) department within Ministry of Agriculture 30Regulatory department within Ministry of Agriculture 4Another (or unspecified) department within a Ministry 4Independent agency (parastatal) 2Agricultural research department/organization 5

The functions performed by NPPOs and other national crop protection organizations are discussed further below.

7.2.3 Policy, legislation, administration

An important administrative function of the NPPO is communication of information, and the IPPC text identifies several types of information that countries are required to report to other contracting parties, to the IPPC Secretariat and/or to RPPOs:

IPPC Official Contact Points (Article VIII.2) Official pest report (Article VIII.1a) Description of the NPPO (Article IV.4) Legislation (Article VII.2b)

89

Entry points (Article VII.2d) List of regulated pests (Article VII.2i) Emergency actions (Article VII.6)

The IPPC website has been designed to allow this information to be posted by contracting parties. It is a well designed site, and the IPPC secretariat has conducted many training courses so that countries are able to upload their information, and so meet their reporting obligations. However, many countries do not provide all or any of this information (Table 7.5)

Table 7.5. Provision of information by NPPOs to the IPPC (from www.ippc.int). Data show the number of pages of information.

Basic Reporting Event-Driven

Other

Country

Des

crip

tion

of th

e N

PPO

Entr

y po

ints

List

of r

egul

ated

pes

ts

Phyt

osan

itary

rest

rictio

ns

Non

com

plia

nce

Emer

genc

y ac

tions

Pest

repo

rt

Org

aniz

atio

nal (

NPP

O in

fo)

PRA

(rat

iona

le)

Pest

sta

tus

Proj

ects

Publ

icat

ions

TOTA

L

Algeria                   1   1Angola     1               1   2Benin   1   1             1   3Botswana       2     1       2   5Burkina Faso 2 1   6                 9Burundi 1 1 1 1             1   5Côte d'Ivoire 3                   1   4Cameroon 1 2   7     1       1   1

2Cape Verde                          Central African Republic 1                   1   2Chad 1 1                 1   3Comoros 1           1           2Congo             1           1Congo, Democratic Republic

  1                     1

Djibouti                          Egypt                          Equatorial Guinea                          Eritrea   1   1       1     5   8Ethiopia 1     1       1     1   4Gabon                     2   2Gambia                     1   1Ghana                          Guinea 1 1   1             1   4Guinea-Bissau                          

90

Kenya 1 1     1           3   6Lesotho 1 1   1                 3Liberia                          Libyan Arab Jamahiriya                     1   1Madagascar   1 1 3             1   6Malawi   1                 1   2Mali 1 1 1 1   1         1   6Mauritania 1 1 1 8             2   1

3Mauritius 1 1 1 4 1 1   1     2   1

2Morocco                          Mozambique   1 1 1     1       1   5Namibia               1     1   2Niger 1 1   2       1         5Nigeria 1 1   1                 3Rwanda                          Saint Helena                          Sao Tome and Principe                          Senegal 1     1     2           4Seychelles     1 1             2   4Sierra Leone                     1   1Somalia                          South Africa 1     4     7           1

2Sudan                     3   3Swaziland                     1   1Tanzania, United Republic   1   2             1   4Togo                          Tunisia                          Uganda                     2   2Zambia 2 1   1             2   6Zimbabwe 1 1                     2

While almost all countries have provided an official contact point, less than half the countries in Africa have reported the other items. Only 7 countries have registered any official pest reports, despite the that some species such as fruit fly Bactrocera invadens are known to have spread to many countries in recent years. Twenty countries have provided some description of their NPPO, although in a number of cases only an organogram is provided.

As well as communication requirements under the IPPC, NPPOs should be in communication with the RPPO (the IPPC allows for some national communication to be via the RPPO). Communication with other national stakeholders is also critical, particularly the private sector, who need phytosanitary services but sometimes also view them as a hindrance. Information technology affords ever increasing communication opportunities, but infrastructure in many countries is still not adequate to allow full utilization of these possibilities, though the situation overall continues to improve. Most NPPOs in Africa, for example do not have dedicated websites. Behind effective communication there must be good data management systems, IT again providing opportunities not yet capitalized on in

91

many countries. The Pest Information Management System (PIMS) developed in East Africa with US funding is an effort to improve information management and availability using a web-based database (http://www.eapic.org/).

Phytosanitary services act within the provisions of appropriate legislation and provide advice on plant protection policy and legislation. Most countries in Africa have some form of primary legislation concerning plant protection, but in some cases it is in need of updating. Legislation pre-dating the WTO SPS Agreement (1999), for example, is likely to need updating, although there are various reasons why legislation should be reviewed regularly.

A general feeling amongst phytosanitary professionals in Africa is that plant protection legislation does not receive the attention it deserves, though the reasons for this are debatable. However, a result of this is that updating the legislation may take a long time. Subsidiary or secondary legislation takes the form of regulations, ministerial orders or other statutory instruments, and usually concerns more detailed issues, as well as requiring a less lengthy legal process. Thus in some cases old primary legislation is brought up to date by sets of subsidiary legislation rather than rewriting the primary act.

One aspect of the way in which phytosanitary systems are organized and managed is the extent to which capacity outside the official NPPO is utilized. In all countries there is at least some phytosanitary capacity in other organizations, such as research institutes, universities, or private research and development, but this is often not utilized as effectively as it could be. One reason for this is the lack of capacity in the NPPO itself to forge effective linkages.

The IPPC concept paper on national phytosanitary capacity also points out that regional partners can contribute to national capacity. Some developed country phytosanitary services fulfill some of their functions by utilizing organizations in other countries, usually within the same RPPO, something that is rarely encountered in Africa.

7.2.4 Scientific and technical functions

As noted above in reference to the IPPC, there are several scientific functions that a national phytosanitary system needs to be able to perform, which can be summarized as follows:

Identification and diagnostics of pests, as part of inspection and surveillance operations

Pest risk analysis Surveillance and related activities (such as establishment of pest free areas or places

or production) Inspection and certification of imports and exports Emergency preparedness, planning and response

Diagnostic functions are important in various contexts where knowing the identity and symptoms of an organism can be critical in determining what action is appropriate. Identification and diagnostic techniques now include molecular and biochemical methods (Table 7.6), which have both advantages and disadvantages. For some species modern techniques may save time and money, but as with older methods, there is still a need for expertise, equipment and materials. In many countries in Africa there is a shortage of diagnostic capacity, and the new techniques may simply exaggerate rather than mitigate

92

this. However, even in Europe diagnostic capacity is limited, resulting in some countries relying on neighbours for certain types of diagnosis (Smith et al., 2008).

Various initiatives have therefore aimed at promoting cooperation and collaboration in diagnostics. BioNET International (http://www.bionet-intl.org) is a global network with locally operated networks (see Table 7.7). The Global Taxonomy Initiative (GTI), under the auspices of the CBD, also seeks to promote systematics, particularly in support of characterizing and conserving biodiversity. Signatories to the CBD were requested to provide information on their implementation of the GTI work programme, including capacity development, but only 8 countries in Africa submitted reports. Those that did indicated some activity in assessing developing diagnostic capacity, but with much still needed to be done. The international plant diagnostic network (IPDN) is a US-supported initiative to promote regional collaboration in plant diseases diagnostics, and has local hubs in West and East Africa .

Until recently there were no ISPMs on diagnostics. However, ISPM27 on Diagnostic Protocols for Regulated pests was adopted in 2006 (FAO, 2006c), and now over 30 specific diagnostics for individual pests are at various stages of development. CPM5 adopted a protocol for Thrips palmi. The process of developing and adopting standards is based on consensus, and all countries have opportunities to make comments on draft standards. There is also a representative of Africa on the standards committee, so in principle standards should be developed that take into account contracting parties’ ability to implement them. However, it is still likely that many countries in Africa will not have the capacity to implement the diagnostic protocols in full.

93

Table 7.6. Summary of common detection, diagnostic and indexing techniques for plant pests (Ebbels, 2003).

Methods Useful for Advantage and disadvantagesVisual inspection

Monitoring traded material, field checks and preliminary investigations of most types

Quick, but will not detect latent infections and often requires laboratory confirmation or further investigation

Light microscopy

Small/few samples; invertebrates, fungi, bacteria

Good for classical morphological methods of diagnosis; unsuitable for large numbers of samples, or for viruses, viroids or phytoplasmas.

Electron microscopy (transmission)

Small/few samples; viruses, phytoplasmas

Rapid results for virus diagnosis; unsuitable for large or numerous samples

Electron microscopy (scanning)

Small/few samples; checking morphological details of microorganisms, especially invertebrates and fungi

Unsuitable for large or numerous samples; lengthy preparation.

Serological slide tests and kits

Tests for specific pests, especially in the field and as back-up to visual observation.

Quick and simple; less sensitive than ELISA; sometimes unreliable or difficult to use by inexperience personnel.

ELISA Large/numerous samples; all antigenic pests, especially viruses, bacteria, some fungi

Good sensitivity, depending on antiserum used; rapid and accurate results; can be automated and standardized; suitable for less sophisticated laboratories.

cDNA probes Tests for specific pests, especially viroids, phytoplasmas, non-antigenic pests.

Very specific, according to design of probe, lengthy and sophisticated preparation needed; unsuitable for less sophisticated laboratories

PCR Tests for specific pests present in low concentration

Extremely sensitive and specific; can be partly automated for routine throughput of many tests; unsuitable for less sophisticated laboratories. Extraction of nucleic acid and electrophoresis are laborious.

Fluorogenic 5-nuclease assay

Numerous samples; tests for specific pests present in low concentration

Extremely sensitive and specific; can give quantitative results; can be automated; less vulnerable to contamination than basic PCR; nucleic acid extraction is laborious. At present is expensive.

RFLP Tests for specific pests and investigative tests

Can detect small genetic differences within a species; laborious, slow and unsuitable for large/numerous samples.

Test plants Confirmatory or investigative tests; virus tests in simple laboratories

Can indicate presence of unknown viruses; cheap but slow and sometimes not specific.

Nutrition profiles

Identification of bacteria (classical method)

Reflects classical bacteriological taxonomy; slow to achieve conclusive results.

Fatty acid and protein profiles

Identification of bacteria and certain invertebrates

Rapid results; can be semi-automated for routine throughput of many tests.

cDNA, complementary DNAELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assayPCR, polymerase chain reactionRFLP, restriction fragment length polymorphism.

94

Table 7.7 Locally owned and operated partnerships (LOOPS) of BioNET International in Africa (www.

LOOP Countries Coordinating OrganisationWAFRINETThe West African partnership for taxonomy

Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo.

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)

NAFRINETThe North African partnership for taxonomy

Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia. Libya and Mauritania subject to endorsement.

Unité des Plantes Aromatiques et Médicinales, Centre de Biotechnologie, Tunisia

EAFRINETThe East African partnership for taxonomy

Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Zanzibar. Ethiopia subject to endorsement.

National Museums of Kenya

SAFRINETThe Southern African partnership for taxonomy

Angola, Botswana, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Madagascar.

SADC Food Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate (FANR)/ARC South Africa

Pest risk analysis (PRA) is a scientific approach to assessing the likelihood of a pest being introduced to an area and the consequences if it is. It provides the basis on which decisions regarding phytosanitary measures are made by a country, to reduce the risk to an acceptable level without the measure being an unjustifiable hindrance to trade. Thus PRA is explicitly referred to in the WTO SPS Agreement.

The overall goal of PRA is to reduce the risk of a new pest being introduced to an area or country, and is thus undertaken by the country. PRA may be initiated when a request is made to import a particular commodity, at which point the importing country may request the exporting country for information. In practice, sometimes the request for information amounts to a request for the exporting country to undertake a draft PRA on behalf of the importer, as a way of expediting the process. Thus in developing countries PRA has come to be associated with securing market access, when it is intended to be about the related but distinct goal of preventing the introduction of pests.

A considerable amount of training on PRA has been undertaken in Africa, in several cases in association with market access requests. Thus although additional technical knowledge of PRA is desirable, a greater need is to make PRA a routine operation of the NPPO in order to protect the country’s plant resources. Capacity building of organizational and institutional aspects of PRA is thus probably more important than training for individuals. The Centre of Phytosanitary Excellence (COPE), recently established with its secretariat in Kenya, includes a PRA network coordinated from Zambia, which aims to share expertise and work.

Undertaking PRA is the responsibility of the NPPO, but this does not mean the NPPO itself must necessarily do all the work. In many countries in Africa there is relevant expertise in Universities, but the mechanisms to mobilize this capacity are often weak. In addition

95

University staff are not always aware of how their knowledge could contribute to the work of the NPPO.

In developed countries a PRA can become a major piece of work, but this does not always have to be the case. A simple PRA is much better than none, provided it is documented and the reasoning can be scientifically justified. Developed countries include public hearings in the PRA process, and also publish the analysis, but this rarely occurs in Africa.

Surveillance is another important function of a national phytosanitary system (described in ISPM 6), which enables the NPPO to be aware of the occurrence and distribution of pests in the country. Surveillance can be of various forms:

General vigilance. Information on the occurrence of pests may come from a variety of sources, some of which may be less reliable than others.

Spot surveys. A survey in a specific area my be required to follow up on a pest report General surveys. Monitoring and survey over a wide area may be undertaken if there

is a reason to believe a pest incursion has occurred or might occur. Establishing pest free areas. Although a pest may be present in a country, pest free

areas or areas of low pest prevalence can be established, from which a commodity can be exported. This requires surveys to demonstrate the absence or prevalence of the pest, along with actions for its suppression or exclusion.

Surveillance in many countries in Africa is infrequent, and often takes the form of spot surveys in response to a field report. However, the story of Bactrocera invadens shows that surveillance is one of the areas in which many countries lack capacity. Effective surveillance systems cannot be operated entirely by the NPPO, so mechanisms for enlisting the involvement of other stakeholders are required, and often these are missing.

Inspection and certification is another function of phytosanitary systems. Under the IPPC, shipments that could represent a plant health hazard should be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate (Box 7.5), which states that the appropriate inspection has been undertaken. Exporting country NPPOs therefore need to know the requirements of the importing country, and some countries make these available online. For important trading partners, a good relationship between the NPPOs can support the flow of information between the trade partners.

NPPOs are also involved in the inspection and certification for private standards, industry led standards that are required by markets rather than by the WTO SPS Agreement. Private standards are a topic of ongoing debate in the WTO SPS committee, as there are a number of concerns about them, particularly in comparison to internationally agreed SPS standards. Private standards:

Are not always based on science Deviate from international standards Are of many types and are not harmonized

96

Box 7.5 Phytosanitary certificate“This is to certify that the plants, plant products or other regulated articles described herein have been inspected and/or tested according to appropriate official procedures and are considered to be free from the quarantine pests specified by the importing contracting party and to conform with the current phytosanitary requirements of the importing contracting party, including those for regulated non-quarantine pests.” (FAO, 1997)

Are costly to comply with Are established without transparency or consultation Prescribe measures rather than outcomes (so ignore the principle of equivalence) Pose large burdens on smaller producers and exporters in developing countries.

The most widespread private standard is GlobalGAP (formerly EurepGap), established by European retailers of agricultural produce. Although private standards are outside international agreements, they are market driven so exporting countries usually endeavour to meet the requirements they contain, which extend to social and environmental issues as well as biosecurity and food safety.

Inspection of imports is undertaken to ensure they comply with phytosanitary requirements. Inspections often take place at major ports of entry, which countries are required to publish. Even in well resourced NPPOs, only a fraction of incoming consignments can be inspected, so prioritizing which shipments to inspect is necessary. This can be based on an analysis of risks, but in practice the experience and expertise of inspectors is also important. Appropriate sampling systems help to make the inspection scientifically valid. Cooperation with the customs department can also improve the efficiency of border inspections, especially where resources are limited. However, much informal trade not through official border points occurs, so there are many possibilities for pests to spread.

Preparedness for and response to pest incursions and outbreaks is also the responsibility of national plant protection authorities. There are three types of pest outbreaks or incursions.

Upsurges of existing pests Influxes of migrant outbreak pests Appearance of new pests

Existing pests may or may not be of phytosanitary significance in relation to trade, although often all types of pests are dealt with by the same department within a Ministry of Agriculture. Upsurges of existing pests may cause serious crop loss and merit rapid action, but would not necessarily be of concern in relation to international obligations.

In Africa there are a number of serious migrant pests (Table 7.7). Generally they are of little significance in relation to trade, but are very significant in relation to food security. Because the pests move from one country to another, their control is an international public good, so regional and international organizations have been established to organize and implement control operations. FAO’s Emergency Prevention Systems covers the three SPS areas, and EMPRES Plant Protection focuses particularly on the major migrant pests. It includes a desert locust information system that receives and processes real time information from the field, so relies on active national programmes. Desert locust plagues can last several years, and in the past hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent controlling them, often using pesticides with harmful side effects. Biopesticides are now available which are gaining acceptance, though they are not always available when large amounts are required quickly. Donor organizations are increasingly loathe to fund wide scale use of pesticides, so the trend to greater use of biopesticides should continue. Some authors (for example Hardeweg, (2001)) have argued that international campaigns against desert locust are not cost effective, but alternative approaches would probably be politically unacceptable, even if they were cheaper.

97

The appearance of a new pest in a country is also cause of concern, even if initially it may not cause much damage. Some pests are known to be serious from other countries. For example Parthenium hysterophorus, the weed currently spreading through East Africa, is known from other continents to be very damaging to agriculture, biodiversity and human health, so the need for prompt action is clear. Other new pests, such as the cypress aphid Cinara cupressivora that appeared in Malawi in the 1980s (Day et al., 2003), was not known as a pest elsewhere - indeed its origin was not even known. But its populations rapidly built up, damaging planted and indigenous trees, and it spread to many countries in a space of a few years. Thus for new pests, preparedness and response must cover both known and unknown pests.

Table 7.8 Principal migratory pests (adapted from Ebbels (2003))

Species Distribution in AfricaMigratory locust, Locusta migratoria with several subspecies

Northern and sub-Saharan Africa, Madagascar

Desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria West Africa eastwards to south-west AsiaRed locust, Nomadacris septemfasciata Central and southern AfricaBrown locust, Locustana pardalina Central and southern AfricaSenegalese grasshopper, Oedaleus senegalensis

West Africa to south-west Asia

Variegated grasshopper, Zonocerus variegatus West, Central and East AfricaAfrican armyworm, Spodoptera exempta West, Eastern and Southern AfricaRed-billed weaver, Quelea quelea Most of sub-Saharan Africa except rain forest and

southern tip.

For all these types of outbreak or incursion, preparedness and rapid response is beneficial. For a new pest, the most cost effective approach is to eradicate it, before it becomes widespread, but migrant pests equally require very prompt action. Thus proper planning is required, including the identification and allocation of resources, determination of roles and responsibilities, and an action plan for what happens when an incursion occurs.

An emergency response typically contains four phases (Plant Health Australia, 2008), each of which must be included in the plan, with details of who has what responsibilities, who makes decisions, and what resources will be required.

1. Investigation phase. An emergency response normally starts when an incursion is detected. This must be checked and identification confirmed, requiring diagnostic capacity.

2. Alert phase. Following confirmation of the identification, the outbreak is declared, which triggers pre-defined meetings/committees to determine whether eradication is possible, and if so how it will be attempted, and if not, what other action should be taken.

3. Operational phase. The eradication or other actions are implemented, with regular progress reports to key agencies, and reviews to assess any adjustments necessary.

4. Stand down phase. Following the response, recovery and rehabilitation actions may be necessary. Full reports of the response are provided for lesson learning.

Many countries in Africa lack good preparedness and rapid response plans. Countries that are most affected by locust plagues have been assisted to prepare specific plans for locusts.

98

But for new and unknown pests, few countries are in a position to respond rapidly and effectively, though where major private sector interests are involved, this has driven the planning process. An example of a new pest to which a rapid response was required is the oriental fruitfly, Bactrocera invadens. The story of the introduction and spread of this species provides many lessons on how such a problem should be addressed, but it does clearly show that the capacity for contingency planning, preparedness, early detection and rapid response is inadequate in many countries. As a result the insect has spread rapidly, and caused significant losses to both food production and to trade (Box 7.6).

7.3 Crop protection capacity and capacity development

99

Box 7.6. The invasion of Bactrocera invadens.Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) is a fruitfly originating in Asia, first recorded in Africa in Kenya in 2003. Since then it has spread to at least 27 countries, attacking at least 46 host plants including many important food and cash crops. Hosts include mango, citrus, tomato, cashew nut, guava and pumpkin. Although the insect is still spreading, the story of B. invadens already provides many lessons including:

The huge impact of an exotic pest incursion, especially on trade. The shortage of capacity in many countries to cope with such a problem, resulting in even more

serious economic losses. The need for regional coordination and action. The benefits of a strong private sector working in partnership with the National Plant Protection

Organization.Apart from the direct losses to production, B.invadens has had a major impact on trade.

South Africa closed its borders to Nambia resulting in a reported loss of over $500,000 in exports from the Etunda Irrigation Scheme.

Chiquita’s new banana project in Nampula province of Mozambique cannot export to South Africa. All mango exports to South Africa from Monica province in Mozambique were suspended in 2008. All fruit exports from Kenya to South Africa were halted.

Capacity has been found wanting in diagnostics, surveillance, border control, and reporting. Botswana incorrectly informed South Africa that it had discovered B.cucumis, another fruitfly of

quarantine importance. When South Africa requested confirmation, Botswana replied that it was actually B.cucurbitae, another quarantine pest. A trapping programme has failed to find either species, and it is now accepted that the declarations on B.cucumis and B.cucurbitae were in error.

In early 2010 bananas from Nampula were found in Harare’s market, apparently without correct procedures having been followed. Zimbabwe therefore closed its border to all fruits from Mozambique.

No surveillance has been undertaken in Angola or Malawi, despite both countries being at risk and US listing Angola as a country where B.invadens is present.

Only Botswana, Mozambique, Senegal and South Africa have reported B.invadens to IPPC.Regional support and coordination has been provided by various organizations:

USDA is providing technical support to surveillance programmes in a number of countries, including taxonomic expertise.

ICIPE has provided training in fruitfly identification and is working on biological control and phytosanitary treatments.

STDF has supported planning activities in West Africa.The most effective response to B.invadens has been in South Africa.

The Department of Plant Health has good communication with all stakeholders in the citrus industry. The Southern African Citrus Growers Association (CGA) and its research arm Citrus Research

International (CRI) have been very active in responding to the B.invadens threat. CGA has established wide scale surveillance trapping including in neighbouring countries. CRI has sponsored research on cold sterilization protocols. CRI has participated in trials in West Africa of the male annihilation technique CRI has taken the lead in drawing up an emergency action plan

Summarised from Cassidy (2010b)

The IPPC and SPS Agreement both recognize that many developing countries lack capacity to undertake their responsibilities and obligations, so the texts provide for technical assistance and capacity development. An external review of the IPPC recommended that phytosanitary capacity building was not core business for the IPPC, but the CPM decided to retain a strong capacity building programme, and has recently devised a capacity building strategy. The strategy is based on a brief concept paper that defines national phytosanitary capacity as “The ability of individuals, organizations and systems of a country to perform functions effectively and sustainably in order to protect plants and plant products from pests and to facilitate trade, in accordance with the IPPC” (FAO, 2010e). Table 7.8 shows the outcomes and outputs of the strategy, though further work on the operational plan for implementing the strategy has taken place during 2010.

Table 7.9 The IPPC’s phytosanitary capacity building strategy (FAO, 2010e).

Outcome/strategy area OutputsEnhanced national phytosanitary system planning, management and leadership

1. Fit-for-purpose tools and processes for phytosanitary systems (PS) planning2. Critical competencies available in the national phytosanitary system to

undertake national planning, management and provide leadership to the NPPO.

3. Best practice for national phytosanitary action plans developedCapacity of contracting parties to participate in IPPC standard setting improved.

1. Enhanced regional coordination of inputs into the standard setting process2. Enhanced involvement of stakeholders at national level3. Quality of contracting parties participation in standard setting activities

improvedContracting parties (and non-contracting parties) are able to implement ISPMs in line with their needs.

1. Improved understanding of implementation requirements of specific standards

2. Support provided for implementation of priority ISPMs3. Level of implementation of ISPMs is appropriate for national needs

Coordinated phytosanitary capacity development addressing priority needs.

1. Information and resources of international, regional and national bodies identified, managed and coordinated.

2. Methods and pathways for communication used3. Mechanism and synergies for coordination used4. Competencies for resource mobilization and management identified and

supported through the national phytosanitary action planCapability to provide plant pest information enhanced.

1. Officially updated and accurate pest data accessible2. Pest data analysed, especially providing early warning for risk mitigation,

market access and risk analysis.Enhanced capacity to mobilize funds.

1. Enhanced capacity to engage donors at all levels2. Enhanced capacity to raise funds from national sources.3. Enhanced capacity to raise funds from donor and philanthropic funded

projectsImproved capacity to promote national phytosanitary systems.

1. Enhanced involvement of the NPPO in formulating national policy2. Enhanced NPPO capacity to develop and promote their own capacity

development3. NPPOs have better capacity to develop and implement

communication/advocacy strategies4. Enhanced capacity to coordinate national actors5. Enhanced capacity of regional bodies to influence, assist, and promote

national policy6. Capacity to generate, access and retrieve data and information

Capacity development actively monitored, evaluated and lessons learned acted upon.

1. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools developed and used.2. Periodic reviews and assessments being conducted.3. Continual process of improvement (adaptive management)4. IPPC Seal of Approval instituted.5. Enhanced capacity to perform M&E at all levels.

A central part of IPPC’s capacity building work has been the development and application of the Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation (PCE) tool. Its use was reviewed by Day et al.

100

(2006), who found that it was a useful focus for capacity development efforts, but there were also some shortcomings in the content and way it is applied. Further development since then has included moving the tool on-line, allowing ready capture of the data to provide aggregate rather than country specific trends and summaries to be produced. While it provides for multiple contributors to an assessment, there is still much less emphasis on the process for making the assessment than with capacity assessment tools in other sectors such as for food safety (FAO, 2006d).

Another tool for enabling a country to examine its phytosanitary capacity and identify priority actions has been developed by IICA (2007). Titled “Performance, Vision and Strategy”, it comprises 27 parameters or competencies, and criteria for scoring each parameter (see Annex 4). The tool has not been widely used in Africa.

Efforts to build phytosanitary capacity in Africa have often involved developed countries who can be seen to have an interest if they are a trading partner. This does not necessarily devalue the assistance, but capacity development is recognized as more effective when driven from within the country. The PCE and other self-assessment tools are designed to assist this process. The Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) fund supports SPS capacity building, and has recently funded the establishment of a Centre of Phytosanitary Excellence (Chege et al., 2010) as a focal point of capacity building in East and Southern Africa. It also serves as the reference laboratory for COMESA, and is seen as a potential model for similar initiatives in other parts of the continent.

STDF also undertakes studies on specific topics of interest, one of which was on indicators for SPS capacity development (STDF, 2010). This is an important topic as capacity is not easy to measure, but if funds are being invested in capacity development, then there must be a way of evaluating progress. A combination of “soft-system” indicators coupled with more quantitative indicators related to trade is probably the most effective approach.

Detailed capacity assessments are sometimes considered to be trade-sensitive, so countries are sometimes reluctant to divulge the results of using the PCE. The on-line system will provide the opportunity for data to be analysed for trends without compromising confidentiality. Canale (2005) made an analysis of results of using the PCE during 2000-2003 in 36 countries (Table 7.10). claimed this showed priority needs were the opposite of traditional technical assistance programmes prior to the adoption of the SPS Agreement, which tended to provide infrastructure and equipment.

101

Table 7.10. First five priorities for each PCE category in all countries (Canale, 2005). (L=Legislation, including regulations and institutional issues; P=Documented operational procedures; E=Infrastructure and equipment).

PriorityPCE Category 1 2 3 4 5Institutional Capacity L L L L LLegislation L L P L LExport Certification L, P L E L,P EDiagnostic Capacity L, P L E L, P EExotic Pest Response L P P P PInspection L, P P P P EPest Surveillance P P P P, E PPest Free Areas P P P P P

Results of an informal survey conducted amongst NPPOs to assess their capacity needs is shown in Figure 7.1. While this is based on the opinion of a few experts, a few observations can be made.

For all criteria, capacity in at least some countries is rated as low or very low. Diagnostic capacity for weeds is lower than for plant diseases and insects, although

in Chapter 4 it was shown that weeds can be as damaging as pathogens and herbivores.

Pest risk analysis capacity is still relatively low. As noted above, this may reflect organizational capacity to implement and act on PRA, as much as the technical knowledge.

Public-private sector cooperation is lacking in many countries Very few countries have good traceability systems In all countries, capacity for export inspection was equal to or higher than capacity for

import inspection. This reflects the fact that much capacity development has been in association with market access, which while valuable, can overlook the equally important need to protect the country’s plant resources from pests.

While these data are from experts, it is likely that with a more participatory process of evaluating capacity, some of the ratings would fall. Users of all sorts of services often give lower ratings than the service providers themselves.

Recently there has been increasing consideration of the whole process of capacity development, and STDF has undertaken a study on good practice in SPS-related technical cooperation. Box 7.7 lists the study’s conclusions on key elements of good practice. Following these elements would be appropriate in phytosanitary capacity development, particularly (though not exclusively) in relation to trade facilitation.

102

103

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Plant disease diagnostics

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Insect pest diagnostics

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Weed identification

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Linking to diagnostic expertise in the region

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Emergency preparedness for new pest outbreaks

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Surveillance

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Pest risk analysis

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Information systems and databases

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Information dissemination and communication

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Public-private sector cooperation

0

2

4

6

8

10

1 2 3 4 5

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Accreditation of third parties by NPPO

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Cooperation with neighbours

Figure 7.1 Self-assessment of various aspects of phytosanitary capacity by 14 countries.

104

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Traceability systems for agricultural/food products

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Inspection of imports

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Inspection of exports

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Phytosanitary controls at international airports

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Implementing private standards

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Negotiating market access (phytosanitary aspects)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Charging for phytosanitary services

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

Strategic planning by NPPO

0

2

4

6

8

10

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

No. c

ount

ries

National Capacity

University crop protection & phytosanitary training

7.4 Issues for crop protection framework

National crop protection systems are often based on a plant protection department in a ministry of agriculture, established many years ago. This may be effective, but with new and changing demands on crop protection systems, different arrangements may be worth considering.

Most countries in Africa are signatories to the International Plant Protection Convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the World Trade Organisation (including the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures), but most countries have difficulty in meeting obligations under the agreements. This jeopardizes trade, and puts the plant resources on which many economies depend at increased risk from introduced pests.

Regional SPS frameworks have so far added little value to international agreements, but the Regional Economic Communities are becoming more involved in SPS issues, and need supporting in this role.

The African Union’s InterAfrican Phytosanitary Council is the Regional Plant Protection Organisation for Africa, so potentially has an important role to play in furthering crop protection in the context of CAADP. The African Union must take steps to strengthen IAPSC so that it has the resources and capacity to fulfill its role.

Technical areas in which many countries are weak include surveillance, diagnostics, and emergency preparedness. Capacity is lacking not only in technical expertise, but also in the ability of organizations to collaborate within a country, and in mechanisms to enable regional collaboration.

Crop protection capacity assessment can help guide capacity development work, and should be led from within the national system. Capacity assessment is best undertaken as a participatory exercise involving the various stakeholders.

105

Box 7.7 Good practice elements in SPS-related technical cooperation (WTO, 2008)

Project design Paying attention to the country context and absorptive capacity Promoting ownership Systematically assessing and prioritizing needs Ensuring transparency, connectivity and sequencing of activities Adopting a value chain approach to maximize the market access impact Promoting the active involvement of all concerned stakeholders including the private sector Considering the challenges and potential benefits of a regional vs. national approach

Project implementation Use strengthened country expertise and systems Ensure flexibility in implementation Pay attention to results-based management including monitoring and evaluation Promote active learning and link skills development to practice. (Strengthening managerial

capacity in the agencies responsible for SPS-related technical assistance was emphasized).

Project outputs and the achievement of higher-order objectives Maximize impacts and sustainability through greater participation of beneficiaries Consider market distortions and promote sustainability in project activities and impact Follow a multi-tiered structure of objectives.

8. Education, Extension and Information Technology

In this chapter we consider three related areas concerning the flow of information and knowledge. They are not specifically about crop protection, but they are reviewed from a crop protection perspective.

8.1 Education

Crop protection is widely taught in tertiary education curricula in Africa at graduate and post graduate levels. Many courses are available on crop protection or on specific aspects such as entomology or plant pathology. Crop protection also features as an important component of other courses on crop science, crop production and agriculture. In many cases a biological approach is taken, examining the life cycle of different types of pest, the damage caused to the crop, and the different ways in which they can be controlled.

Based on the use of a methodological framework for analysing national pesticide policy, Fleischer & Waibel (2003) identified agricultural education and training curricula as a hidden factor encouraging pesticide use. They observed that support for pesticides is entrenched in agricultural research, extension and education institutions, as a result of agricultural modernization strategies pursued during the green revolution. Educational curricula developed in a period when the external costs of pesticides had not been appreciated tended to promote chemical control. So where curricula have not been revised or updated, it is likely that this bias persists.

Maredia et al. (2003) comment that part of the way to make IPM successful is to emphasize IPM in education and training, including IPM programme management and IPM-related business development. This echoes a generally felt need for crop protection to be taught less as an academic discipline, and more as an area in which a range of jobs and business opportunities are available. Two examples illustrate this trend.

The University of Cape Town School of Public Health and Family Medicine has recently started a postgraduate diploma in pesticide risk management (Box 8.1). The course is structured around the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (FAO, 2002) and is aimed at regulators of pesticides, inspectors (health, labour, customs, environment), public health pest control managers, pesticide laboratory analysts and disposal and waste management managers. The course is thus both multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary.

106

Box 8.1. Topics in the Post graduate diploma in pesticide risk management, University of Cape Town Pesticide risk management policies and principles Legal framework for pesticide management Health and safety management, including pesticide

epidemiology and toxicology Management of environmental risk; including

ecotoxicology, risk assessment and basic environmental chemistry

Control use Laboratory quality assurance assessment Container and contaminated site management International chemical conventions Management of public health pesticides

Phytosanitary aspects of crop protection is another area that is often not addressed fully in university curricula. In determining the phytosanitary training needs in Eastern Africa, the recently established Centre of Phytosanitary Excellence (COPE) observed that although there is much crop protection taught in Universities, university teaching staff do not always have knowledge of phytosanitary issues (Chege et al., 2010). Thus the COPE developed a short course aimed at university staff, to realign their expertise to include phytosanitary issues in their crop protection curricula. Curricula for certificate, diploma and postgraduate diploma courses in phytosanitary measures have also been devised, and will be offered initially by the University of Nairobi. Topics covered include International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs); phytosanitary measures applied to agricultural commodities in international trade; diagnosis of crop diseases, arthropods and weeds; pest risk analysis.

Two further examples, not directly related to crop protection, illustrate efforts that are being made to provide tertiary education in agriculture that is more aligned to agriculture as a business. FARA has recently established a new programme called UniBRAIN: Universities, Business and Research in Agricultural Innovation. The UniBRAIN programme was developed to address the weak linkage between the private sector and universities, which results in universities producing graduates without the skills and knowledge needed by agribusiness. UniBRAIN links university education, research and businesses in sustainable agriculture using new approaches. Innovation incubators function as training, research and advisory centres for small and medium enterprises and start-ups, providing business development and agribusiness.

With funding from the European Union, RUFORUM and partners have also established a new programme, for doctoral studies in Agricultural and Rural Innovation (http://www.arissecretariat.net/). Makerere University (Uganda) and Egerton University (Kenya) have approved the programme, with Sokoine University (Tanzania) expected to do so soon. The course involves taught courses as well as action research, and will be launched in the 2011/2012 academic year. It aims to produce professionals with interdisciplinary orientation who could work in a variety of roles in rural and agricultural development.

Part of the ARIS PhD addresses the perceived need for universities to produce graduates who are better able to think critically and creatively, and who can work in an entrepreneurial manner within agricultural innovation systems. A criticism of education in Africa is that it tends to be instructional, and does not adequately develop the capacity to learn and adapt that is required in ‘knowledge-based’ economies. Vandenbosch (2006) wrote that “post primary agricultural education and training has not been re-oriented towards entrepreneurship and the private sector”, and therefore supported the trend towards delivering parts of agricultural education curricular in real world environments, such as through apprenticeships.

8.2 Extension

Farmers use a wide range of information in making decisions and choices in all aspects of their agricultural enterprises, and some broad definitions of extension include all the different

107

information pathways and types (Christoplos, 2010). Others take a narrower view, but an important aspect is always the process by which new information from research finds its way to and gets used by the farmers who need it (Rivera & Sulaiman, 2009). This is a main consideration of CAADP Pillar IV, which concerns not only research, but the uptake and adoption of ‘new technologies’ or research outputs, so FARA is developing a programme focusing on agricultural advisory services. Many countries in Africa have weak government extension systems, and various new models are being tried, but the evidence on what works is limited (Davis, 2008).

The scope of extension systems, services and methods goes well beyond the area of crop protection, but for several reasons pest management and extension are closely linked. First, dealing with pests is often one of the major problems that farmers face and so information on pest management methods is important to them. Second, farmer field schools, now widely used in many contexts, were originally developed for improving rice pest management in Indonesia. And third, IPM is sometimes described as ‘knowledge intensive’, meaning it may place more demands on extension than more prescriptive approaches to crop protection or other decision problems.

Extension methods and approaches can be characterized in several different ways, but a useful broad distinction is between those based on face-to-face interaction, and those that are not. We discuss some examples of both in relation to crop protection.

Farmer field schools (FFSs) were first developed in Asia to tackle the problem of pesticide-induced pest outbreaks, but were first used in Africa in an IPM project in Sudan in 1993 (Bashir et al., 2003). Since then, they have been used in many countries in the continent, including many situations where pest management is not the major constraint. FFSs are an approach to adult learning based on (Braun et al., 2006):

Learner-centered, field-based experimental learning Observation analysis, assessment, and experimentation over a period of time

sufficient to understand the dynamics of key agro-ecological and socio-ecological relationships

Peer-reviewed individual and joint decision-making based on learning outcomes Individual and group capacity building

There has been much debate on FFS, including whether they should even be categorized as an extension method, whether they are cost-effective and whether they are economically sustainable (Bentley, 2009). However, where they have been implemented, it is clear that participating farmers experience a range of benefits, measured by social, environmental and economic parameters. FAO has been at the forefront of promoting FFS in Africa, and a major programme based on FFS in West Africa illustrates the benefits that can be achieved (Box 8.2).

‘Going public’ is also a face-to-face approach used in crop protection (Bentley et al., 2003). An extensionist goes to a well frequented place such as a market, and like a salesman, announces an extension message to the crowd. First developed in Bolivia, it has also been tried in countries in Africa including Uganda and is especially useful for a simple message where something such as a new disease symptom needs to be shown to the audience.

108

Repeating the message every few minutes for a few hours allows hundreds of people to be reached.

Plant health clinics are a face-to-face approach first developed in Central and South America (Boa, 2009), but now being used in Asia and Africa. Modeled along the lines of human health clinics, farmers can walk in to a plant clinic and receive advice from ‘plant doctors’ on what might be ailing their sick plants. Farmers are encouraged to bring specimens to the clinic, and the “plant doctor” at the clinic gives a written ‘prescription’ on appropriate treatment. If a diagnosis is not possible, the plant doctors are able to send specimens to an appropriate national diagnostic organization. Plant clinics are thus farmers’ point of contact with a plant health service, which includes diagnostic expertise, surveillance organizations and input providers. Clinics are not permanent; they may be set up once every week or two in a place that farmers visit, such as a market, so are a specialized form of information desks that some extension services operate already. Plant clinics are now in operation in Sierra Leone, DRC, Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya, and a major initiative will see large numbers set up in several countries. A benefit of plant clinics that has emerged with experience is that it gives a good indication of what problems farmers are struggling with, and also helps provide front-line vigilance for new pest problems. Linked to the national crop protection organization, plant clinic data can trigger more formal surveillance, and give earlier warning of new pests that might otherwise be possible.

Extension approaches that do not require face-to-face contact can potentially reach larger numbers of farmers, although some methods are better suited to relatively simple messages. The mass media provide many opportunities, and the rise of mobile telephony is bringing many new possibilities. Farmer participatory video is a technique that has been successfully used in Africa, for example in extension for rice (Van Mele et al., 2010). Farmers are assisted to make a video that will explain something to other farmers, and because the story is told from a farmer’s perspective, its impact is increased.

109

Box 8.1. The West Africa Integrated Production and Pest Management Programme (Summarised from Settle & Garba (2009))The programme was started in 2001, and by the end of 2010 had worked with 116,000 farmers in Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso and Benin, farming over 112,000 hectares. It is built around the use of farmer field schools which cover a wide range of topics in various crops, although rice, vegetables and cotton were the initial focus. The programme is much more than FFS for educating farmers in sustainable and cost effective production methods. It builds social capital from farmers up to the regional level, and is institutionalizing the approach by working with many different types of organizations. The FFS are supported with rural radio and television programmes. Multiple benefits have been recorded including:

In Benin, yield in an irrigated rice scheme doubled, but with a 66% decrease in chemical fertilizer use.

Rice yield in Mali increased by 38%, with a 41% increase ($348/ha) in net value to the farmers.

Rice yield in Senegal rose by 25%, with a net benefit to farmers of $387/ha. In Burkina Faso, the percentage of rice farmers using improved seed rose from 30% to

92%, at the same time reducing the amount of seed by 31%. In Senegal, pesticide use in vegetable production fell by 92%, while biopesticide and neem

extract use increased markedly, with an overall increase in crop net value of $1332/ha. In cotton in Mali, pesticide use fell by 94%.

Mobile phones allow question and answer services on agricultural topics. GSMA (www.gsmworld.com) represents the interests of mobile operators worldwide, and identifies and incubates new uses of mobile phones with the aim of driving growth in the industry. One project has been testing an agricultural question and answer service in Kenya (mKilimo), operated by KenCall, a call centre business. During the pilot phase over half of all enquiries were about crop protection issues (Natalia Pshenichnaya, personal communication), and the challenge is now to provide an adequate knowledge base to support the service.

Mobile phones can also be used for disseminating messages in visual form. The University of Illinois (http://susdeviki.illinois.edu) is piloting the peer reviewed extension materials including animations that can be displayed on mobile phones, and Box 8.3 gives a relevant example.

A widely held concern is that young people are becoming less interested in agriculture (Leavy & S. Smith, 2010). There may be many reasons for this, but an initiative called Shujaaz (www.Shujaaz.fm) in East Africa is using a novel approach to communicate agricultural extension messages to young people. A monthly free comic built around the lives of a fictional group of youth, contains stories on various topics, including one each month on agriculture. One such story featured armyworm forecasting (Figure 8.1). The comic is linked to a 5 minute syndicated radio programme, as well as social media sites, and has generated enormous interest. It is said to be the most widely read document in Kenya (Rob Burnett, personal communication).

Figure 8.1. Pages from Shujaaz Chapta 7, the start of a story on armyworm forecasting.

110

Box 8.3 Peer reviewed mobile phone animation(http://susdeviki.illinois.edu)Title : Natural Insecticide from Neem SeedsAuthors : Bello Bravo, J., F. Seufferhel.Abstract : Naturally occurring insecticidal compounds can be extracted from neem seeds and sprayed onto crops to prevent pest insect damage. This 2 minute and 33 second animation explains how to sort neem fruits, dry them, remove their outer shells, sort the seeds, grind them, mix the powder in water, filter the mixture, and then prepare the solution necessary for spraying on the crops. The video is in English with a Nigerian accent and is in the cell-phone ready 3gp format.

8.3 Information technology

Aside from the use of information technology (IT) in the context of extension, there are now many other applications of IT in agriculture. Some of these are still little used in Africa but those based on mobile phone technology, for example, have the potential for wide uptake due to the rapid growth of subscribers in the continent, estimated at 50% per year (Singh, 2009). This has prompted the establishment of a regional laboratory in East Africa to develop applications for mobile phones (http://emobilis.org/). The laboratory is run by a consortium including the World Wide Web Foundation and the University of Nairobi’s School of Computing, and acts as an incubator for new ideas as well as a training institution. Some examples of the use of mobile phones (or hand held computers) in crop protection include the following.

The Great Lakes Cassava Initiative is using small rugged computers to enter data on cassava diseases (and other information) in the field (http://crs.org/kenya/disease-resistant-cassava/). Data is sent via wireless modem to a central database. A similar approach is being tested in horticulture in Kenya “e-pest”, a similar system developed in India by FAO and Mobiprise (www.mobiprise.com) with which field officers can enter observations on pests in the field. Other data such as temperature and coordinates are measured automatically by the hand-held device.

The use of mobiles for financial transactions is now common place. One such transaction being tested is the purchase of crop insurance, made when inputs are being bought (see Chapter 4). An automatic weather station records and transmits meteorological data to the insurer, who will pay claims on the basis of a weather index for the area. Insurance reduces risk, and therefore should encourage the purchase of inputs (Hazell et al., 2010).

Counterfeit or adulterated pesticides are an increasing global problem (Fishel, 2009), although one of the best known examples was over 30 years ago in Kenyan coffee (Wadlow, 2009). Sproxil Inc (www.sproxil.com) has developed a Mobile Authentication Technology, currently being used in Nigeria and Ghana for detecting counterfeit drugs, but the technology could be used for all sorts of goods including pesticides. A unique scratch code is put on a medicine packet, and when the code is texted to a free phone number a return message indicates whether the item is genuine or not.

Mobile phones can be used to access market information for both input and output markets. As farmers spend more on inputs for pest management, the ability to access information will become increasingly valuable. Weather information can also be accessed using mobiles or hand hold computers, and although this may be more important for decisions such as planting and harvesting, weather information can be useful in pest management decision making.

Plantwise (http://www.cabi.org/plantwise) is an initiative led by CABI to build on its successful Crop Protection Compendium, to provide the most comprehensive global description of pest distribution ever produced. It is a large database of pest data from many sources, compiled using a number of techniques including data mining. The database will be continuously updated, through crowd sourcing (Ushahidi), from plant clinics, as well as from

111

published information and databases, and will be accessible online with tools for various analyses.

Remote sensing has many uses in crop management, including several related to crop protection (Pinter et al., 2003). It can be used to detect the distribution of plants which may be weeds, or the food plants of particular pests such as desert locust. SWARMS (Schistocerca Warning Management System) is used by FAO in Rome for desert locust monitoring and forecasting (Lecoq, 2001). Remote sensing can also detect the damage done to crops by pests, as a result of changes to leaf pigments, changes in water uptake or altered nutrient status (Pinter et al., 2003). Remote sensing can also identify habitats or areas at risk of invasion by new pests (Joshi et al., 2004).

Remote sensing and use of global positioning system technology are combined in precision agriculture (Seelan et al., 2003). This can allow much more accurate and thus cost-effective use of control methods (especially pesticide applications) so is most appropriate for large scale farms. As farm sizes increase, particularly through external investors purchasing or renting large tracts of land, precision agriculture will become more feasible.

Computer models have been useful for many years in crop protection, and underlie several of the techniques above. Way and van Emden (2000) dismissed pest modeling, but a wide range of models have been used for various different purposes. Examples from Africa include forecasting Quelea outbreaks (Cheke et al., 2007), analyzing biological control (Godfray & J. K. Waage, 1991), comparing control strategies for rodents (Stenseth et al., 2001) and grasshoppers (Fisker et al., 2007), and managing the risks of resistance in GM crops (Nibouche et al., 2007).

CLIMEX is a commercially available model that allows prediction of a pest’s distribution based on pest biology and climatic databases, so can be used in PRA. It has been used to predict the distribution of Sirex noctilio (Arnegiea et al., 2006) and Parthenium hysterophorus, (McConnachie et al., 2010), two invasive pests in Africa. While the use of some of these methods based on IT is still uncommon in Africa, it is likely that they will increase. Research organizations need to be aware of the opportunities that IT presents, both as research tools as well as in practical crop protection decision making.

8.4 Issues for crop protection framework

Educational curricula need reviewing, to ensure that they reflect sustainable approaches to crop production and crop protection.

Curricula must provide trainees with the skills and knowledge that enable them to work in agricultural enterprises including those related to crop protection.

Advice and information on crop protection can reach farmers in various ways. National extension systems have a role to play, but as one of several actors in extension.

Specific approaches, such as farmer field schools, plant clinics, videos, help-lines and mass media, each have their merits, and should be deployed where they are most effective.

112

Mobile phones offer many new opportunities in crop protection extension and decision making, and research is needed to test and evaluate different approaches to find those which are both sustainable and address farmers’ needs.

Information technology provides many tools with diverse application in crop protection research and implementation. Some of these are still of little use in Africa, but others could be effectively applied with appropriate research.

113

Agricultural intensification

Sustainability

B

A

9. Framework for Crop Protection in CAADP

9.1 Sustainable intensification

CAADP foresees agriculture in Africa changing in a number of important ways (Chapter 3): Production will become more market oriented, with increased local and regional trade There will be greater use of agricultural inputs Production, productivity and profitability will increase.

At the same time CAADP recognizes that: An integrated approach to natural resource management is necessary For reasons of both equity and effectiveness, special consideration must be given to

the poor and vulnerable.

The overall development trajectory envisaged by CAADP can thus be described as ‘sustainable intensification’, increased output per unit area with reduced environmental impacts (The Royal Society, 2009), which is in tune with the ecosystem approach to sustainable crop production intensification being adopted by FAO (FAO, 2010f). The great challenge that must be addressed by all involved in agricultural development is how to achieve intensification without compromising sustainability. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) addressed what it called the primary animating question: “How can agricultural knowledge, science and technology (AKST) be used to reduce hunger and poverty, improve rural livelihoods, and facilitate equitable environmentally, socially and economically sustainable development?” (IAASTD, 2009). IAASTD gave options rather than recommendations, but included options for pest management based on the non-chemical approaches described in Chapter 6.

Crop protection is one of the components of agricultural intensification where there are some very clear options, with potentially very divergent outcomes. There are many examples from around the world where agricultural intensification has included crop protection that is inequitable and environmentally, socially or economically unsustainable. Two possible trajectories for how crop protection develops within CAADP are thus possible (Figure 9.1).

Figure 9.1. Possible trajectories of crop protection under CAADP. A: unsustainable intensification. B: sustainable intensification

The overall thrust of crop protection within the CAADP framework must therefore be to ensure that trajectory B rather than trajectory A is followed, as without concerted efforts, the default trajectory is likely to be nearer A. The rest of this chapter therefore identifies the key components of a crop protection framework that will support sustainable intensification of agriculture within CAADP.

Many of the issues come most sharply into focus in relation to the use of chemical pesticides in crop protection. While they are by no means the only aspect of crop protection that can jeopardize sustainability, history shows that they pose a major threat. At the same time, currently pesticides often appear to be the most cost effective approach to crop protection (partly because many of their costs are externalized). In some cases there may be no

114

realistic alternative to the use of pesticides. Sustainable agricultural intensification is thus a balancing act, and an overall goal of the crop protection framework must be to ensure that the balance is not lost.

Another important principle of a crop protection framework is summarized by the maxim ‘prevention is better than cure’. There is a tendency, particularly among those less directly concerned with crop protection, to view crop protectionists as a fire brigade to be called when a problem arises. This is certainly an important part of their role, but just as a major part of reducing the costs of fires is preventing them occurring in the first place, so increasingly crop protection must be concerned with anticipating and responding to pest problems before they become serious.

A third principle is that a crop protection strategy must be flexible and adaptive. Climate change will present new challenges, but we cannot be sure what they will be, so the ability to respond to changes as they become apparent will be important. Other factors such as technology and market factors are also changing rapidly, so for several reasons, the capacity to respond promptly and effectively to new demands and opportunities must continue to be developed.

From the situation summary in preceding chapters, seven framework areas are identified (Figure 9.2). The seven areas are all closely related and in many cases overlap. However, they identify recognizable landmarks in the crop protection landscape, which have parallels in other areas of agriculture and natural resource management, and are identifiable themes within CAADP. They therefore provide a set of entry points for those interested in addressing crop protection issues within the CAADP framework, as well as locating crop protection within the wider agricultural development arena.

115

NationalCrop

Protection

PolicyResearch, Science & Technology

CapacityDevelopment

PublicPrivate

Partnership

Regulation

Regionalism

Figure 9.2 Elements of a crop protection framework for Africa to meet the CAADP goals.

9.2 National organization of crop protection

There is no ideal structure for the way in which crop protection and associated activities are organized within a country. Different countries can have different organizational and institutional arrangements for a range of reasons, including their political history. The crop protection needs of countries also vary according to their size and location as well as the nature of their agriculture sector. Four principles can be identified concerning the way in which crop protection should be organized nationally.

1. Organizational arrangements should be ‘fit-for-purpose’, and able to meet the particular needs of the country. This includes being able to provide crop protection functions as required by national development plans and agricultural sector development strategies, including the national agricultural investment plans (NAIPs) under CAADP. In many countries organization of crop protection is still based on what was established in the colonial era, rather than on the national vision for agriculture.

2. Mandates and responsibilities for different crop protection functions should be clearly defined. When it is not clear who has what authority or responsibility, systems work ineffectively and inefficiently, exemplified by the response of many countries to the arrival of a new pest. In many cases the response is too little and too late, in part because responsibilities are not clearly defined and known. Other important functions include several areas of regulation (see below), control of migrant or outbreak pests, research, extension. Some of these functions are clearly a government responsibility, but others can and should involve other stakeholders. Sometimes the clear allocation of responsibility for a particular function manifests as the establishment of a semi-autonomous organization, such as an agency with a specific regulatory mandate.

116

3. The different actors involved in crop protection must be effectively coordinated. Crop protection involves a number of different areas including trade, environment, health and education as well as agriculture and rural development. Mechanisms are therefore needed to ensure that there is effective leadership and coordination, part of which is the definition of roles and responsibilities.

4. Effective linkages are required between the different actors. Following on from the previous points, mechanisms are required that allow appropriate communication between different stakeholders, and the effective participation of stakeholders in strategy formulation and decision making. This occurs at various levels. For example, agricultural development strategies must incorporate crop protection considerations, yet this does not always happen. Many crop protection professionals have relatively low awareness of CAADP and associated national processes, which suggests the necessary linkages are often not in place or functional. This is not a problem peculiar to CAADP; stakeholder involvement in agricultural policy processes is in many cases weak. Another example is the sometimes poor linkage between the public and private sector in relation to phytosanitary aspects of trade, with shortcomings on both sides.

Review of the way in which crop protection is organised nationally should thus be undertaken at intervals, to assess whether these four principles are being met, or whether improvements can be made.

9.3 Policy

We have seen in earlier chapters how policy can have a profound effect on the way in which crop protection is viewed, developed and implemented. Here we identify a number of general issues in relation to policy and crop protection.

Most countries in Africa are signatories to most of the international agreements relevant to crop protection. While it is desirable that all countries are signatories to the main conventions and agreements, what happens after the ink has dried is of greater significance. Domestication of international crop protection-related policy is in many cases limited. As shown in Chapter 7, most countries in Africa fall short of meeting their basic reporting obligations as partners to the International Plant Protection Convention.

There are various reasons why domestication and implementation of internationally made commitments are difficult, but one may be that African countries see themselves as receivers of international policy, rather than as co-owners and architects. It should be noted however that in the case of the IPPC, many developed countries also fail to meet their obligations. Furthermore, the IPPC ensures developing country involvement in its decision making processes, and a recent chair of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures was from Africa. So African countries are not without influence in international policy.

Part of domesticating international policy is its application at regional level. The importance of regional collaboration is discussed further below, but here we note that the RPPO for Africa has a mandate and responsibilities that exceed its resources, so is not able to make its full contribution to this process. On the other hand, where RECs have ‘domesticated’ the

117

WTO SPS Agreement, reviews suggest this has often not added value (Magalhães, 2010), and member countries are no more meeting their regional obligations than they are their international ones.

Most countries in Africa have some form of Plant Protection Act, a number of which have been recently revised or brought up to date with secondary legislation. But others are still out of date or absent, and often the process for remedying this situation is slow. It was noted in Chapter 6 that a number of aspects of policy may be hidden and so not readily appreciated, but more importantly, a number of these components have the effect, internationally or not, of promoting the use of pesticides. This means that despite the aims and ideals of CAADP, trajectory B above may actually being promoted rather than trajectory A. Changing this situation will not be easy, and relates to a number of the issues dealt with elsewhere in this Chapter. Improved policy research is required to identify and analyze policy and how it contributes to sustainable crop protection, as the basis for interventions to make the policy environment much more favourable to integrated natural resource management in general, and to integrated pest management in particular.

9.4 Regulation

Appropriate regulation is essential for sustainable agricultural development, and there are a number of areas where regulation is required in relation to crop protection.

Manufacture, distribution, sale and use of pest control products, such as chemical pesticides, biopesticides, semiochemicals

Import and release of exotic biological control agents Management of specific declared pests Production, sale and use of genetically modified crops Production, distribution and sale of planting materials, that may be resistant to pests,

or serve as pathways for the spread of pests Exports and imports of agricultural or other commodities that may carry and spread

pests

A key concern of a number of these regulatory activities is protection of the environment, human health and plant health. But at the same time as reducing risks, possible benefits may also be reduced. Making a pesticide illegal greatly reduces the risk of it causing harm, but at the same time precludes the possibility of it being useful. Regulation is thus often an exercise in risk assessment and risk management. Confusion of these two aspects can reduce effectiveness and credibility (Raybould & Quemada, 2010), and in some situations it is desirable to separate risk assessment from decisions on how the risks will be managed.

Regulators thus have a key role to play in the promotion of sustainable crop protection. As noted above, there is a balance to be struck, and it is unfortunate that in some cases the regulatory environment may have the opposite effect to that intended. Concern that a biological control agent may have non-target effects can lead to extensive host specificity testing being required. While those tests are being conducted, legal but harmful pesticides may be used to control the target pest. And if the host-specificity tests are repeating those already conducted in other countries, it could be argued that the full costs and benefits of decisions are not being properly considered. Another example is the registration of pest control products. Strong regulation is appropriate to ensure that dangerous pesticides do

118

not reach the market, so a range of toxicity tests is required. This puts up the price of registration, so will tend to promote the registration of products for which there is a larger market. If the same regulatory procedure is applied to lower risk products such as pheromones, which because of their specificity also have smaller markets, the regulatory system may actually hinder or even preclude the registration and use of lower risk products.

Having a regulatory system is one thing; enforcing it is another. Often this relates to wider issues of law enforcement and good governance that are well beyond the realm of crop protection. But in promoting the establishment of effective regulatory systems, issues of monitoring and enforcement cannot be avoided. It is interesting to note that some plant protection laws or regulations specify very small penalties. Sometimes this reflects the age of the legislation, but it can also be indicative of a lack of understanding of the implications of infringement, or of the will to enforce the legislation.

9.5 Regionalism

A number of aspects of crop protection have an actual or potential regional dimension. Clearly there can be a number of benefits of regionalism, but sometimes these are assumed without a clear identification of what they will be, and what will drive a regional approach. Some regional initiatives work very effectively, while others are less successful, even when there appears to be wide support; regionalizing activities is not a straightforward process.

In some cases an issue cannot be effectively addressed only at national level. The major migrant pests fall into this category. A mechanism for action to be taken on behalf of the region is necessary because the costs of control may be largely incurred in one country, with many of the benefits accruing in one or more other countries. This is part of the rationale for organizations such as DLCO-EA and IRLCO-CSA, yet often they struggle to secure member government contributions. There may be several reasons for this, but ensuring their programmes closely adhere to the regional rationale for their existence can maintain the strong justification for governments spending money regionally when there are many other national activities competing for the same funds. Such organizations also need to evolve as circumstances change. Scientific advances, developing national capacity, political and other changes may all affect the value and justification for regional organizations, so they must continuously review and adapt their mission to remain relevant.

Sometimes regional collaboration and cooperation can be a way of making more cost effective use of existing capacity. This is the basis for the sub-regional LOOPs of BioNET International, the international initiative in taxonomy. No single country will ever be able to meet all its taxonomic needs alone, but by pooling expertise from a group of neighbouring countries, the effective capacity of all countries is increased. Again a mechanism is required to ensure that costs and benefits are appropriately shared, and that overall there is a net benefit.

The benefits of harmonisation are a strong driver of regionalism. Regional economic communities are harmonising their trade regulations, so as to facilitate and stimulate intra-regional trade. Recently a Tripartite Agreement has been reached between COMESA, SADC and EAC, including an Annex on SPS Measures (Anon, 2009) and there has been a suggestion that the whole of the African Union could become a free trade area.

119

Harmonization of phytosanitary regulations is one component of building regional trade although we have seen that efforts to achieve this must be carefully designed so as to add value rather than conflict with international agreements to which most African countries are already signatories.

Regional harmonization of other types of regulations can have benefits too. Harmonised pest control product registration can reduce registration costs, and in the case of the Comité Sahélien des Pesticides, registration is at the sub-regional level. This is a model that could be considered elsewhere. Harmonized seed certification systems and regulations can allow easier movement of germplasm, including pest resistant varieties. Harmonized biosafety frameworks in relation to GM crops would also be beneficial.

Regional collaboration in agricultural research is already coordinated through FARA continentally, and by the constituent subregional research organizations (SROs). An SRO for Southern Africa (CARDESA) is currently being established. Work in the SROs is generally organized around commodity or thematic programmes with crop protection featuring as a component of each. This reduces the prominence of crop protection, but has the benefit that it is embedded within a broader context. A number of developing research areas in crop protection require facilities and equipment that are too expensive for most countries, so regional organizations can provide opportunities for national scientists to use well-equipped centres such as ICIPE, AGRHYMET, NEPAD’s bioscience centres and others.

Another benefit of regional approaches is that they promote representation, advocacy and influence at the international level. These are roles that the RPPO can play, but which in Africa, the IAPSC has difficulty fulfilling. The strength of any regional organization depends to some extent on the strength of its members, but a strong regional body should be able to lead its members, represent them and so contribute to their development. As noted, IAPSC has a large number of developing countries to cater for, and mechanisms are required to enable IAPSC to play a stronger more strategic role. The establishment of sub-regional offices has been suggested by IAPSC as a possible way forward, and this is something the African Union Commission should consider as part of a renewed commitment to plant protection.

9.6 Capacity development

Many of the areas addressed in this document identify a need for capacity development, so here we present only some more general issues. Capacity development should be based on an understanding of what capacity is. OECD ((OECD, 2006) defines capacity as “the ability of people, organizations and society as a whole to manage their affairs successfully”, while UNDP defines it as “the ability of individuals, organisations and societies to perform functions, solve problems, and set and achieve objectives in a sustainable manner” (http://www.capacity.undp.org/). The UNDP definition is widely used and adapted for particular contexts, but the various definitions clearly indicate that capacity is much more than the knowledge, skills and tools of individuals and organizations. It is a property of a system comprising a range of different actors and the formal and informal linkages between them. Thus capacity development should be based on this wider understanding of capacity.

120

Capacity development has come much into focus in recent years, and capacity building features prominently in the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness Principles, promoting deeper consideration of what is meant by capacity and how it can best be developed. The OECD (2006) document on The Challenge of Capacity Development: Working towards Good Practice, together with a recent 5 year study by the European Centre for Development Policy Management (ECDPM) provide valuable insights. The ECDPM study (Morgan & Morgan, 2008) identifies five core capabilities which enable an organization or system to perform effectively:

1. To commit and engage: volition, empowerment, motivation, attitude, confidence2. To carry out technical, service delivery & logistical tasks: core functions directed at

the implementation of mandated goals3. To relate and attract resources & support: manage relationships, resource

mobilisation, networking, legitimacy building, protecting space4. To adapt and self-renew: learning, strategising, adaptation, repositioning, managing

change5. To balance coherence and diversity: encourage innovation and stability, control

fragmentation, manage complexity, balance capability mix

These elements of capacity are of necessity somewhat generic, but they highlight that the technical aspects that capacity building initiatives often focus on are only a part of the picture. This has been touched on in a number of the contexts discussed elsewhere in this review and in this chapter, and examples can be identified of where there is a need to develop capacity in areas 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the above list, rather than area 2. As noted in Chapter 7, the IPPC’s new strategy on building national phytosanitary capacity has to some extent taken cognisance of this wider view of capacity, although there is still a heavy emphasis on area 2.

FAO has recently conducted an evaluation of its capacity development work in Africa (Muir-Leresche et al., 2010), plant health being one area where there has been significant input. The first recommendation concerns the need to ensure that FAO and partners develop a better common understanding of what capacity development is as 75% of current capacity development projects focus on individuals. Although a general recommendation, this applies well to the specific area of crop protection, and those seeking to develop plant health capacity in the continent should address organisational and institutional capacity, not just technical knowledge of individuals.

9.7 Public-private partnership

Two observations serve to illustrate the importance of the private sector in development of crop protection:

Pesticides are the predominant pest control product; they are developed, researched, promoted and sold mainly by private sector organizations, because profits are made in the process.

Some of the most successful examples of IPM are where growers (i.e. private sector) have funded the necessary research and development, such as in export horticulture.

121

Thus one aim of government policy in relation to crop protection should be to provide an environment in which private sector involvement is stimulated, but specifically in alignment with the vision and goals of CAADP. Chapter 5 argued that currently the policy environment often favours pesticides, and Chapter 6 that the policy environment should be modified and developed to promote more sustainable crop protection practices. The enabling environment must therefore be such that private sector entities can generate financial returns from investing in sustainable crop protection.

Because of the dominant position of pesticides, and because many farmers are resource poor so do not constitute a viable market, often the opportunities for the private sector are limited. Public-private partnerships are a way of supporting private sector entry into the market, for example by reducing risk, reducing investment costs, and subsidising market development. Where significant returns are expected, the private sector is likely to need less encouragement, but due to the nature of crop protection, some of the more sustainable approaches may have smaller markets so need particular support. However, Spielman & von Grebmer (2004) found that at that time there were few good examples of successful public-private partnerships involving the CGIAR, and suggested this was due to differences in incentive structures.

Hall, Clark, & Frost (2010) identify what they say is a new class of private enterprise, termed development-relevant enterprise, which sits between mainstream for-profit businesses and government and non-governmental development activities. Crop protection is one area in which they give examples. Table 9.1 lists some examples of public-private partnerships in crop protection.

Table 9.1 Examples of public-private partnerships for sustainable crop protection

Crop protectionProduct

Public sector Private sectorOrganization Role Organization Role

Green muscle biopesticide for locusts and grasshoppers

Consortium of international and national research organizations, funded by a consortium of donors

Product development, registration support

BCP Pty Ltd Manufacture, marketing

Sterile male fruitflies and fruitfly monitoring systems

IAEA/FAO and national programme

Developed methodology; share in the company

SIT Pty Ltd. Mass production and implementation support.

SpexNPV for armyworm control

NRI and others funded by DFID

Basic research, development of methods

Ecoagriconsult, Tanzania

Manufacture, marketing

Phytosanitary services are a particular case where good public-private partnership is required. There may always be some tension between a regulatory body and the private sector, but the recognition that cooperation can enable both parties to achieve their goals is grounds for the partnership. Several of the countries in Africa with strong phytosanitary systems are also those with high value agricultural export markets. The private sector needs a good phytosanitary system to support its trade, but a strong private sector stimulates and provides opportunity for the development of the phytosanitary service. As CAADP

122

envisages expanded trade in agricultural products, strengthened partnership between the private and public sector on phytosanitary issues will be necessary.

9.8 Research, science and technology

Crop protection is a traditional area of research in many national programmes, entomology and plant pathology being the two commonest disciplines. Table 9.2 shows that in several centres the proportion of total agricultural researchers engaged in crop protection work is quite high, suggesting crop protection is a high priority. However, in many countires the level of resources devoted to crop protection research is relatively low, a reflection of the overall low level of funding for agricultural research. In the 2006 Maputo Declaration, leaders agreed to devote 10% of their budgets to the agricultural sector, which should result in increased research funding. At the same time, the AU consolidated plan on science and technology (NEPAD, 2005) emphasizes the importance of science and technology for the continent’s development, agriculture being the most important sector of many countries’ economies.

Table 9.2 Full-time equivalent (FTE) crop protection researchers in a selection of countries (data provided by ASTI, 2010).

Country Number of FTE researchers involved in crop pest and disease control

Share of country's total FTE researchers involved in crop pest and disease control (%)

FTE pest researchers per million farmers

Benin 14.5 12.6 8.8

Burkina Faso 13.0 5.4 2.0

Burundi 6.4 6.0 1.7

Eritrea 4.2 3.4 2.8

Ethiopia 40.9 3.1 1.3

Gambia, The 5.2 13.9 8.8

Ghana 54.5 10.1 9.2

Kenya 69.0 6.8 5.3

Madagascar 19.2 9.0 2.8

Mali 63.1 20.2 24.3

Mauritius 30.3 19.2 606.3

Niger 8.0 8.6 1.9

Nigeria 121.9 5.9 9.9

Rwanda 6.0 5.8 1.5

Senegal 1.4 1.0 0.4

Sierra Leone 4.9 7.3 3.7

South Africa 122.5 15.4 99.8

Sudan 141.9 13.9 20.3

Tanzania 57.6 8.6 3.5

Togo 8.1 13.0 5.7

Zambia 18.7 9.0 5.9

123

Whether or not increased funding for agricultural research including crop protection becomes available, it is appropriate to ask how can crop protection research be made more effective? There are two components to this: how the research is done, and what research is done.

FARA is promoting an approach to research it calls integrated agricultural research for development (IAR4D). IAR4D is equivalent to what is also known as an ‘innovation systems’ approach (Clark, 2002), many of the elements of which appear in the FAAP (FARA, 2006). Such approaches can be applied to all areas of agricultural research, including crop protection. CAADP emphasizes IPM in the context of INRM, and this requires a broad approach in keeping with IAR4D. This is not to say that using a pesticide as a sole control method is incompatible with IAR4D, or that using IAR4D will ensure pesticides are not misused. The IAR4D approach should, however, ensure that some of the constraints to the adoption of IPM are considered beyond simple technical effectiveness. IAR4D emphasizes the application of research, and in many cases research on IPM has not given sufficient attention to the process by research outputs are put into economic use. Part of the reason for this is that universities tend to produce subject specialists such as plant pathologists, although as we saw in Chapter 8, FARA and others have recognised and are addressing this situation.

Part of the IAR4D approach also affects what research is done. In IAR4D, research is more demand-led, with many different actors recognised as having needs that research could address. Defining crop protection research needs in terms of priority pests on priority crops is not necessarily inappropriate, but it risks overlooking other possible needs, as well as predisposing the research to focus on the pest and the crop, when other issues relating to policy, socioeconomics, input supply and a host of other aspects may be equally if not more important in solving a pest problem.

With this in mind, we highlight some areas where crop protection research is needed in order to underpin the sustainable intensification envisaged in CAADP. In all these areas there are components of policy, regulation, regional collaboration, public-private partnerships and other aspects beyond the technical issues.

Chapter 5 summarised the use of pesticides in crop protection. Further work is required to support the development of less toxic products, and to find safer ways of using pesticides in the contexts where their used cannot be avoided. Research is also required to document the full costs of pesticides and to find policy options that reflect these costs.

In Chapter 6 a range of pest control methods was presented that will all need to be used more in the future to achieve CAADP’s goals. Thus research is needed to find ways in which these methods can become much more widely used, particularly by creating an enabling policy and regulatory environment. Technical research is also required, in areas such as genetic modification of crops, advanced varietal selection and breeding techniques, biochemical and molecular diagnostic methods, identification and use of semiochemicals, as well as emerging areas such as the use of nanomaterials. Regional and international collaboration is necessary, in order to access the knowledge, intellectual property, and facilities and equipment, that research in these areas requires.

124

In Chapter 7 we saw the importance of phytosanitary systems in supporting the CAADP vision. Making research more demand led should lead to more research on issues of phytosanitary importance, some of which are distinct from those concerning pre- or post-harvest pest management. Research may be required to develop phytosanitary measures or treatments that meet international standards. The identification and evaluation of pest risk has research components, as does surveillance and related activities. Ensuring close links between phytosanitary services and research organizations can help enable research to respond to phytosanitary services’ needs.

In Chapter 8, we saw that information and communication technologies provide various opportunities in crop protection, so research should also be directed at capitalizing on these opportunities. Information Technology (IT) departments in agricultural research organizations often focus especially on the internal IT needs of the organization which is necessary but not sufficient to bring the benefits of IT to all the actors involved in crop protection. Research is required on the use of IT in extension, for which many applications are already being tested.

9.9 Conclusion

CAADP presents a bold vision of an African agriculture sector that is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. Crop protection is one of the many pieces of the puzzle that must be fitted together to achieve that vision, and the framework presented here provides the basis for the contribution of crop protection to CAADP’s goals. It is incumbent on crop protection professionals at every level to engage with the CAADP process, so that the elements of the framework are built into national, sub-regional and continental initiatives to realise the CAADP vision.

125

References

Achaleke, J., & Brévault, T. (2010). Inheritance and stability of pyrethroid resistance in the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Central Africa. Pest management science, 66(2), 137-41. doi: 10.1002/ps.1843.

Affognon, H. (2003). Crop protection policy in Benin - factors influencing pesticide use. Hannover: Institute of Economics in Horticulture.

Ajayi, O., Camara, M., Fleischer, G., Haidara, F., Sow, M., Traore, A., et al. (2002). Socio-economic assessment of pesticide use in Mali. Hannover: Institute of Economics in Horticulture.

Anon. (2009). Annex 9 on SPS Measures Under Article 29(3) of the Tripartite Agreement.Arnegiea, A. J. C., Atsukib, M. M., Augenc, D. A. H., Urleyd, B. P. H., Humadae, R. A.,

Lasmerf, P. K., et al. (2006). Predicting the potential distribution of Sirex noctilio ( Hymenoptera : Siricidae ), a significant exotic pest of Pinus plantations. Ann. For. Sci., 63, 119-128. doi: 10.1051/forest.

ASTI. (2010). Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators. Retrieved from http://www.asti.cgiar.org/.

Azzam, A., Azzam, S., Lhaloui, S., Amri, A., El Bouhssini, M., & Moussaoui, M. (1997). Economic Returns to Research in Hessian Fly (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) Resistant Bread-Wheat Varieties in Morocco. Journal of Economic Entomology, 90, 1-5.

Backman, P., & Sikora, R. (2008). Endophytes: An emerging tool for biological control. Biological Control, 46(1), 1-3. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.03.009.

Barker, I., Bokanga, N., Lenne, J., Otim-Nape, W., & Spence, Nicola. (2006). Future Control of Infectious Diseases in Plants with Emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa. Foresight. UK Government Foresight Project on Infectious Diseases, Preparing for the Future.

Bashir, Y. G. A., Elamin, Elamin M., & Elamin, Eltigani M. (2003). Development and Implementation of Integrated Pest Management in the Sudan. In K.M. Maredia, D. Dakouo, & D. Mota-Sanchez (Eds.), Integrated Pest Management in the Global Arena (pp. 131-143). Wallingford: CABI.

Bentley, J. W. (2009). Impact of IPM Extension for Smallholder Farmers in the Tropics. In R. Peshin & A. K. Dhawan (Eds.), Integrated Pest Management: Dissemination and Impact (pp. 333-346). Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8990-9_8 DO  - 10.1007/978-1-4020-8990-9_8.

Bentley, J. W., Boa, E., Van Mele, P., Almanza, J., Vasquez, D., & Eguino, S. (2003). Going Public: A New Extension Method. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability,, 1(2), 108-123.

Boa, E. (2009). How the Global Plant Clinic Began. Outlooks on Pest Management, 1-5. doi: 10.1564/20jun00.

Braun, A., Jiggins, J., Röling, N., Berg, H. V. D., & Snijders, P. (2006). A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences Table of contents (p. 92).

Buddenhagen, C. E., Chimera, C., & Clifford, P. (2009). Assessing biofuel crop invasiveness: a case study. PloS one, 4(4), e5261. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005261.

Canale, F. (2005). Phytosanitary capacity evaluation: the tool, its results and its relation to invasive alien species. identification of risks and management of invasive alien species using the IPPC framework. Proceedings of a conference in Braunschweig, Germany 22-26 September 2003 (pp. 186-191). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

126

Carpenter, Janet E. (2010). Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops. Nature biotechnology, 28(4), 319-21. doi: 10.1038/nbt0410-319.

Cassidy, D. (2010a). Assessment of the Status of Implementation of the SPS Annex to the SADC Protocol on Trade. Report submitted by AECOM International Development to USAID Southern Africa. Contract. Gaborone: USAID Southern Africa.

Cassidy, D. (2010b). Case Study : SPS Issues and Regional Trade in Horticultural Products in the SADC Region. Report submitted to USAID/Southern Africa by AECOM International Development.

CBD. (2002). Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its 6th Meeting, The Hague, 7-19 April 2002. Montreal: Convention on Biological Diversity.

Chancellor, T., & Kubiriba, J. (2006). The effects of climate change on infectious diseases of plants. Foresight. UK Government Foresight Project on Infectious Diseases, Preparing for the Future.

Chege, F., Day, R., Mwang’ombe, A., Rotteveel, T., Sakala, A., Muthomi, J., et al. (2010). The Centre of Phytosanitary Excellence. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute 12th KARI Biennial Scientific Conference.

Cheke, R. A., Venn, J. F., & Jones, P. J. (2007). Forecasting suitable breeding conditions for the red-billed quelea Quelea quelea in southern Africa. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44(3), 523-533. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01295.x.

Chiarappa, L. (Ed). (1981). Crop loss assessment methods: FAO manual on the evaluation and prevention of losses by pests, diseases and weeds. CAB International.

Christoplos, I. (2010). Mobilising the potential of rural and agricultural extension. Forum American Bar Association. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

CILSS. (1999). Common regulation for the registration of pesticides in CILSS member states. Regulation. CILSS.

Clark, N. (2002). Innovation systems, institutional change and the new knowledge market: implications for third world agricultural development. Economics of Innov. New Tech., 11, 353-368.

Cotula, L., & Vermeulen, S. (2009). “Land grabs” in Africa: can the deals work for development? Middle East. London: IIED.

Cramer, H. H. (1967). Plant protection and world crop production. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer, 20, 1-524. Bayer Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten 20, 1–524.

Davis, K. E. (2008). Extension in Sub-Saharan Africa: Overview and Assessment of Past and Current Models, and Future Prospects. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 15(3), 15-28.

Day, R.K., Quinlan, M. M., & Ogutu, W. O. (2006). Analysis of the Application of the Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation Tool. Report to the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention.

Day, Roger K, Kairo, M. T. K., Abraham, Y. J., Kfir, R., Murphy, S. T., Mutitu, K., et al. (2003). Homopteran Pests of Conifers in Africa. In Peter Neuenschwander, C. Borgemeister, & J. Langewald (Eds.), Biological Control in IPM Systems in Africa (pp. 101-112). Wallingford: CABI.

Dennill, G. B., & Pretorius, W. L. (1995). The status of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), and its parasitoids on cabbages in South Africa. African Entomology, 3, 65-71.

127

Dinham, B. (2003). Growing vegetables in developing countries for local urban populations and export markets : problems confronting small-scale producers. Pest Management Science, 59, 575-582. doi: 10.1002/ps.654.

Dixon, J., Gulliver, A., & Gibbon, D. (2001). Farming systems and poverty: Improving farmers livelihoods in a changing world. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, and World Bank, Washington, DC.

Ebbels, D. L. (2003). Principles of Plant Health and Quarantine (p. 302pp). Wallingford: CABI.

EJF. (2007). The Deadly Chemicals in Cotton. Network (p. 38pp). London.FAO. (1997). International Plant Protection Convention. New revised text approved by FAO

conference at its 29th Session, November 1997). Secretary. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO. (2002). International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides ( Revised Version ) (adopted by the Hundred and Twenty-third Session of the FAO Council in November 2002 ). Organization. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO. (2005). Guidelines for the export, shipment, import and release of biological control agents and other beneficial organisms. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 3. Biological Control. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO. (2006a). Comparison between the activities of the SAICM Global Plan of Action and the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Management. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO. (2006b). Strategic Programme 2006-2011 for the implementation by FAO of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO. (2006c). Diagnostic Protocols for Regulated Pests. International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 27. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO. (2006d). Strengthening national food control systems: Guidelines to assess capacity building needs. Organization. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO. (2009). International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 5 Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO. (2010a). FAOStat. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from http://faostat.fao.org.FAO. (2010b). “Climate-Smart” Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food

Security, Adaptation and Mitigation. Security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO. (2010c). Recommendations of the 4the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pestidide Management and the 6th Session of the FAO panel of experts on pesticide management. 5-8 October 2010, Geneva. October. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO. (2010d). International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Regular monitoring report – 2008. Distribution. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO. (2010e). Fifth Session of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures 22-26 March 2010. Organization. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

FAO. (2010f). Sustainable crop production intensification through an ecosystem approach and an enabling environment: capturing efficiency through ecosystem services and management. Paper COAG/2010/3, 22nd session of the FAO Committee on Agriculture 16-19 June 2010. World. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

128

FAPRI. (2009). U.S. and World Agricultural Outlook. Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, Iowa State University, University of Missouri-Columbia.

FARA. (2006). Framework for African Agricultural Productivity. Africa. Accra, Ghana: Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa.

Fishel, F. M. (2009). The Global Increase in Counterfeit Pesticides. Document PI-174. Boards. University of Florida. Retrieved from http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.

Fisker, E. N., Bak, J., & Niassy, A. (2007). A simulation model to evaluate control strategies for the grasshopper Oedaleus senegalensis in West Africa. Crop Protection, 26(4), 592-601. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T5T-4KCGHKF-1/2/aa63e10e82de4bab3fcebe3570bcbc48.

Fleischer, G., Andoli, V., Coulibaly, M., & Randolph, T. (1998). Analyse socio- économique de la filière des pesticides en Côte d ’ Ivoire. Sciences-New York. Hannover: Institute of Economics in Horticulture.

Fleischer, G., & Waibel, H. (2003). Pesticide policy and integrated pest management. In K.M. Maredia, D. Dakouo, & D. Mota-Sanchez (Eds.), Integrated Pest Management in the Global Arena (pp. 49-63). Wallingford: CABI.

Gerken, A., Suglo, J.-vesper, & Braun, M. (2001). Pesticides Use and Policies in Ghana. An Economic and Institutional Analysis of Current Practice and Factors Influencing Pesticide Use. Policy. Hannover: Institute of Economics in Horticulture.

Godfray, H. C. J., & Waage, J. K. (1991). Predictive Modelling in Biological Control : The Mango Mealy Bug ( Rastrococcus invadens ) and Its Parasitoids. Journal of Applied Ecology, 28(2), 434-453.

Greathead, D. J. (1971). A Review of Biological Control in the Ethiopian Region. Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Technical Communication No. 5. Farnham Royal, UK. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.

Greathead, D. J. (2003). Historical Overview of Biological Control in Africa. In P Neuenschwander, C. Borgemeister, & J. Langewald (Eds.), Biological Control in IPM Systems in Africa (pp. 1-26). Wallingford: CABI.

Gressel, J., Hanafi, A., Head, G., Marasas, W., Obilana, B., Ochanda, J., et al. (2004). Major heretofore intractable biotic constraints to African food security that may be amenable to novel biotechnological solutions. Crop Protection, 23, 661-689. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2003.11.014.

Gunnell, D., Eddleston, M., Phillips, M. R., & Konradsen, F. (2007). The global distribution of fatal pesticide self-poisoning: systematic review. BMC public health, 7(c), 357. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-7-357.

Gurr, G. M., Scarratt, S. L., Wratten, S. D., Berndt, L., & Irvin, N. (2004). Ecological engineering, habitat manipulation and pest management. In G. M. Gurr, S. D. Wratten, & M. A. Altieri (Eds.), Ecological Engineering for Pest Management (pp. 1-12). CABI, CSIRO.

Gut, L. J., Stelinski, L. L., Thomson, D. R., & Miller, J. R. (2004). Behaviour modifying chemicals: prospects and constraints in IPM. In O. Koul, G. S. Dhaliwal, & G.W. Cuperus (Eds.), Integrated Pest Management: Potential Constraints and Challenges (pp. 73-121). Wallingford: CABI.

Hall, A., Clark, N., & Frost, A. (2010). Bottom-up, Bottom-line: Development-Relevant Enterprises in East Africa and their Significance for Agricultural Innovation. UNU-Merit Working Paper Series, 2010-42.

Hamilton, S., & Norton, G. (2001). Impacts of using participatory research and gender analysis in integrated pest management research. In N. Lilja, J. A. Ashby, & L. Sperling

129

(Eds.), Assessing the impact of participatory research and gender analysis. CGIAR programme for participatory research and gender analysis (pp. 257-265). Cali, Colombia.

Hardeweg, B. (2001). A Conceptual Framework for Economic Evaluation of Desert Locust Management Interventions. Special Issue Publication Series No. 5. Policy. Hannover: Pesticide Policy Project.

Harris, J., & Dent, D. (2000). Priorities in biopesticide research and development in developing countries. Biopesticides Series No. 2. Development (Wallingfor.). Wallingford: CABI. doi: 10.1079/9780851994796.0000.

Hassanali, A., Herren, H., Khan, Z. R., Pickett, J. a, & Woodcock, C. M. (2008). Integrated pest management: the push-pull approach for controlling insect pests and weeds of cereals, and its potential for other agricultural systems including animal husbandry. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 363(1491), 611-621. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2173.

Hazell, P., Anderson, J., Balzer, N., Hastrup Clemmensen, A., Hess, U., & Rispoli, F. (2010). The Potential for Scale and Sustainability in Weather Index Insurance for Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods. Water. Rome: IFAD and WFP.

Heinrichs, E. (2005). A New Paradigm for Implementing Ecologically-Based Participatory IPM in a Global Context: The IPM CRSP Model. Neotropical Entomology, 34, 143-153.

Hellmann, J. J., Byers, J. E., Bierwagen, B. G., & Dukes, J. S. (2008). Five potential consequences of climate change for invasive species. Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 22(3), 534-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00951.x.

Hillocks, R. J. (2005). Is there a role for Bt cotton in IPM for smallholders in Africa ? International Journal of Pest Management, 51(2), 131 - 141. doi: 10.1080/09670870500117292.

Houndété, T. A., Kétoh, G. K., Hema, O. S. A., Brévault, T., Glitho, I. A., & Martin, Thibaud. (2010). Insecticide resistance in field populations of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in West Africa. Pest management science, 66(11), 1181-5. doi: 10.1002/ps.2008.

Huffaker, C. B. (Ed.). (1980). New Technology of Pest Control. (p. 500). New York: Wiley.IAASTD. (2009). Agriculture at a Crossroads. International Assessment of Agricultural

Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. Global Report. Science And Technology. Washington DC: Island Press.

IAEA. (2010). Insect Pest Control Newsletter No. 75. Pest Control. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.

IICA. (2007). Performance , Vision and Strategy (PVS) for National Plant Protection Organizations. Strategy (p. 40pp). Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA).

Ives, A. R., & Carpenter, S. R. (2007). Stability and diversity of ecosystems. Science (New York, N.Y.), 317(5834), 58-62. doi: 10.1126/science.1133258.

Jorgenson, A. K., & Kuykendall, K. A. (2008). Globalization, Foreign Investment Dependence and Agriculture Production: Pesticide and Fertilizer Use in Less-developed Countries, 1990-2000. Social Forces, 87(1), 529-560. doi: 10.1353/sof.0.0064.

Joshi, C., Leeuw, J. de, & Duren, I. C. van. (2004). Remote sensing and GIS applications for mapping and spatial modelling of invasive species. Proceedings of the XXth ISPRS Congress, 12-23 July 2004, Istanbul. (pp. 669-677).

130

Karembu, M., Nguthi, F., & Abdel-Hamid, I. (2009). Biotech Crops in Africa: The Final Frontier. ISAAA AfriCenter, Nairobi, Kenya.

Kogan, M. (1998). Integrated Pest Management: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Developments. Annual Review of Entomology, 43(1), 243-270. Annual Reviews. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.243.

Koul, Opender, Cuperus, Gerrit W., & Elliott, N. (Eds.). (2008). Areawide Pest Management: Theory and Implementation. Wallingford: CABI.

Leavy, J., & Smith, S. (2010). Future Farmers? Exploring Youth Aspirations for African Agriculture. Future Agricultures Policy Brief 037. Policy. Future Agricultures Consortium.

Lecoq, M. (2001). Recent progress in Desert and Migratory Locust Management in Africa. Are preventative actions possible? Journal of Orthoptera Research, 10(2), 277-291.

Ling, L. (1953). International Plant Protection Convention: its history, objectives and present status. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 1, 65-68.

London, L., & Bailie, R. (2001). Challenges for improving surveillance for pesticide poisoning: policy implications for developing countries. International Journal for Epidemiology, 30, 564-570.

Lopian, R. (2005). The International Plant Protection Convention and invasive alien species. identification of risks and management of invasive alien species using the IPPC framework. Proceedings of a conference in Braunschweig, Germany 22-26 September 2003 (pp. 6-16). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Lu, Y., Wu, K., Jiang, Y., Xia, B., Li, P., Feng, H., et al. (2010). Mirid bug outbreaks in multiple crops correlated with wide-scale adoption of Bt cotton in China. Science (New York, N.Y.), 328(5982), 1151-4. doi: 10.1126/science.1187881.

Magalhães, J. (2010). Regional Sanitary and Phytosanitary Frameworks and Strategies in Africa. Report for the Standards and Trade Development Facility. Development. Geneva: WTO Secretariat.

Magor, J. (2007). THE FUTURE OF BIOPESTICIDES IN DESERT LOCUST MANAGEMENT: REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP HELD IN SALY, SENEGAL, 12-15 FEBRUARY 2007.

Makinde, D., Mumba, L., & Ambali, A. (2009). Status of Biotechnology in Africa : Asian Biotechnology and Development Review, 11(3), 1-10.

Malena, G. (1994). Gender Issues in Integrated Pest Management in African Agriculture. NRI Socio economics Series 5. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.

Manirakiza, P., Covaci, A., Nizigiymana, L., Ntakimazi, G., & Schepens, P. (2002). Persistent chlorinated pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls in selected fish species from Lake Tanganyika, Burundi, Africa. Environmental Pollution, 117(3), 447-455. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VB5-44XCWJX-8/2/daa54bbc61c61a35b7977f54c726c900.

Maredia, Karim M., Dakouo, Dona, Mota-Sanchez, David, & Raman, K. V. (2003). Making IPM successful globally: Research, policy, management and networking recommendations. In K.M. Maredia, D. Dakouo, & D. Mota-Sanchez (Eds.), Integrated Pest Management in the Global Arena (pp. 501-505). Wallingford.

Martin, T, Ochou, G., Djihinto, a, Traore, D., Togola, M., Vassal, J., et al. (2005). Controlling an insecticide-resistant bollworm in West Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 107(4), 409-411. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2004.11.006.

McCann, K. S. (2000). The diversity-stability debate. Nature, 405(6783), 228-33. doi: 10.1038/35012234.

131

McCarthy, J. J., Canziani, O. F., Leary, N. A., Dokken, D. J., & White, K. S. (2001). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Third Assessment Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group ll. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mcconnachie, A. J., Strathie, L. W., Mersie, W., Gebrehiwot, L., Zewdie, K., Abdurehim, A., et al. (2010). Current and potential geographical distribution of the invasive plant Parthenium hysterophorus (Asteraceae) in eastern and southern Africa. Weed Research, 51(1), 71-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3180.2010.00820.x.

Morgan, H., & P., M. (2008). Capacity, Change and Performance. Study Report. Discussion Paper 59B. Change. Maastricht: European Centre for Development Policy Management.

Morris, E. J. (2008). The Cartagena Protocol : Implications for Regional Trade and Technology Development in Africa. Development Policy Review, 26(1), 29-57.

Morse, S., & Buhler, W. (1997). Integrated pest man- agement ideals and realities in developing countries. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner.

Mudimu, G. D., Waibel, Hermann, & Fleischer, Gerd. (1999). Pesticide Policies in Zimbabwe Status and Implications for Change. Policy. Hannover: Institute of Economics in Horticulture.

Muir-Leresche, K., Blackie, M., Damiba, A., Stiles, M., & Lopriore, C. (2010). Evaluation of FAO Capacity Development Africa. Report to FAO.

Musebe, R., Day, Roger, Kipkoech, S., Musavi, F., Kimani, M., Opiyo, P., et al. (2010). Putting research into use: community based armyworm forecasting in Kenya. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute 12th KARI Biennial Scientific Conference.

Nellemann, C., MacDevette, M., Manders, T., Eickhout, B., Svihus, B., Prins, A. G., et al. (2009). The environmental food crisis – The environment’s role in averting future food crises (p. 103pp). United Nations Environment Programme.

NEPAD. (2003). Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme. Management. Midrand, South Africa: NEPAD.

NEPAD. (2005). Africaʼs Science and Technology Consolidated Plan of Action. Science And Technology. New Partnership for Africaʼs Development.

NEPAD. (2009a). Sustainable Land and Water Management. Midrand, South Africa: NEPAD.

NEPAD. (2009b). Framework for Improving Rural Infrastructure and Trade Related Capacities For Market Access (FIMA). Midrand, South Africa: NEPAD.

NEPAD. (2009c). Framework for African Food Security (FAFS). Midrand, South Africa: NEPAD.

NEPAD. (2010a). Accelerating CAADP Country Implementation: A Guide for Implementors. Initiatives. Midrand, South Africa: NEPAD.

NEPAD. (2010b). Implementing CAADP for Africa’s Food Security needs : A progress report on selected activities (p. 5pp).

Neuenschwander, P, & Herren, H. R. (1988). manihoti , Biological control of the cassava mealybug , Phenacoccus exotic parasitoid Epidinocarsis lopezi in Africa. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 318, 319-333.

Neuenschwander, Peter. (2003). Biological Control of Cassava and Mango Mealybugs in Africa. In Peter Neuenschwander, C. Borgemeister, & J. Langewald (Eds.), Biological Control in IPM Systems in Africa (pp. 45-59). Wallingford: CABI.

Neuenschwander, Peter, Langewald, J., Borgemeister, C., & James, B. (2003). Biological Control for Increased Agricultural Productivity, Poverty Reduction and Environmental

132

Protection in Africa. In Peter Neuenschwander, C. Borgemeister, & J. Langewald (Eds.), Biological Control in IPM Systems in Africa (pp. 377-405). Wallingford: CABI.

Nibouche, S., Guerard, N., Martin, P., & Vaissayre, Maurice. (2007). Modelling the role of refuges for sustainable management of dual-gene Bt Cotton in West African smallholder farming systems. Crop Protection, 26(6), 828-836. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T5T-4M33VPN-1/2/5053df7d3c54c7940ea0d992ecfb7aa5.

Nweke, F. (2009). Controlling Cassava Mosaic Virus and Cassava Mealybug in Sub-Saharan Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00912. Food Policy. International Food Policy Research Institute.

Nwilene, F. E., Nwanze, K. F., & Youdeowei, A. (2008). Impact of integrated pest management on food and horticultural crops in Africa. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 128, 355-363. doi: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2008.00744.x.

OAU. (1967, October). Phyto-Sanitary Convention for Africa South of the Sahara (CAB/LEG/24.4/11). African Union. doi: 10.1038/174725b0.

Odiyo, P. O. (1990). Progress and Developments in Forecasting Outbreaks of the African Armyworm, a Migrant Moth. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:, 328(1251), 555-569. doi: 10.1098/rstb.1990.0127.

Odogola, W. R. (2006). Final survey report on the status of rice production, processing and marketing in Uganda. Report submitted to the Embassy of Japan in Uganda through JICA and Sasakawa Africa Association, Uganda.

OECD. (2006). The Challenge of Capacity Development. Working towards good practice. DAC Guidelines and Reference Series.

Oerke, E.-C. (2006). Crop losses to pests. Journal of Agricultural Science, 144, 31-43. doi: 10.1017/S0021859605005708.

Oerke, E.-C., Dehne, H.-W., Schonbeck, F., & Weber, A. (1994). Crop Production and Crop Protection – Estimated Losses in Major Food and Cash Crops. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Okello, J. J., & Okello, R. M. (2010). Do EU pesticide standards promote environmentally-friendly production of fresh export vegetables in developing countries? The evidence from Kenyan green bean industry. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 12(3), 341-355. doi: 10.1007/s10668-009-9199-y.

Orr, A. (2003). Integrated Pest Management for Resource-Poor African Farmers : Is the Emperor Naked ? World Development, 31(5), 831-845. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00015-9.

Pinter, P. J., Hatfield, J. L., Schepers, J. S., Barnes, E. M., Moran, M. S., Daughtry, C. S. T., et al. (2003). Remote Sensing for Crop Management. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 69(6), 647-664.

Plant Health Australia. (2008). Australian Emergency Plant Pest Response Plan. Health (San Francisco). Plant Health Australia.

POPS Pesticides Working Group. (2009). Endosulfan in West Africa: Adverse Effects, its Banning, and Alternatives. Alternatives. IPEN, PAN Africa.

Randall, I. (2011). Guidelines for Non State Actor participation in CAADP processes. Prepared for CAADP Working Group on Non State Actor Participation. Communication (p. 31pp).

Raybould, A., & Quemada, H. (2010). Bt crops and food security in developing countries: realised benefits, sustainable use and lowering barriers to adoption. Food Security, 2(3), 247-259. doi: 10.1007/s12571-010-0066-3.

133

Regnier, F. E. (1971). Semiochemicals – structure and function. Biology of Reproduction, 4, 309-326.

Repetto, R., & Baliga, S. S. (1996). Pesticides and The Immune System: The Public Health Risks. Washington, DC. World Resources Institute.

Rivera, W. M., & Sulaiman, V. R. (2009). Extension : object of reform, engine for innovation. Outlook on Agriculture, 38(3), 267-273.

Rosegrant, M. W., M. S. Paisner, M. S., Meijer, S., & Witcover, J. (2001). Global food projections to 2020: Emerging trends and alternative futures. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington DC.

RSB. (2010). RSB Principles & Criteria for Sustainable Biofuel Production. Lausanne: Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, EPFL.

Seelan, S. K., Laguette, S., Casady, G. M., & Seielstad, G. A. (2003). Remote sensing applications for precision agriculture: A learning community approach. Remote Sensing of Environment, 88, 157-169. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2003.04.007.

Sereda, B., Basson, N. C. J., & Marais, P. (1997). Bioassay of insecticide resistance in Plutella xylostella (L.) in South Africa. African Plant Protection, 3(2), 67-72.

Settle, W., & Garba, H. (2009). The West African Regional Integrated Production and Pest Management ( IPPM ) Programme. Agriculture. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Singh, R. (2009). Mobile phones for development and profit: a win-win scenario - ODI Opinion. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Smith, Julian, Waage, Jeff, Woodhall, J. W., Bishop, S. J., & Spence, N. J. (2008). The challenge of providing plant pest diagnostic services for Africa. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 121(3), 365-375. doi: 10.1007/s10658-008-9311-4.

SP-IPM. (2010). Integrated Pest Management and Crop Health — bringing together sustainable agroecosystems and people’s health. Agriculture. Ibadan, Nigeria: SP-IPM Secretariat, IITA.

Spielman, D. J., & Grebmer, K. von. (2004). Public-private partnerships in agricultural research : an analysis of challenges facing industry and the consultative group on international agricultural research. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 113. Food Policy. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

STDF. (2010). Indicators to Measure the Performance of a National SPS System. STDF/OECD Working Paper (Draft) for Discussion at the STDF/OECD Technical Working Meeting on SPS Indicators, WTO, 1 July 2010. World Trade. Geneva: Standards and Trade Development Facility.

Stenseth, N. C., Leirs, H., Mercelis, S., & Mwanjabe, P. (2001). Comparing strategies for controlling an African pest rodent : an empirically based theoretical study. Journal of Applied Ecology, 38(5), 1020-1031.

Swallow, B., & Mwangi, E. (2008). Prosopis juliflora Invasion and Rural Livelihoods in the Lake Baringo Area of Kenya. Conservation and Society, 6(2), 130. doi: 10.4103/0972-4923.49207.

Tabashnik, B. E., Van Rensburg, J. B. J., & Carrière, Y. (2009). Field-evolved insect resistance to Bt crops: definition, theory, and data. Journal of economic entomology, 102(6), 2011-25. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20069826.

The Royal Society. (2009, June). Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. Science translational medicine. London: The Royal Society. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3001137.

UPOV. (2009). International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. What is is, what it does. Intellectual Property. UPOV Publication No. 437(E).

134

Van Huis, A., & Meerman, F. (1997). Can we make IPM work for resource-poor farmers in sub-Saharan Africa ? International Journal of Pest Management, 43(4), 313-320.

Van Mele, P., Wanvoeke, J., & Zossou, E. (2010). Enhancing rural learning, linkages, and institutions: the rice videos in Africa. Development in Practice, 20(3), 414-421. doi: 10.1080/09614521003710021.

Vandenbosch, T. (2006). Post-primary agricultural education and training in sub-Saharan Africa : adapting supply to changing demand. World.

Vreysen, M. J. B., Carpenter, J. E., & Marec, F. (2010). Improvement of the sterile insect technique for codling moth Cydia pomonella (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera Tortricidae) to facilitate expansion of field application. Journal of Applied Entomology, 134(3), 165-181. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2009.01430.x.

Waage, J, Woodhall, J., Bishop, S., Smith, J, Jones, D., & Spence, N. (2009). Patterns of plant pest introductions in Europe and Africa. Agricultural Systems, 99(1), 1-5. Elsevier Ltd. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2008.08.001.

Wadlow, C. (2009). The great Kenyan coffee crop disaster: a cautionary tale of coffee and counterfeiting. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 4(12), 867-875.

WAHSA. (2004, July). Acute pesticide poisoning and the need for national surveillance systems. The case example of Tanzania. WAHSA Policy Brief. Cape Town, Dar es Salaam: Work and Health in Southern Africa (WAHSA). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20058061.

WAHSA. (2008). Pesticide Laboratory Capacity in the SADC Region – A Vital Link in Pesticide Risk Reduction. Africa. Cape Town, Dar es Salaam: WAHSA.

Waibel, H. (1991). Pesticide subsidies in Southeast Asia. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin, 38(2), 111-120.

Wandiga, S. O., Mahadi, V., & Olum, P. O. (2009). Africa Review Report on Chemicals. Science And Technology.

Way, M. J., & Emden, H. F. V. (2000). Integrated pest management in practice - pathways towards successful application. Crop Protection, 19, 81-103.

Williamson, S., Ball, a, & Pretty, J. (2008). Trends in pesticide use and drivers for safer pest management in four African countries. Crop Protection, 27(10), 1327-1334. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2008.04.006.

Witt, A. B. R. (2010). Biofuels and invasive species from an African perspective – a review. GCB Bioenergy, 2(6), 321-329. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01063.x DO  - 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01063.x.

Witt, H., Patel, R., & Schnurr, M. (2006). Can the Poor Help GM Crops ? Technology , Representation & Cotton in the Makhathini Flats , South Africa. Review of African Political Economy, (109), 497-513. doi: 10.1080/03056240601000945.

Wittenberger, R., & Cock, M. J. W. (Eds). (2001). Invasive Alien Species : A Toolkit of Best Prevention and Management Practices. Water (p. 228). Wallingford: CAB International.

WTO. (2008). Good Practice in SPS-related Technical Assistance: An Overview and Synthesis of the Findings of STDF/OECD Research (G/SPS/GEN/875). Geneva: World Trade Organisation.

Wu, F., & Khlangwiset, P. (2010). Health economic impacts and cost-effectiveness of aflatoxin-reduction strategies in Africa: case studies in biocontrol and post-harvest interventions. Food Additives and Contaminants, 27, 486–509.

Zoundi, J. S., Hitimana, L., & Hussein, K. (2006). Agricultural biotechnolog and the transformation of West African agriculture: Synthesis of the Regional Consultation with

135

West Africa actors. Africa. Paris: Sahel and West Africa Club Secretariat (SWAC)/OECD.

136

Annexes

Annex 1. Terms of ReferenceAnnex 2. Extract of Tripartite Free Trade Agreement SPS AnnexAnnex 3. Article IV from the IPPC Annex 4. Performance, Vision and Strategy for National Plant Protection Organisations

137

Annex 1. Terms of Reference

TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)for Development of a Strategic Framework for Crop Protection in Africa

1.0 BACKGROUND

“Africa is a rural continent and agriculture is extremely important to it. For the region as a whole, the agricultural sector accounts for about 60 percent of the total labour force, 20 percent of the total merchandise exports and 17 per cent of GDP.” (CAADP).

Given the huge demand for food to feed the increasing number of malnourished and hungry people the Continent cannot afford to lose more of the production as a result of pest nor can the continent afford to lose its market share and income due to sanitary and phytosanitary reasons. Crops in Africa have been affected by desert locust, coconut lethal yellowing, cassava mosaic, larger grain borer, fruit flies to name a few. The health of farming communities and consumers at large has been affected by pesticide residue in food and water. The environment has been polluted through improper disposal of obsolete pesticides and other hazardous waste.

As part of the programme for reduced dependence on pesticides, FAO has introduced Farmers to learning through the farmer field school approach with integrated pest management as the point of entry. Assistance has been given through the various programmes in FAO:

a) The Desert Locust Programme;b) The Africa Stockpile programme;c) Technical assistance through the Rotterdam Convention Secretariat;d) Capacity building and infrastructural support through the International

Plant protection Convention Secretariat;e) Global IPM Facility; andf) the EMPRES.

Notwithstanding these various interventions by FAO and other agencies operating in Africa, there is a need to develop a comprehensive strategic plan which identifies all the sectors, the partners and all points of intervention into a cohesive framework which can be used by the various agencies as a working document for guiding, informing and advising on future needs.While the CAADP document has elements of the crop protection which can be found in Pillar 2 “improved market access”, Pillar 3“Increasing food supply” and Pillar 4 “Agriculture research, technology dissemination and adoption. It is necessary to develop a comprehensive cohesive sub pillar like the one of “Disasters and emergencies” which touch in part the crop protection sub pillar and the manner in which the livestock, forestry and fisheries subsectors were integrated into the CAADP. It is for this purpose that CABI has been identified as a development agency working in Africa, with experience working with FAO and other Partners in Phytosanitary and Crop Protection matters

Overall objectiveThe objective of this assignment is following the review all important literature primary and secondary, published and unpublished on Crop Protection Situation in Africa; and needs assessment of the crop protection programmes in country, sub region and regional levels provide FAO with a CAADP sub Pillar of “Crop Protection” with various recommendations of proposed actions. This sub pillar would be under Pillars 2 and three 3 and coordinating with some of the elements in Pillar 4 of the CAADP document.

138

GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK

The sub pillar will include recommendations to cover all aspects for the implementation and, financing of the proposed actions on the following:

a. Phytosanitary needs assessment in Africa. b. Identification of the problems affecting countries in the diagnosis and management of pest in

Africa.c. Identification of problems affecting countries with regards to pesticide managementd. Identification of the current related programmes being operated by various partners with a

view to coordinating them.e. Recommendations for feasible crop protection programmes, in regards to the problems and

needs identified above.

Specific issues to be assessed during the course of the consultation and which will require recommendations are as follows:

1. Assessment of the Policy environment for Crop Protection in Africa Phytosanitary, pest pesticide management Policy Legal instruments Regional harmonization instruments

2. Assessment and analysis of Pest and pesticide management Pest occurrence Pesticide use Interventions by farmers/extensionists/researchers

3. Development of a Conceptual framework for pest/ pesticide management at

A. country levelMain areas/issues:

Integrated pest management Pest Risk analysis Surveillance Diagnostic services capacity building Plant quarantine Transboundary pest Legal instruments Relative position of the crop protection service within the country Management skills within the service Domestication of the various international agreements Relative position of the crop protection programme within a national

agricultural programme Overall financing of the service Access to communication systems Coordination between the various services which impact on phytosanitary

services such as extension, forestry, research.B. At sub region and regional level

Main areas/issues

Harmonisation of legal instruments Coordinated interventions for transboundary pest Coordinated action for pesticide management

139

Border control Development of regional standards Centers of Excellence Support for the InterAfrican Phytosanitary Council

4. Institutions, Programmes and Infrastructures providing crop protection services Diagnostic Community Infrastructures/Institutions pest management services Training/capacity building Transboundary pest Centers of excellence.

5. Lessons learnt from current crop protection programme approaches.

140

Annex 2. Extract of Annex 9 on SPS Measures under Article 29(3) of the Tripartite Free Trade Agreement

Article 1General Provisions

1. All Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) measures which may directly or indirectly affect trade among Member States within the Tripartite region and between the Members States and third countries or regions shall be subject to the provisions of this Annex.

2. Products imported into any Member State from any country outside the Tripartite region shall be subject to the relevant provisions of this Annex.

Part ThreePlant Protection

Article 31General Principles

Member States shall abide by the following principles:

a) To promote and facilitate trade and ensure appropriate level of plant protection, Member States shall aim at adopting IPPC standards in their national legislation;

b) Member States shall provide and publish pest lists in order to facilitate Pest Risk Analysis (PRA);

c) Member States shall adopt phytosanitary measures only where such measures are necessary to prevent the introduction and/or spread of quarantine pests or to limit the economic impact of regulated non-quarantine pests;

d) Phytosanitary measures shall be consistent with the pest risk involved and shall represent least restrictive measures available which result in minimum impediment to intra- and extra-regional trade;

e) Member States shall publish and disseminate phytosanitary prohibitions, restrictions and requirements and, on request, shall make available the rationale for such measures;

f) Member States shall, in accordance with this Annex apply phytosanitary measures without discrimination between Member States of the same phytosanitary status if such Member States can demonstrate that they have the same phytosanitary status and apply identical or equivalent phytosanitary measures in pest management.

g) In case of quarantine pest within Member States, phytosanitary measures shall apply without discrimination between comparable intra- and extra-Tripartite phytosanitary situations.

h) Member States shall technically justify phytosanitary measures on the basis of conclusions reached by using a pest risk analysis or, where applicable, another comparable examination and evaluation of available scientific information.

i) Member States shall ensure that they adopt policies on plant protection, pesticide registration including importation, distribution, storage and use and phytosanitary issues affecting intra and extra-Tripartite trade.

j) Member States shall develop, harmonise and implement common and national policies for the use of cultural, biological, host plant resistance, chemical and integrated approaches as strategies to contain crop pests.

k) Member States shall put in place policy framework for management of pesticides in accordance with FAO code of conduct in packaging, storage distribution and safe use.

l) Member States shall formulate policies governing development and introduction of living modified organisms.

m) Member States shall formulate policies for importation and subsequent use of biological control agents in pest management.

141

n) Member States shall establish regional collaboration and cooperation in phytosanitary and pesticide management issues including policy, legislation, surveillance, inspection, diagnosis, pest risk analysis and treatment.

o) Member States shall establish regulations concerning the in-transit movement of consignments.

p) Member States shall ensure that all plant nurseries are registered with the relevant authorities and inspected on regular basis.

q) Member States shall ensure that there is adequate phytosanitary document control system as required by international standards.

r) Member States shall ensure that consignments moving intra- and extra-Tripartite trade comply with the import requirements.

s) Member States shall ensure timely notification concerning interception due to non-compliance.

t) Member States shall ensure that a certificate is issued for pre-shipment treatment of plants or plant products likely to be affected by regulated pests. Member States shall ensure that treatment certification is only done by competent and certified agents.

u) Member States shall develop and adopt treatment manuals for certification of certain commodities.

v) Member States shall promote organic production and certification of farm products

Article 32Competent Authority and Institutional Mechanisms

Member States shall work towards the establishment of national plant protection organisations, competent authority or agency with a legal mandate to regulate and oversee the implementation of official controls within the Member State’s territory.

Article 33General Official Controls

1. Member States shall establish quarantine facilities for imported plant materials especially those imported for multiplication purposes.

2. Member States shall set up a system of approval and accreditation of quarantine stations.

3. Member States shall take measures to ensure the protection of the environment and biodiversity, especially regarding use of phytosanitary chemicals.

4. Member States undertake to establish adequate controls at national borders by ensuring coordination of official controls at border inspection points (BIPs) and common control procedures at BIPs.

5. Member States shall not allow entry of plants and plant products that carry plant pests or diseases or do not comply with plant protection requirements into or out of its territory.

Article 34Inspection

1. Phytosanitary inspections shall be used for hazard identification, risk monitoring and for decisions for commodity treatments or instruction.

2. Phytosanitary inspections shall encompass all inspections performed to an export crop from production, storage and processing facility of a consignment prior to the release of a commodity to circulate freely in intra and extra- Tripartite trade.

3. Member States shall conduct inspections prior to loading of plants, plant parts and plant products consignments.

4. Member States shall develop inspection protocols for specific crops and perform inspections on regular basis.

142

5. Member States shall ensure that field inspections on seed crops are done in conjunction with the relevant authorities

6. Member States shall ensure post-entry inspections for materials for planting in greenhouses or glasshouses are routinely carried out.

7. Member States shall ensure that cold stores, pack-houses and other related facilities shall be inspected on a regular basis to enable intra and extra-Tripartite trade.

8. Member States shall establish satisfactory field inspection systems particularly with seed certification and also for export crops.

Article 35Certification

1. Member States shall ensure that phytosanitary/CGP certificates are issued based on inspection and laboratory testing.

2. Member States shall ensure that seed multiplication processes are subjected to seed certification.

Article 36Monitoring and Surveillance

1. Member States shall establish measures and actions to gain information on pest status and pest changes and to enable management of pest free areas and farming systems.

2. Member States shall conduct pest surveillance for information to determine and management of pest free areas, areas of low incidence and the establishment of the absence of regulated or quarantine pests.

3. Member States shall develop computerized databases of pests for use at national and regional levels.

Article 37Identification and Traceability

1. Member States shall adopt and implement appropriate regulatory measures to ensure that food business operators maintain adequate traceability systems, including records of the sources of all foods and food ingredients, and information on those supplied with food and/or food ingredients. The traceability system implemented by a food business operator must be adequate to ensure the effective recall and withdrawal of unfit or unsafe products from the market.

2. Member States shall cooperate and share information, amongst national food control authorities and agencies to facilitate effective recall and withdrawal of unfit or unsafe products. The Tripartite Secretariat shall liaise with national food control authorities to ensure that unfit or unsafe products are promptly withdrawn or recalled

Article 38Early Warning and Emergency Preparedness

1. Member States shall notify the importer of non-compliance and the emergency action whenever a consignment has not complied to phytosanitary measures and certification.

2. Member States shall establish an early warning system for detection, monitoring and control of migratory pest such as Locust, Armyworm and Quelea (Weaverbirds).

Article 39Risk Analysis

1. Member States shall apply phytosanitary measures based on a policy of pest risk analysis, recognizing that risk of the introduction and spread of pests always exists when importing plants, plant products and other regulated articles.

2. Member States shall put in place safe phytosanitary diagnostic laboratories as part of plant pest risk management system.

3. Member States shall conduct pest risk analysis (PRA) for regulated non-quarantine pests and quarantine pest reported in other country (RNQPs), including the integrated processes to be used for risk assessment and the selection of risk management options to achieve a pest tolerance level.

143

Article 40Quality Assurance and Management Systems

1. Member States shall develop, revise and make available standard operational procedures for use during phytosanitary work.

2. Member States shall promote the use of Good Agricultural Practices in crop protection including the use of healthy seed, use of varieties resistant to pests and the environmentally friendly pesticides.

Article 41Standard Setting

1. Member States shall cooperate in the development of harmonized standards for phytosanitary measures based, whenever possible on international standards, guidelines and recommendations developed within the framework of this protocol or where harmonisation is not feasible make the measures equivalent.

2. Member States shall develop regional standards, guidelines and recommendations which are consistent with international standards where they exist in order to participate in intra and extra Tripartite trade.

Article 42Research and Development

1. Member States shall implement a satisfactory system of curriculum development for the technical phytosanitary staff.

2. Member States shall establish adequately equipped facilities for laboratory analysis and shall provide phytosanitary services such as transport for field inspection, materials and laboratory equipment as necessary.

Article 43Resources

1. Member States shall ensure that permanent and trained phytosanitary inspectors are placed at all designated entry points.

2. Member States shall make provision for minimum qualification of staff employed in the phytosanitary inspection services.

3. Member States shall establish or strengthen manpower development plans for the phytosanitary sector.

4. Member States shall install or equip designated entry points with appropriate equipments for safe destruction treatment of intercepted plant materials

5. Member States undertake to provide sufficient financial resources required for the effective and efficient execution of the duties of the competent authority

Article 44Responsibility of Stakeholders

1. The primary responsibility for complying with the provisions of this Article rests with crop producers and processors. The National Plant Protection Organisations in Member States shall, where possible, provide guidance and advice to businesses to meet plant protection law and SPS requirements and shall enforce self-regulation by crop producers and processors.

2. Member States have the responsibility of establishing and implementing policies and the agreement for the enforcement of plant protection, and for providing regulatory oversight of plant protection controls within their territories.

3. The regulatory functions of Member States shall include performance monitoring of plant protection law enforcement/control bodies. The regulatory function may be delegated to an independent legally established body and agency.

4. Member States may delegate plant protection law enforcement powers to an appropriate authority or persons.

5. The Tripartite Secretariat shall

144

(a) be responsible for collating plant protection notifications from Member States;

(b) be responsible for developing, managing and monitoring the application of plant protection certification schemes at regional level by way of co-operation with national SPS institutions;

(c) may represent or complement representation of Member States at relevant international plant protection fora; and

(d) facilitate periodic meetings of regional plant protection enquiry points.

6. Other relevant stakeholders may be called upon to take up any other responsibility as need arises.

Article 45Awareness

1. Member States shall develop appropriate and place EIC materials at all public entry points such as airports, border posts, railway stations, bus terminals and other appropriate locations.

2. Member States shall publish and circulate technical newsletters among all stakeholders concern such as traders, farmers, tourist agents, phytosanitary inspectors in order to disseminate knowledge and information on phytosanitary, quarantine system and hazards emanating from different regulated pests.

3. Member States shall develop training programs for all the relevant stakeholders to promote awareness, understanding and implications of phytosanitary requirements and controls.

145

Annex 3. Article IV from the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 1997)

ARTICLE IVGeneral provisions relating to the organizational

arrangements for national plant protection1. Each contracting party shall make provision, to the best of its ability, for an official national plant protection organization with the main responsibilities set out in this Article.

2. The responsibilities of an official national plant protection organization shall include the following:

(a) the issuance of certificates relating to the phytosanitary regulations of the importing contracting party for consignments of plants, plant products and other regulated articles;

(b) the surveillance of growing plants, including both areas under cultivation (inter alia fields, plantations, nurseries, gardens, greenhouses and laboratories) and wild flora, and of plants and plant products in storage or in transportation, particularly with the object of reporting the occurrence, outbreak and spread of pests, and of controlling those pests, including the reporting referred to under Article VIII paragraph 1(a);

(c) the inspection of consignments of plants and plant products moving in international traffic and, where appropriate, the inspection of other regulated articles, particularly with the object of preventing the introduction and/or spread of pests;

(d) the disinfestation or disinfection of consignments of plants, plant products and other regulated articles moving in international traffic, to meet phytosanitary requirements;

(e) the protection of endangered areas and the designation, maintenance and surveillance of pest free areas and areas of low pest prevalence;

(f) the conduct of pest risk analyses;(g) to ensure through appropriate procedures that the phytosanitary security of consignments after

certification regarding composition, substitution and reinfestation is maintained prior to export; and

(h) training and development of staff.3. Each contracting party shall make provision, to the best of its ability, for the following:

(a) the distribution of information within the territory of the contracting party regarding regulated pests and the means of their prevention and control;

(b) research and investigation in the field of plant protection;(c) the issuance of phytosanitary regulations; and(d) the performance of such other functions as may be required for the implementation of this

Convention.

4. Each contracting party shall submit a description of its official national plant protection organization and of changes in such organization to the Secretary. A contracting party shall provide a description of its organizational arrangements for plant protection to another contracting party, upon request.

146

Annex 4. Performance, Vision and Strategy for National Plant Protection Organisations

The 27 critical competencies and their description from the PVS (IICA, 2007).

I Technical Capability1. Diagnostic capability The capability and authority of the NPPO to identify and record those biological

agents that can adversely affect plants and their related products.2 Emergency response

capabilityThe capability and authority of the NPPO to rapidly respond to unexpected pest outbreak or other situations that put at immediate risk the phytosanitary status of plants and their products covered under its mandate.

3. Quarantine exclusion The capability and authority of the NPPO to prevent the introduction and spread of unwanted pests in the country.

4. Surveillance The capability and authority of the NPPO to detect and monitor pests, and verify the phytosanitary status of the plants and their products covered under its mandate.

5. Emerging issues The capability and authority of the NPPO to identify in advance, those phytosanitary problems covered under its mandate which may either put at risk or benefit the phytosanitary status of the country, the environment, the trade of plants or their related products.

6. Risk analysis The capability of the NPPO to make decision and carry out actions based on scientific principles and evidence, including the assessment, communication and management of risk.

7. Technical innovation The capability of the NPPO to update its overall service. II Human and Financial capital1. Human Talent The capability of the NPPO to efficiently carry out the professional and

technical functions; measured in two ways: academic degrees and qualifications of its professional staff.

2. Training The capability of the NPPO to keep its personnel up-to-date in terms of relevant information and knowledge; measured in terms of the implementation of an annual training plan.

3. Funding sources The ability of the NPPO to access financial resources for its continued operation and sustainability, independent of any type of political pressure from users.

4. Stability of policies and programs

The capability of the NPPO to implement and sustain policies and programs over time; measured by the frequency of which the entire national service is reorganized.

5. Contingency funds The capability of the NPPO to access extraordinary financial resources in order to respond to emergency situations or emerging issues; measured by the case of which contingency resources can be made available.

6. Technical independence The capability of the NPPO to carry out its duties with autonomy and free from political interference that may affect technical and scientific decisions; measured in two ways: political appointments and technical support for decisions.

7. Capability to invest and grow

The capability of the NPPO to secure additional investments over time that leads to a sustained improvement in the entire service. The utilization of such resources is not subject to any type of political pressure from its users.

III Interaction with the private sector1. Information The capability of the NPPO to inform, in an effective and timely fashion, its

users of activities, programs and phytosanitary developments.2. Communication The capability of the NPPO to maintain fluid channels of communication with

the public and private sectors.3. Official representation The capability of the NPPO to regularly and actively participate, coordinate and

provide follow up to the meetings of international organizations such as the WTO/SPS and IPPC.

4. Accreditation The capability and authority of the NPPO to accredit and delegate with third parties (e.g. laboratories, etc), the execution of specific official services.

5. Capability to be responsive to user needs

The capability of the NPPO to collaborate with its users to develop new programs and services in response to changing priorities and opportunities.

IV Access to Markets1. Compliance with The capability and authority of the NPPO to ensure that users are in

147

regulatory norms compliance with the regulatory norms covered under its mandate.2. Setting of regulatory

normsThe capability and authority of the NPPO to formulate and adopt regulatory norms and processes and products covered under its mandate.

3. Harmonization The capability and authority of the NPPO to be active in harmonization and ensure that the national regulations covered under its mandate are in conformity with relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations.

4. Certification The capability and authority of the NPPO to certify products, services and processes covered under its mandate and in accordance with the national regulatory norms and international standards, guidelines and recommendations.

5. Equivalency agreements The capability and authority of the NPPO to negotiate, implement, and maintain equivalency agreements with other countries on phytosanitary norms and processes under its mandate.

6. Traceability The capability and authority of the NPPO to track the history, location and distribution of plants and their related products covered under its mandate.

7. Transparency The capability and authority of the NPPO to notify the WTO/SPS and the IPPC of its national regulations and phytosanitary status, in accordance with the procedures established by these organizations.

8. Regionalization The capability and authority of the NPPO to establish and maintain pest-free areas or areas of low pest prevalence, in accordance to the criteria established by the WTO/SPS and the IPPC.

148