Crop Protection in Africa:
Situation Analysis
and
Strategic Framework
Prepared for
FAO Regional Office for Africa
by
CABI 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
Background
1. 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 pests
11. 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 management
17. 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 lowerincome 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 methods
25. 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 systems
34. 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 interorganizational 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 information
40. 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 Objectives
Crop 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 Approach
Information 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, 1924 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 document
The 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.
inclusion in the overall framework.
Each section ends with a list of key points for
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 CAADP
CAADP 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 Pillars
The 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 CAADP
Here 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 CAADP
Pillar 1. Extending the area under sustainable land management and reliable water control
systems
Increasing 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 access
A 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 hunger
Overall 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 adoption
This 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
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
Integrated
natural
management
resource
Increased area under irrigation
Climate change
Market oriented agriculture
Improved input supply and
access
Rural infrastructure including
storage
Capacity to access markets
Increased productivity
Disaster preparedness
Improved germplasm
Crop protection issue
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.
Changes in composition and relative importance of pest
complexes as a result of modified agroecology.
New and probably increased risks from pests.
Pest management becomes economically justified. Increased
use of pesticides likely.
Greater use of pest resistant varieties, pesticides and other crop
protection related inputs.
Possibilities for reducing post harvest pest damage.
Need for improved sanitary and phytosanitary capacity.
Increased demand for pest management.
Preparing for outbreak pests or new invasive species.
Improved varieties that may be more, or less resistant to pests.
3.4 Implementing CAADP
Although 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. Box 3.2. CAADP Described
Despite the ‘P’ standing for “Programme”,
“CAADP is a common framework, reflected
CAADP is now frequently referred to as the in a set of key principles and targets, to
“CAADP framework” (see Box 3.2).
guide country strategies and investment
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 investment
3. Pushing for commitments
4. Advocacy for agriculture
5. Strategic
thinking,
positions
and
scenarios for the future
22
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
Country Implementation.
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 alliances
2. Dialogue, (peer) review and mutual accountability
3. 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 implementation
Although 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 responsibility
2. 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 agenda
4. Formal launch of the CAADP agenda implementation
2. Evidence-based
analysis deepening
understanding
around common
priorities
5. Stocktaking and analytical work commissioned
3. Development of
investment
programs,
partnerships and
alliances
7. Working groups suggest best options for intervention
4. Assessment and
learning from
process and
practice and
adaptation and replanning (as from
benchmark 14)
10. Initial set of core investment programmes developed
6. Reports of studies submitted
8. Validation workshop: national consensus on the drivers of growth and
priorities and levels of investments required
9. Agreement on the identified priority areas of investments by national
and international partners (compact)
11. Clearly articulated implementation modalities with the roles of key
players clarified
12. Capacity requirements for programme implementation defined and
integrated in the programme design
13. Cost assessed and required resources mobilised and committed
(including government investment financing)
14. M&E framework agreed upon
15. 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
Algeria
Angola
Benin
Burkina Faso
Botswana
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Comoros
Congo
Cote d’Ivoire
DR Congo
Djibouti
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Compact Status
Newly engaging/launching
Investment Plan
Signed Oct 2009
Signed Jul 2010
Newly engaging/launching
Signed Aug 2009
Pre-compact implementation
Signed Dec 2009
Pre-compact implementation
Pre-compact implementation
Yes
Yes – still to be reviewed
Pre-compact implementation
Signed Jul 2010
Pre-compact implementation
In process
Yes
In process
Expected to sign by Apr 2011
Signed Sept 2009
Yes
Signed Oct 2009
Signed Oct 2009
Signed Apr 2010
Expected to sign by Apr 2011
Signed July 2010
Pre-compact implementation
Signed Oct 2009
Newly engaging/launching
Pre-compact implementation
Signed Apr 2010
Signed Oct 2009
Pre-compact implementation
Yes
Yes
Yes
Newly engaging/launching
Expected to sign by Apr 2011
Newly engaging/launching
Signed Sept 2009
Signed Oct 2009
Signed Mar 2007
Signed Feb 2010
Expected to sign by Apr 2011
Signed Sept 2009
24
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
W. Sahara
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Expected to sign by Apr 2011
Signed Mar 2010
Signed Jul 2010
Signed Jul 2009
Newly engaging/launching
Signed Mar 2010
In process
In process
Yes
Yes
Expected to sign by Apr 2011
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 Pests
In 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 Systems
Many 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)
27
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.
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).
28
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.
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)
Region: Sub Sahara Africa
Maize mixed
10
Agric.
popul. (%
of region)
15
Cereal/root crop
mixed
Root crop
Agro-pastoral
millet/sorghum
Highland perennial
13
15
11
8
11
9
1
8
Forest based
Highland temperate
mixed
Pastoral
Tree crop
11
2
7
7
14
3
7
6
Commercial –
largeholder and
smallholder
Coastal artisanal
fishing
Irrigated
Rice/tree crop
5
4
2
3
1
1
2
2
Sparse agriculture
(arid)
Urban based
18
1
<1
3
Region: North Africa/Middle East
Highland mixed
7
Rain fed mixed
2
Irrigated
2
Dryland mixed
4
Pastoral
23
Urban based
<1
Sparse (arid)
62
Coastal artisanal
1
fishing
30
18
17
14
9
6
5
1
Principal livelihoods
Maize, tobacco, cotton, cattle, goats, poultry, off-farm
work
Maize, sorghum, millet, cassava, yams, legumes, cattle
Yams, cassava, legumes, off-farm income
Sorghum, pearl millet, pulses. sesame, cattle, sheep,
goats, poultry, off-farm work
Banana, plantain, enset, coffee, cassava, sweet potato,
beans, cereals, livestock, poultry, off-farm work
Cassava, maize. beans, cocoyams
Wheat barley, teff, peas, lentils, broad beans, rape,
potatoes, sheep, goats, cattle, poultry, off-farm work
Cattle, camels, sheep, goats, remittances
Cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, yams, maize, off-farm
work
Maize, pulses, sunflower, cattle, sheep, goats,
remittances
Marine fish, coconuts, cashew, banana, yams, fruit,
goats, poultry, off-farm work
Rice, cotton, vegetables, rainfed crops, cattle, poultry
Rice, banana, coffee, maize, cassava, legumes,
livestock, off-farm work
Irrigated maize, vegetables, date palms, cattle, off-farm
work
Fruit, vegetables, dairy, cattle, goats, poultry, off-farm
work
Cereals, legumes, sheep, off-farm work
Tree crops, cereals, legumes, off-farm work
Fruits, vegetables, cash crops
Cereals, sheep, off-farm work
Sheep, goats, barley, off-farm work
Horticulture, poultry, off-farm work
Camels, sheep, off-farm work
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
31
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 Pests
The term “pest” is used in different ways by different people.
important definitions from ISPM5, the Glossary.
Table
4.2 gives some
Table 4.2 Pest definitions according to ISPM5 (FAO, 2009).
Pest
Plants
Plant
products
Quarantine
pest
Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants
or plant products
Living plants and parts thereof, including seeds and germplasm
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
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
Pest origin
Type
organism
of
Susceptible
crop stage
Category
Description
Exotic
Indigenous
Insects
Other arthropods
Nematodes
Vertebrates
Plants
Fungi
Bacteria
Recently introduced in the country or area
Native to the country
The most numerous type of animal with many pest species
Mainly mites; a few crustaceans
Plant parasitic worms
Rodents, birds, large mammals
Free living and parasitic
Many types of specialized and unspecialized pathogens
Few specialized species; many unspecialized with wide host
range
Obligate pathogens, often transmitted by insects
Phytoplasmas, spiroplasmas
Viruses
Other
micro
organisms
Seed/planting
material
Seedling/nursery
Field
Post harvest
Life cycle
Resident
Migrant
Ecosystem
attacked
Natural
Forest
Field agriculture
Protected
agriculture
Seed borne diseases or on tissue cultured and vegetative
planting materials
Pre- and post-emergence damping off diseases
All plant parts are attacked, above and below ground
Stored products pests such as insects and fungi, including
toxin-producing species
Pests that live their life cycle where they cause damage
Pests whose lifecycle involves long distance movement,
such as locusts and Quelea birds
Uncultivated plants (although they may be harvested and
have economic value)
Planted trees and forests
Open-air irrigated or non irrigated field crops
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.
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).
33
4.3 Losses to Pests
Pre-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.
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)
34
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
Wheat
Rice
Maize
Potato
Soybean
Cotton
Attainable
production
[M t]
785.0
933.1
890.8
517.7
244.8
78.52
Weeds
Animal pests
Pathogens
Total
Actual
Potential
Actual
Potential
Actual
Potential
Actual
Potential
Actual
23.0(18-29)
37.1(34-47)
40.3(37-44)
30.2(29-33)
37.0(35-40)
35.9(35-39)
7.7(3-13)
10.2(6-16)
10.5(5-19)
8.3(4-14)
7.5(5-16)
8.6(3-13)
8.7(7-10)
24.7(13-26)
15.9(12-19)
15.3(14-20)
10.7(4-16)
36.8(35-41)
7.9(5-10)
15.1(7-18)
9.6(6-19)
10.9(7-13)
8.8(3-16)
12.3(5-22)
15.6(12-20)
13.5(10-15)
9.4(8-13)
21.2(20-23)
11.0(7-16)
8.5(7-10)
10.2(5-14)
10.8(7-16)
8.5(4-14)
14.5(7-24)
8.9(3-16)
7.2(5-13)
2.5(2-3)
1.7(1-2)
2.9(2-6)
8.1(7-10)
1.4(0-2)
0.8(0-2)
2.4(2-4)
1.4(1-3)
2.7(2-6)
6.6(5-9)
1.2(0-2)
0.7(0-2)
49.8(44-54)
77.0(64-80)
68.5(58-75)
74.9(73-80)
60.0(49-69)
82(76-85)
28.2(14-40)
37.4(22-51)
31.2(18-58)
40.3(24-59)
26.3(11-49)
28.8(12-48)
1 Figures
2
Viruses
Potential
in parentheses indicate variation among 19 regions
Seed cotton
35
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
Burkina Faso
Eritrea
Ghana
Kenya
Mali
Mozambique
Niger
Nigeria
Sudan
Tanzania
Togo
Total/mean
aLoss
Estimated % yield lossa
35-40
20-60
35
35-40
40
35
40-50
35
30
Up to 90
35
39-45
Yield loss (‘000 tons)
710-820
30-90
170
50-60
580
40
930-1160
3750
1230
550
70
8110-8520
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 ha
Estimated yield loss
20%
Estimate of total annual loss in production
3.9 million tons
Total annual production
19.5 million tons
Potential annual loss
$390 milliona
aValue
calculated at $100/ton
36
Table 4.7 Losses due to larger grain borer (Prostephanus truncates) in stored maize in
selected countries in Africa (Gressel et al., 2004).
Country
Botswana
Cameroon
Congo
Ghana
Kenya
Malawi
Mozambique
Sierra Leone
Tanzania
Uganda
Burundi
Area planted
(‘000 ha)
83
350
1463
713
1500
1446
275
10
1457
652
155
Yield
(kg/ha)
112
2429
799
1315
1800
1099
896
928
1795
1801
1087
Estimated yield
loss (%)
19-27
31
18-28
20.0
23-41
14-18
23-39
40
34
50
29-47
Yield loss (‘000
tonnes)
1.8-2.5
263
210-327
188
621-1107
222-286
57-96
3.6
889
2114
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 200103 (Oerke, 2006)
Period
Wheat
1964/651
1988-902
2001-03
Maize
1964/651
1988-902
2001-03
Cotton
1964/651
1988-902
2001-03
Yield
(kg/ha)
Weeds
Actual loss [%]
Animal Pests Diseases
Total
1250
2409
2691
9.8
12.3
7.7
5.0
9.3
7.9
9.1
12.4
12.6
23.9
34.0
28.2
2010
3467
4380
13.0
13.1
10.5
12.4
14.5
9.6
9.4
10.8
11.2
34.8
38.3
31.2
1029
1583
1702
4.5
11.8
8.6
11.0
15.4
12.3
9.1
10.5
7.9
24.6
37.7
28.8
1 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,
37
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 change
Pests 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.
38
Table 4.9. Some biological effects of climate change on crop pests.
Change in climate
Higher temperature
Higher CO2
atmosphere
levels
in
the
Increased climate variability and
frequency of extreme events
Example effects
 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.
 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.
 Disturbed ecosystems more prone to invasion by pests
 Extreme events disperse pests more (especially weeds)
 Drought stressed weeds are harder to control with postemergent 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 semitropical 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
39
likely to increase the rate at which pests are introduced and spread. Many pest species
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.
40
Table 4.10. Possible impacts of climate change on some important crop diseases in subsahara Africa (adapted from Chancellor & Kubiriba, 2006).
Disease
Leaf
blights
Helminthosporium
maydis
and H. turcium
Sorghum
head
smut,
Sporisorium holci-sorghi
Crops affected
Maize, sorghum,
sugarcane
Maize streak virus
Maize and
graminae
Cassava mosaic virus
Cassava
Sweet potato virus complex.
Feathery
mottle
virus
(SPFMV) and chlorotic stunt
virus (SPCSV)
Cowpea mosaic virus
Sweet potato and other
Ipomea spp
Groundnut rosette virus
Groundnut
Sorghum, maize,
grass, beard grass
many
Cowpea
wheat,
sudan
other
Likely impacts of climate
Uncertain, importance may be
reduced in regions with prolonged
drought
Long
term
likely
increased
pathogen
development
and
survival.
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.
Increased disease incidence due to
increased
vector
(whitefly)
abundance
and
dispersal.
Decreased rate of pathogen
development may modify vector
factors.
Likely outcomes similar to those of
cassava mosaic virus
Uncertain.
reduced in
drought.
Uncertain.
reduced in
drought.
Importance may be
regions with prolonged
Importance may be
regions with prolonged
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.
41
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.
42
5.
Pesticides and Pesticide Management
5.1 Pesticide use
Pesticide 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
Algeria
Angola
Benin
24732
0
8225
21087
0
14156
28288
0
13312
76141
0
5650
95466
0
1335
29788
0
920
49376
0
2650
77092
0
1650
Ran
k
6
52
38
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central
African
Republic
Chad
Comoros
Congo
Côte d'Ivoire
DR Congo
Djibouti
3987
5986
1392
19343
714
96
2962
8161
1532
22462
705
245
3554
8966
1024
33223
670
512
4916
22216
2334
33505
670
299
4248
26201
3644
29592
998
201
4964
10212
1034
32957
1130
540
4481
18200
884
31275
1477
650
5464
14200
686
32100
1826
650
27
18
45
12
36
46
3500
44
2700
22385
1250
0
1000
144
2500
28455
1800
0
2400
28
3700
37908
2300
0
3300
42
4000
29583
2550
0
2500
46
2500
34441
2050
0
3300
59
4400
34291
2700
0
3400
32
7500
38300
3200
0
1950
45
3600
42309
2900
0
35
51
31
9
34
52
Egypt
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Gambia
Ghana
28093
1000
15479
2585
996
20372
26674
800
8415
1934
840
33334
30520
664
10571
1579
1305
63196
30391
600
24476
2214
503
73370
23438
600
18612
4601
711
11757
40230
600
22244
3764
1311
81501
33423
600
29310
4150
681
110098
59890
600
35602
3400
1096
151745
7
47
11
32
41
2
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Libyan
Arab
Jamahiriya
Madagascar
2483
0
38961
420
1000
8524
2621
0
40167
243
1000
9350
3597
0
36615
1018
700
4479
3600
0
43181
908
1000
10713
4257
0
54793
998
800
10600
4829
0
63795
35406
1115
9000
4890
0
70725
880
1760
8900
4715
0
84181
950
1790
8750
30
52
4
42
37
22
4085
2131
3181
1718
4224
6923
6779
5375
28
43
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
9100
7257
147
7682
17584
54
9836
19778
68
8833
25965
557
10616
25398
211
11107
17641
84
13360
17271
127
16168
10456
164
16
20
49
Mauritius
Mayotte
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
8516
482
53112
11446
2319
662
9069
805
54803
10571
2032
4311
11005
620
81939
8743
2657
3994
11072
698
100651
14333
3929
2407
11210
687
88017
12649
4809
1466
13326
2551
94429
17749
5744
1427
11408
1404
102878
10500
4503
2072
15677
1550
124559
14173
5311
2996
17
39
3
19
29
33
Nigeria
Réunion
Rwanda
Saint Helena
Sao Tome
Principe
Senegal
12721
0
1801
30
90
108313
0
1923
15
65
28029
0
1479
60
57
49688
0
861
40
200
36095
0
2224
75
180
60906
0
2600
40
260
169082
0
2717
45
190
82338
0
6505
60
200
5
52
24
50
48
and
6284
7397
8329
12038
11099
8925
9800
9305
21
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
200
500
400
91625
6141
4898
13427
585
400
98001
7805
3489
803
750
300
126321
8217
5273
998
612
400
153665
15844
8932
1193
649
1000
150407
11490
8524
997
670
700
170051
17610
5129
1010
700
1600
178434
12295
5170
840
700
1400
238790
5845
6300
43
44
40
1
26
25
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
United Republic of
Tanzania
Zambia
Zimbabwe
5036
20203
6214
15378
9972
16827
7873
13495
7184
20787
10716
17990
3293
27702
10931
16124
2824
30980
13894
18148
20389
26846
3*
21003
2372
33021
20511
19263
8611
41407
30715
45293
23
10
13
8
10292
23467
12515
19914
15354
21128
18462
22342
18350
5095
17954
23439
17192
39873
28096
23507
14
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.
44
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).



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 pesticides
Despite 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
45
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
Manufacture
Distribution and storage
Packaging
Marketing
Storage by purchaser
Preparation for application
Application (equipment)
Application
Post application
Container disposal
Obsolete stockpiles
Problem
 Impure product
 Unsecure and inappropriate methods, facilities
 Inadequate labeling
 Repacking into unsuitable containers
 Adulteration
 Unlicensed vendors and re-selling
 Unsafe storage, such as in houses
 Unsafe containers, such as drink bottles
 Inadequate safety equipment and procedures
 Incorrect dilution
 Inappropriate mixing of different chemicals
 Uncalibrated equipment
 Poorly maintained equipment
 Use of incorrect equipment
 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
 Failure to observe crop re-entry period
 Failure to observe pre-harvest period
 Container not disposed of safely
 Container recycled for other uses
 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.
46
Table 5.3. Examples of pesticide resistance
Pest
Helicoverpa
armigera African
bollworm
Helicoverpa
armigera African
bollworm
Plutella xylostella
Diamondback
moth
Bemisia
tabaci
Tobacco whitefly
Crop
Cotton
Location
West Africa
Pesticide
Pyrethroids
Reference
Martin
et
(2005)
Cotton
Cameroon
Pyretrhoids
Achaleke
&
Brévault, ( 2010)
Brassicas
South Africa
Sereda, Basson,
& Marais, (1997)
Cotton
Benin,
Togo,
Burkina Faso
Pyrethroids,
organophosphates,
carbamates
Pyrethroids,
organophosphates,
neonicotinoids
al.,
Houndété et al.,
(2010)
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.

Other pest problems are created. Inappropriate pesticide use can also create or
worsen other pests, through killing natural control agents such as predators and
parasitoids. For example, Dennill & Pretorius (1995) showed that high infestation
levels of diamond back moth were the result of excessive insecticide spraying, and
47
where spraying was only once every three weeks, parasitism reached high levels and
the pest did not cause losses.
5.3 International agreements
Because 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.
48
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.
Table. 5.3. Signatories to international chemicals agreements
Country
Algeria
Angola
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Comoros
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Rotterdam
Basel
























49
Stockholm












Montreal












Congo, Rep.
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


















































































50


















































































5.4 International Code of Conduct
The International Code of Conduct on the
Box 5.4. FAO’s Pesticide Guidelines
Distribution and Use of Pesticides is a
The following guidelines support the code of
conduct on distribution and use of pesticides.
voluntary code that was first adopted by the
th
 Monitoring and observance of the code
25 Session of the FAO Conference in 1985.
 Pest and pesticide management policy
In 2002 FAO Council approved a revised
 Pesticide legislation
version including greater emphasis on IPM
 Implementation
(FAO, 2002), and a further revision is
 Registration of pesticides
expected in 2011 (FAO, 2010c). The code
 Registration of pesticide application
equipment
provides guidance for public and private
 Compliance and enforcement
sector entities involved in any stage of
 Distribution and sales
pesticide distribution and use contained
 Pesticide use
within
20
articles.
The
pesticide
 Training and awareness building
 Prevention and disposal of obsolete stocks
management
work
of
FAO’s
Plant
 Post registration surveillance
Production and Protection Division has
 Harmonized glossary
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.
Using these principles, the strategy identifies objectives for capacity building, provision of
technical guidance, building awareness and monitoring implementation of the code.
51
5.5 Pesticide policy
Several 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).
Obvious
factors
Hidden
factors
Price factors
Government sells or gives pesticides
Donors provide pesticides at low or
no costs
Government
refunds
pesticide
companies’ costs
Subsidized credit for pesticides
Preferential rates for tax and
exchange rate
Plant Protection Service outbreak
budget
Pesticide production externalities
Pesticide use externalities
Non-price factors
Misguided use of governments’ activities
in reducing pesticide damage
Governments’ investments in pesticide
research
Inadequate government research in
environmentally benign pest management
Lack of adequate procedures for:
• pest definition
• crop loss definition
Lack of information on agroecological parameters
Lack of transparency in regulatory decision making
Curricula of agricultural education and extension
Dominance of pesticide industry in the market for
crop protection information
52
Table 5.5 Examples of direct and indirect pesticide price subsidies (Fleischer & Waibel,
2003)
Country
(year)
Benin
(1999)
Côte
d’Ivoire
(1998)
Mali
(2000)
Ghana
(2000)
Type of price subsidy










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%
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)
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%)
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 broadspectrum mass-market products, and prevent lower risk products from entering the market.
53
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.
54
Box 5.5 Endosulfan’s days are numbered
Endosulfan 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.
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.
55
Table 5.6. Pesticide analysis laboratories in SADC (WAHSA, 2008)
Country
Name of laboratory
Conduct analysis
pesticide residues
Mauritius
National Environment
Laboratory
Forensic Science Laboratory,
Government Analyst Division
Agricultural Chemistry
Laboratory, Mauritius Sugar
Industry Institute
Hearshaw & Kinnes Analysis
Laboratory, Cape Town
Forensic Chem, Laboratory,
Cape Town
Yes
Conduct
biomonitoring (testing for
pesticides in samples)
No
Yes; in water only
No
Yes; in sugar, soil and
aqueous samples
No
Yes; in fruit, vegetables,
soil and water
No
No
Biocrop, Johannesburg
Yes; in soil, water, milk,
honey, meat, fat, nuts,
dried fruit and vegetables
No
South Africa
NIOH Analysis Laboratory,
Johannesburg
CSIR Biosciences,
Johannesburg
SABS Pesticide Residues,
Chromatographic Services,
Pretoria
ARC (OVI) Pretoria
SMI Analysis, Johannesburg
Tanzania
Agricultural Research
Council, Pesticide Science
Division, Roodeplaat
Campus, Pretoria
Government Chemist
Laboratory Agency, Dar es
Salaam
TPRI
University of Dar-es-Salaam
Zambia
Food and drugs control,
Lusaka
UNZ, Dept of Chemistry,
University of Zambia, Lusaka
of
Blood, urine, stomach
contents of post mortem
cases
No
Biomarkers in humans
Yes; in water and plants
Mother’s milk
Yes; in food, soil and
water
No
Yes; in animal tissue
Yes; in air, soil and water
down to PPT levels
Yes; in environmental
samples, such as air, soil
and water
No
No
Yes
No
Yes; in water, soil and
food
Yes; in water, soil, food,
sediments, vegetables
and milk
Yes; food, soil and water
Human body fluids
Yes; food, soil and water,
vegetation, sediments and
wildlife samples
Biomarkers in humans
No
No
No
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.
56







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.
57
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
Box 6.1 IPM defined
IPM – as recently as 2009 an International
IPM Symposium was unable to develop a
The combined used of multiple pest control
methods, informed by monitoring of pest
definition, and instead concluded that IPM is
densities (Gurr et al., 2004).
a broad, ever changing palette of activities
that underpin environmentally acceptable and
A flexible and holistic approach which views
the agroecosystem as an interrelated whole
cost-competitive
crop
management
and utilizes a variety of biological, cultural,
interventions.
Box 6.1 contains some
genetic, physical, and chemical techniques as
example definitions, which generally include
required to hold pests below economically
the following principles:
damaging levels with a minimum amount of
disruption to the cropping system and the
 Environmental
sustainability,
surrounding environment (Malena, 1994).
particularly in relation to pesticide use.
Where pesticide use is seen as part of
Integrated Pest Management is a decision
IPM, its use must be ‘judicious’ or
support system for the selection and use of
pest control tactics, singly or harmoniously
minimized.
coordinated into a management strategy based
 Informed decision marking. Rather
on cost/benefit analyses that take into account
than apply control measures blindly,
the interests of and impacts on producers,
society and the environment (Kogan, 1998).
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
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
58
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 IPM a
Prices
High value crops plus a stable
market
Stable prices for crop protection
inputs
Monoculture over wide areas
Stable
Green Revolution increases yields of
staple food crops
A small number of important pests
Pesticide
treadmill
caused
by
excessive use
Strong
Agro-ecosystem
Soil fertility
Productivity
Pest complex
Pesticide use
Research/extension
base
a
Adapted from Morse & Buhler (1997).
59
Smallholder farming systems in
Africa
Low-value staples
Input price hikes following structural
adjustment
Mixed cropping systems
Declining
Low yield of staple food crops
Multiple pests
Low pesticide use on staple food
crops
Weak
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).
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.
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
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).
60
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.
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.
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).
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
61
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
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.
62
Table 6.2. NEPAD Centres of Excellence in Biosciences (Makinde et al., 2009)
Networks
NABNet (North
African
Biosciences
Network)
WABNet
(WestAfrican
Biosciences
Network)
Nodal
Point
Egypt
Hub
National
Research
Centre
(NRC)
Centre Focus
Area of Work
BioPharmaceuticals
Senegal
Senegalese
Institute
of
Agricultural
Research
(ISRA)
CSIR,
Bioscience
Unit
Crop Biotech
International
Livestock
Research
Institute
(ILRI)
Animal Biotech
North Africa: to lead the continent
in
research
into
biopharmaceuticals,
drug
manufacturing and test kits.
West Africa: to carry out research
using biotechnology tools to
develop cash crops, cereals, grain
legumes, fruits/vegetables and
root/tuber crops.
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.
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.
SANBio
(Southern
African Network
for Biosciences)
South
Africa
BecANet
(Biosciences
East
and
Central Africa)
Kenya
Health Biotech
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
South Africa
Burkina Faso
Egypt
Crop
Maize
Year
1997
Cotton
1998
Cotton
Maize
2008
2008
Main target pests
Stem borer (Busseola fusca)
Pink stalk borer (Sesamia calamistis)
Cotton bollworms (Helicoverpa spp)
Red bollworm (Diparopsis castanea)
Spiny bollworms (Earias spp)
Cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armijera)
Durra stem borer (Sesamia cretica)
European com borer (Ostrinia nubilalis)
Purple-lined stem borer (Chilo agamemnon)
63
Burkina Faso commenced commercial Bt cotton cultivation in 2008, the 10th 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
Function NBF
Interim NBF
Work in Progress
No Action Yet
Countries
Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritius, Kenya,
Zimbabwe, South Africa, Togo, Tunisia.
Senegal, Ghana, Nigeria, Namibia, Zambia, Tanzania,
Mozambique, Ethiopia, Uganda, Madagascar, Rwanda,
Malawi
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
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
64
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 openended 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 (%)
Developed countries
6
Number
of
results
59
Herbicide-tolerant cotton
0
6
-12
17
3.8
Herbicide-tolerant soybean
7
14
0
20
1.7
Herbicide-tolerant
insect-resistant cotton
Insect-resistant corn
3
2
-3
9
5.8
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
and
Minimum
(%)
Maximum
(%)
-12
26
Standard
error of the
mean (%)
1.0
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,
65
resistance to Bt crops may develop. Tabashnik et al. (2009) report several instances of field
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 control
Classical 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
66
successes recorded in various parts of Africa (Greathead, 2003). 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.
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)
6.4.2 Biological control of pathogens
Biological 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
67
Africa based on an Aspergillus strain that is atoxigenic and out-competes the aflatoxinproducing 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
68
South Africa (Magor, 2007). In East Africa at least two companies are establishing
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 Control
Because 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 nontarget 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 nonspecific 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 nontarget 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 &
69
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
Pest monitoring
Pest control
Methods
 Detecting presence/absence of species
 Assessing phenology, population levels for forecasting or control
decisions
 Evaluating control effectiveness
 Assessing levels of insecticide resistance
 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.
70


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
71
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
Madagascar
Mauritius
Seychelles
South Africa
Project title
Developing strategies for integrated management of fruit fly using SIT
Feasibility study for the suppression of the Melon Fly (Bactrocera) in selected areas
of Mauritius
Feasibility of integrating the sterile insect technique to the ongoing area-wide melon
fly eradication programme
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.
72





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.
73
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 IPPC
The 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.
74
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).
Box 7.1 Articles of the IPPC
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX
XX
XXI
XXII
XXIII
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.
Purpose and responsibility
Use of terms
Relationship with other international agreements
General provisions relating to the organizational
arrangements for national plant protection
Phytosanitary certification
Regulated pests
Requirements in relation to imports
International cooperation
Regional plant protection organizations
Standards
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures
Settlement of disputes
Substitution of prior agreements
Territorial application
Supplementary agreements
Ratification and adherence
Non-contracting parties
Languages
Technical assistance
Amendment
Entry into force
Denunciation
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
Algeria
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
IPPC




















PSCA




















CBD




















75
CP




















WTO




















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
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.
76
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,
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
Box 7.2. Components of IAPSC’s draft
in the EU-funded project on Participation of
capacity building strategy
African Nations in Sanitary and Phytosanitary
1. Awareness, advocacy, resource
Standard Setting Organizations (PAN-SPSO)
mobilization
and development of a Phytosanitary Capacity
2. Policy, legislation, regulation
3. Roles and mandates of regional and
Building Strategy for Africa (see Box 7.2) GTZ
sub-regional organizations
implemented a project to build IAPSC’s capacity,
4. Human resources
but the organization is still somewhat
5. Infrastructure, facilities, equipment
overshadowed by its equivalent in the animal
6. Surveillance, emergency response, risk
analysis
health sector, the InterAfrican Bureau of Animal
7.
Import and export control systems
Resources. There is no similar AU technical
8. Standard setting and implementation
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 Organization
The 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
77
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)
 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 Diversity
The 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).
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).
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
78
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.
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.
Box 7.4. Guiding principles for the
implementation of CBD Article 8(h)
A. General
1: Precautionary approach
2: Three-stage hierarchical approach
3: Ecosystem approach
4: The role of States
5: Research and monitoring
6: Education and public awareness
B. Prevention
7: Border control and quarantine measures
8: Exchange of information
9: Cooperation, including capacity-building
C. Introduction of species
10: Intentional introduction
11: Unintentional introductions
D. Mitigation of impacts
12: Mitigation of impacts
13: Eradication
14: Containment
15: Control
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 Frameworks
Recognising 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.
79


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.
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’ benefits
80
2. Participate actively in the ISSOs and WTO SPS Committee, and develop the
capacity for African countries to effectively participate
3. Assist with the strengthening and training of national coordination bodies
4. Increase awareness of SPS matters at the political and general public levels
5. Focus capacity building efforts on demand-driven activities identified through
capacity evaluations, and involve all relevant stakeholders
6. Avoid multiplication of transparency requirements and use existing tools.
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.
81
Table 7.3 Organisations undertaking crop protection activities in 15 countries.
Activity
Phytosanitary
inspection of imports
and exports
Controlling outbreaks of
migrant pests (eg
locusts)
Registration and
regulation of pesticides
and other pest control
products
Giving permits for
import of biocontrol
agents
Botswana
Ministry of Agriculture,
Department of Crop
Production, Division of
Plant Protection
Division of Plant Protection
Burundi
Département de la
Protection des Végétaux
(DPV)
Division of Plant Protection
(Registrar of
Agrochemicals)
Département de la
Protection des Végétaux
(pour les produits
phytosanitaires)
Département de la
Protection des Végétaux
CAPAC (centrale d’achat
des produits agricoles des
Comores)
DPAPV
INRAPE
DPAPV
Regulatory Services
Department, Ministry of
Agriculture
Département de la
Protection des Végétaux et
l’Institut de Recherche
Département de la
Protection des Végétaux
INRAPE
DPAPV
INRAPE
DPAPV
INRAPE
DPAPV
Regulatory Services
Department, Ministry of
Agriculture
Regulatory Services
Department and
Agricultural Extension
Department, Ministry of
Agriculture
Agricultural Extension
Department, Ministry of
Agriculture
Division of Plant Protection
Département de la
Protection des Végétaux
Responding to new
pests
Division of Plant Protection
Pest surveillance
Division of Plant Protection
Giving crop protection
advice to farmers
Division of Plant Protection
Département de la
Protection des Végétaux
Ethiopia
Ministry of Agriculture
Kenya
Kenya Plant Health
Inspectorate Services
(KEPHIS)
Activity
Phytosanitary inspection
of imports and exports
Comores
INRAPE( institut national
de recherche pour
l’agriculture)
Lesotho
Ministry of Agriculture –
Department of Agricultural
Research
82
Congo
Direction de la production
agricole et de la protection
des vegetaux (DPAPV)
Eritrea
Regulatory Services
Department, Ministry of
Agriculture
DPAPV
Agricultural Extension
Department, Ministry of
Agriculture
Regulatory Services
Department, Ministry of
Agriculture
Madagascar
Service de la Quarantaine
et de l’Inspection
Frontalière (Direction de la
Protection des Végétaux)
Malawi
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)
Controlling outbreaks of
migrant pests (eg locusts)
Ministry of Agriculture
Ministry of Agriculture –
Crop protection division
Ministry of Agriculture –
Departments of Crops and
Research
Registration and
regulation of pesticides
and other pest control
products
Ministry of Agriculture
Pest Control Products
Board (PCPB)
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
No office has been given
this mandate. At the
moment there is no
pesticide registration in
Lesotho, therefore very
difficult to regulate
Department of Agricultural
Research
Responding to new pests
Ministry of Agriculture
No specific body
responsible
Department of Crops and
Research
Pest surveillance
Ministry of Agriculture and
Bureaus of Agriculture of
Regional State
governments
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
designed by the MoA.
KEPHIS/ KARI/ MOA
Department of Crops and
Research
Ministry of Agriculture
Department of Crops
Services
Giving crop protection
advice to farmers
83
Centre National
Antacridien (CNA) et
Service de la Surveillance
Phytosanitaire (Direction
de la Protection des
Végétaux pour la lutte
contre les criquets
migrateurs
Service de la
Phytopharmacie (Direction
de la Protection des
Végétaux) et Comité
Technique d’Homologation
des Pesticides
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)
Service de la Surveillance
Phytosanitaire (Direction
de la Protection des
Végétaux et Cenraderu
Service de la Surveillance
Phytosanitaire (Direction
de la Protection des
Végétaux)
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 Protection des
Végétaux
Department of Crop
Development
Pesticide Control Board
which in principle is under
Research Department
Department of Agricultural
Research Services
Department of Agricultural
Research Services
Department of Agricultural
Research Services and to
some extent Department
of Crop Development
Department of Crop
Development, Department
of Extension Services and
DARS
Activity
Phytosanitary inspection
of imports and exports
South Africa
Department of Agriculture,
Forestry & Fisheries
(DAFF)
Sao Tome et Principe
CIAT/STP (Centre de
Recherche Agronomique)
Controlling outbreaks of
migrant pests (eg locusts)
DAFF & provincial
Departments of
Agriculture, Forestry &
Fisheries
CIAT/STP (Centre de
Recherche Agronomique)
Registration and
regulation of pesticides
and other pest control
products
DAFF
CIAT/STP (Centre de
Recherche Agronomique)
Giving permits for import
of biocontrol agents
DAFF
CIAT/STP (Centre de
Recherche Agronomique)
Responding to new pests
DAFF
CIAT/STP (Centre de
Recherche Agronomique)
Pest surveillance
DAFF
CIAT/STP (Centre de
Recherche Agronomique)
Giving crop protection
advice to farmers
DAFF provincial
Departments of
Agriculture, Forestry &
Fisheries
CIAT/STP (Centre de
Recherche Agronomique)
DAER (Direction de
l’Agriculture)
Sierra Leone
Crop Protection Services,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Food
Security (MAFFS)
Crop Protection Services,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Food
Security
Uganda
Crop protection
Department MAAIF
Zambia
PQPS (NPPO)
Crop Protection
department /MAAIF
Ministry of Agriculture
coordinates
Crop Protection Services,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Food
Security
/ Sierra Leone Standards
Bureau, Environmental
Protection Agency
Crop Protection Services,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Food
Security
Crop Protection Services,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Food
Security
Crop Protection Services,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Food
Security, International
Institute of Tropical
Agriculture (IITA), Sierra
Leone Agricultural
Research Institute (SLARI)
Crop Protection Services,
Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Food
Security, IITA, SLARI,
Crop protection
department MAAIF
ECZ (Environmental
Council of Zambia)
Crop Protection
department MAAIF
PQPS
National Research
Organisation /Crop
protection department
PQPS
Crop Protection
department, Crop science
department of universities,
National agricultural
Research Organisation
PQPS
Local government
production departments,
National agricultural
advisory services
(NAADS), NGOs, Civil
society organisations
PPQD (Plant Protection
and Quarantine Division)
84
7.2.2 IPPC requirements
Under 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. countries
Plant protection (or similar) department within Ministry of Agriculture
Regulatory department within Ministry of Agriculture
Another (or unspecified) department within a Ministry
Independent agency (parastatal)
Agricultural research department/organization
30
4
4
2
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)
85




Legislation (Article VII.2b)
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
EventDriven
Other
Algeria
Angola
1
Benin
1
1
Botswana
2
Burkina Faso
2
1
Burundi
1
1
Côte d'Ivoire
3
Cameroon
1
2
1
TOTAL
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
5
6
1
Publications
Projects
Pest status
PRA (rationale)
Organizational (NPPO info)
Pest report
Emergency actions
Non compliance
Phytosanitary restrictions
List of regulated pests
Entry points
Description of the NPPO
Country
9
1
7
1
1
5
1
4
1
12
1
2
1
3
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
1
Chad
1
Comoros
1
1
Congo
Congo, Democratic Republic
1
2
1
1
1
1
Djibouti
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
1
1
5
8
1
1
1
4
Gabon
2
2
Gambia
1
1
1
4
Ethiopia
1
1
Ghana
Guinea
1
1
1
86
Guinea-Bissau
Kenya
1
1
Lesotho
1
1
1
3
1
6
3
Liberia
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
Madagascar
1
Malawi
1
3
1
Mali
1
1
1
1
Mauritania
1
1
1
8
Mauritius
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
2
1
6
2
13
2
12
1
5
1
2
Morocco
Mozambique
1
Namibia
1
Niger
1
1
2
Nigeria
1
1
1
1
5
3
Rwanda
Saint Helena
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
1
1
Seychelles
1
2
1
Sierra Leone
4
2
4
1
1
Somalia
South Africa
1
4
7
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania, United Republic
1
2
12
3
3
1
1
1
4
2
2
2
6
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Zambia
2
1
Zimbabwe
1
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
87
good data management systems, IT again providing opportunities not yet capitalized on in
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 webbased 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
88
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
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.
89
Table 7.6. Summary of common detection, diagnostic and indexing techniques for plant
pests (Ebbels, 2003).
Methods
Visual
inspection
Light
microscopy
Electron
microscopy
(transmission)
Electron
microscopy
(scanning)
Serological
slide tests and
kits
ELISA
cDNA probes
PCR
Useful for
Monitoring traded material,
field checks and preliminary
investigations of most types
Small/few
samples;
invertebrates,
fungi,
bacteria
Small/few samples; viruses,
phytoplasmas
Small/few
samples;
checking
morphological
details of microorganisms,
especially invertebrates and
fungi
Tests for specific pests,
especially in the field and
as back-up to visual
observation.
Large/numerous samples;
all
antigenic
pests,
especially viruses, bacteria,
some fungi
Tests for specific pests,
especially
viroids,
phytoplasmas,
nonantigenic pests.
Tests for specific pests
present
in
low
concentration
Fluorogenic 5nuclease assay
Numerous samples; tests
for specific pests present in
low concentration
RFLP
Tests for specific pests and
investigative tests
Test plants
Confirmatory
or
investigative tests; virus
tests in simple laboratories
Identification of bacteria
(classical method)
Identification of bacteria
and certain invertebrates
Nutrition
profiles
Fatty acid and
protein profiles
Advantage and disadvantages
Quick, but will not detect latent infections and
often requires laboratory confirmation or further
investigation
Good for classical morphological methods of
diagnosis; unsuitable for large numbers of
samples,
or
for
viruses,
viroids
or
phytoplasmas.
Rapid results for virus diagnosis; unsuitable for
large or numerous samples
Unsuitable for large or numerous samples;
lengthy preparation.
Quick and simple; less sensitive than ELISA;
sometimes unreliable or difficult to use by
inexperience personnel.
Good sensitivity, depending on antiserum
used; rapid and accurate results; can be
automated and standardized; suitable for less
sophisticated laboratories.
Very specific, according to design of probe,
lengthy and sophisticated preparation needed;
unsuitable for less sophisticated laboratories
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.
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.
Can detect small genetic differences within a
species; laborious, slow and unsuitable for
large/numerous samples.
Can indicate presence of unknown viruses;
cheap but slow and sometimes not specific.
Reflects classical bacteriological taxonomy;
slow to achieve conclusive results.
Rapid results; can be semi-automated for
routine throughput of many tests.
cDNA, complementary DNA
ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
PCR, polymerase chain reaction
RFLP, restriction fragment length polymorphism.
90
Table 7.7 Locally owned and operated partnerships (LOOPS) of BioNET International in
Africa (www.
LOOP
WAFRINET
The West
partnership
taxonomy
NAFRINET
The North
partnership
taxonomy
EAFRINET
The
East
partnership
taxonomy
African
for
African
for
African
for
SAFRINET
The Southern African
partnership
for
taxonomy
Countries
Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte
d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Mali, Niger,
Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo.
Coordinating Organisation
International
Institute
of
Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia. Libya
and Mauritania subject to endorsement.
Unité
des
Plantes
Aromatiques et Médicinales,
Centre de Biotechnologie,
Tunisia
National Museums of Kenya
Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and
Zanzibar. Ethiopia subject to endorsement.
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
91
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.
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 nonquarantine pests.” (FAO, 1997)
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
92





Are of many types and are not harmonized
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
93
effective, but alternative approaches would probably be politically unacceptable, even if they
were cheaper.
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
Migratory locust, Locusta migratoria with several
subspecies
Desert locust, Schistocerca gregaria
Red locust, Nomadacris septemfasciata
Brown locust, Locustana pardalina
Senegalese
grasshopper,
Oedaleus
senegalensis
Variegated grasshopper, Zonocerus variegatus
African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta
Red-billed weaver, Quelea quelea
Distribution in Africa
Northern and sub-Saharan Africa, Madagascar
West Africa eastwards to south-west Asia
Central and southern Africa
Central and southern Africa
West Africa to south-west Asia
West, Central and East Africa
West, Eastern and Southern Africa
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.
94
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.
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).
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)
95
7.3 Crop protection capacity and capacity development
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
Enhanced
national
phytosanitary
system
planning, management
and leadership
Capacity of contracting
parties to participate in
IPPC standard setting
improved.
Contracting parties (and
non-contracting parties)
are able to implement
ISPMs in line with their
needs.
Coordinated
phytosanitary
capacity
development addressing
priority needs.
Outputs
1.
Fit-for-purpose tools and processes for phytosanitary systems (PS) planning
2.
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 developed
1.
Enhanced regional coordination of inputs into the standard setting process
2.
Enhanced involvement of stakeholders at national level
3.
Quality of contracting parties participation in standard setting activities
improved
1.
Improved understanding of implementation requirements of specific
standards
2.
Support provided for implementation of priority ISPMs
3.
Level of implementation of ISPMs is appropriate for national needs
1.
2.
3.
4.
Capability to provide
plant pest information
enhanced.
Enhanced capacity to
mobilize funds.
1.
2.
Improved capacity to
promote
national
phytosanitary systems.
1.
2.
1.
2.
3.
3.
4.
5.
Capacity
development
actively
monitored,
evaluated and lessons
learned acted upon.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Information and resources of international, regional and national bodies
identified, managed and coordinated.
Methods and pathways for communication used
Mechanism and synergies for coordination used
Competencies for resource mobilization and management identified and
supported through the national phytosanitary action plan
Officially updated and accurate pest data accessible
Pest data analysed, especially providing early warning for risk mitigation,
market access and risk analysis.
Enhanced capacity to engage donors at all levels
Enhanced capacity to raise funds from national sources.
Enhanced capacity to raise funds from donor and philanthropic funded
projects
Enhanced involvement of the NPPO in formulating national policy
Enhanced NPPO capacity to develop and promote their own capacity
development
NPPOs
have
better
capacity
to
develop
and
implement
communication/advocacy strategies
Enhanced capacity to coordinate national actors
Enhanced capacity of regional bodies to influence, assist, and promote
national policy
Capacity to generate, access and retrieve data and information
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools developed and used.
Periodic reviews and assessments being conducted.
Continual process of improvement (adaptive management)
IPPC Seal of Approval instituted.
Enhanced capacity to perform M&E at all levels.
96
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.
(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 20002003 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.
97
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).
PCE Category
Institutional Capacity
Legislation
Export Certification
Diagnostic Capacity
Exotic Pest Response
Inspection
Pest Surveillance
Pest Free Areas
1
L
L
L, P
L, P
L
L, P
P
P
2
L
L
L
L
P
P
P
P
Priority
3
L
P
E
E
P
P
P
P
4
L
L
L,P
L, P
P
P
P, E
P
5
L
L
E
E
P
E
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.
98
Plant disease diagnostics
Insect pest diagnostics
10
8
8
No. countries
No. countries
10
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
National Capacity
Very high
Very low
Weed identification
Low
Moderate
National Capacity
High
Very high
Linking to diagnostic expertise in the region
10
8
8
No. countries
No. countries
10
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
Very low
Low
Moderate
National Capacity
High
Very high
Very low
Low
Emergency preparedness for new pest outbreaks
Moderate
National Capacity
High
Very high
High
Very high
Surveillance
10
8
8
No. countries
No. countries
10
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
Very low
National Capacity
Low
Moderate
National Capacity
Pest risk analysis
Information systems and databases
10
8
8
No. countries
No. countries
10
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
Very low
National Capacity
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
National Capacity
Information dissemination and communication
Public-private sector cooperation
10
8
8
No. countries
No. countries
10
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
Very low
National Capacity
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
National Capacity
Accreditation of third parties by NPPO
Cooperation with neighbours
10
8
8
No. countries
No. countries
10
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
Very low
National Capacity
Low
Moderate
National Capacity
99
High
Very high
Traceability systems for agricultural/food products
Inspection of imports
10
8
8
No. countries
No. countries
10
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
Very low
National Capacity
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
National Capacity
Inspection of exports
Phytosanitary controls at international airports
10
8
8
No. countries
No. countries
10
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
Very low
National Capacity
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
National Capacity
Implementing private standards
Negotiating market access (phytosanitary aspects)
10
8
8
No. countries
No. countries
10
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
Very low
National Capacity
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
National Capacity
Charging for phytosanitary services
Strategic planning by NPPO
10
8
8
No. countries
No. countries
10
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
Very low
National Capacity
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
National Capacity
University crop protection & phytosanitary training
10
No. countries
8
6
4
2
0
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
National Capacity
Figure 7.1 Self-assessment of various aspects of phytosanitary capacity by 14 countries.
100
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.
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.
101
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
Box 8.1. Topics in the Post graduate diploma in
School of Public Health and
pesticide risk management, University of Cape Town
Family Medicine has recently
 Pesticide risk management policies and principles
started a postgraduate diploma in
 Legal framework for pesticide management
pesticide risk management (Box
 Health and safety management, including pesticide
epidemiology and toxicology
8.1). The course is structured

Management of environmental risk; including
around the International Code of
ecotoxicology, risk assessment and basic
Conduct on the Distribution and
environmental chemistry
Use of Pesticides (FAO, 2002) and
 Control use
is aimed at regulators of
 Laboratory quality assurance assessment
pesticides, inspectors (health,
 Container and contaminated site management
labour, customs, environment),
 International chemical conventions
public
health
pest
control
 Management of public health pesticides
managers, pesticide laboratory
analysts and disposal and waste
management managers. The course is thus both multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary.
102
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
103
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 pesticideinduced 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.
104
Repeating the message every few minutes for a few hours allows hundreds of people to be
reached.
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%.
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.
105
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
Box 8.3 Peer reviewed mobile phone animation
agricultural question and answer
(http://susdeviki.illinois.edu)
service in Kenya (mKilimo), operated
Title : Natural Insecticide from Neem Seeds
by KenCall, a call centre business.
Authors : Bello Bravo, J., F. Seufferhel.
During the pilot phase over half of all
Abstract : Naturally occurring insecticidal compounds
can be extracted from neem seeds and sprayed onto
enquiries were about crop protection
crops to prevent pest insect damage. This 2 minute
issues
(Natalia
Pshenichnaya,
and 33 second animation explains how to sort neem
personal communication), and the
fruits, dry them, remove their outer shells, sort the
challenge is now to provide an
seeds, grind them, mix the powder in water, filter the
mixture, and then prepare the solution necessary for
adequate knowledge base to support
spraying on the crops. The video is in English with a
the service.
Nigerian accent and is in the cell-phone ready 3gp
format.
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.
106
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-resistantcassava/). 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
107
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.
108


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.
109
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).
Sustainability
B
A
Agricultural intensification
Figure 9.1. Possible trajectories of crop protection under CAADP. A: unsustainable
intensification. B: sustainable intensification
110
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
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.
111
Policy
Research,
Science &
Technology
Public
Private
Partnership
Regulation
National
Crop
Protection
Regionalism
Capacity
Development
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.
112
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
113
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
114
control products. Strong regulation is appropriate to ensure that dangerous pesticides do
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 intraregional trade. Recently a Tripartite Agreement has been reached between COMESA,
115
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.
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.
116
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, confidence
2. To carry out technical, service delivery & logistical tasks: core functions directed at
the implementation of mandated goals
3. To relate and attract resources & support: manage relationships, resource
mobilisation, networking, legitimacy building, protecting space
4. To adapt and self-renew: learning, strategising, adaptation, repositioning, managing
change
5. 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 (MuirLeresche 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.
117
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 protection
Product
Green muscle
biopesticide for
locusts and
grasshoppers
Sterile male
fruitflies and
fruitfly monitoring
systems
SpexNPV for
armyworm
control
Public sector
Organization
Role
Consortium of
Product
international and development,
national research registration
organizations,
support
funded by a
consortium of
donors
IAEA/FAO and
Developed
national
methodology;
programme
share in the
company
NRI and others
Basic research,
funded by DFID
development of
methods
Private sector
Organization
Role
BCP Pty Ltd
Manufacture,
marketing
SIT Pty Ltd.
Ecoagriconsult,
Tanzania
Mass production
and
implementation
support.
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
118
provides opportunity for the development of the phytosanitary service. As CAADP
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
Benin
Number of FTE
researchers
involved in crop
pest and disease
control
14.5
Share of country's
total FTE researchers
involved in crop pest
and disease control
(%)
12.6
FTE pest
researchers per
million farmers
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
119
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.
120
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 postharvest 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.
121
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). Socioeconomic 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.
122
Carpenter, Janet E. (2010). Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of
commercialized GM crops. Nature biotechnology, 28(4), 319-21. doi: 10.1038/nbt0410319.
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. PflanzenschutzNachrichten 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.
123
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.
124
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), 592601. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T5T-4KCGHKF1/2/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
125
(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.15231739.2008.00951.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 Lessdeveloped 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).
126
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/B6VB5-44XCWJX8/2/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.
127
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
128
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-4M33VPN1/2/5053df7d3c54c7940ea0d992ecfb7aa5.
Nweke, F. (2009). Controlling Cassava Mosaic Virus and Cassava Mealybug in SubSaharan 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 environmentallyfriendly 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/S0305750X(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.
129
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: 10.4103/09724923.49207.
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).
130
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), 165181. 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.17571707.2010.01063.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
131
West Africa actors. Africa. Paris: Sahel and West Africa Club Secretariat
(SWAC)/OECD.
132
Annexes
Annex 1.
Annex 2.
Annex 3.
Annex 4.
Terms of Reference
Extract of Tripartite Free Trade Agreement SPS Annex
Article IV from the IPPC
Performance, Vision and Strategy for National Plant Protection Organisations
133
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)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
The Desert Locust Programme;
The Africa Stockpile programme;
Technical assistance through the Rotterdam Convention Secretariat;
Capacity building and infrastructural support through the International
Plant protection Convention Secretariat;
Global IPM Facility; and
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 objective
The 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.
134
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 management
d. 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 level
Main 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
135
 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.
136
Annex 2. Extract of Annex 9 on SPS Measures under Article
29(3) of the Tripartite Free Trade Agreement
Article 1
General 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 Three
Plant Protection
Article 31
General 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.
137
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 32
Competent 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 33
General 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 34
Inspection
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.
basis.
Member States shall develop inspection protocols for specific crops and perform inspections on regular
138
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 35
Certification
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 36
Monitoring 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 37
Identification 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 38
Early 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 39
Risk 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.
139
Article 40
Quality 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 41
Standard 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 42
Research 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 43
Resources
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 44
Responsibility 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 selfregulation 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
140
6.
(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.
Other relevant stakeholders may be called upon to take up any other responsibility as need arises.
Article 45
Awareness
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.
141
Annex 3. Article IV from the International Plant Protection
Convention (FAO, 1997)
ARTICLE IV
General provisions relating to the organizational
arrangements for national plant protection
1.
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)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
3.
the issuance of certificates relating to the phytosanitary regulations of the importing contracting
party for consignments of plants, plant products and other regulated articles;
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);
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;
the disinfestation or disinfection of consignments of plants, plant products and other regulated
articles moving in international traffic, to meet phytosanitary requirements;
the protection of endangered areas and the designation, maintenance and surveillance of pest free
areas and areas of low pest prevalence;
the conduct of pest risk analyses;
to ensure through appropriate procedures that the phytosanitary security of consignments after
certification regarding composition, substitution and reinfestation is maintained prior to export;
and
training and development of staff.
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.
142
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 Capability
1.
Diagnostic capability
2
Emergency
capability
response
3.
Quarantine exclusion
4.
Surveillance
5.
Emerging issues
6.
Risk analysis
The capability and authority of the NPPO to identify and record those biological
agents that can adversely affect plants and their related products.
The 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.
The capability and authority of the NPPO to prevent the introduction and
spread of unwanted pests in the country.
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.
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.
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.
The capability of the NPPO to update its overall service.
7.
Technical innovation
II Human and Financial capital
1.
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 The capability of the NPPO to implement and sustain policies and programs
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 The capability of the NPPO to secure additional investments over time that
grow
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 sector
1.
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 The capability of the NPPO to collaborate with its users to develop new
responsive to user needs programs and services in response to changing priorities and opportunities.
IV Access to Markets
1.
Compliance
with The capability and authority of the NPPO to ensure that users are in
143
3.
regulatory norms
Setting of
regulatory
norms
Harmonization
4.
Certification
5.
Equivalency agreements
6.
Traceability
7.
Transparency
8.
Regionalization
2.
compliance with the regulatory norms covered under its mandate.
The capability and authority of the NPPO to formulate and adopt regulatory
norms and processes and products covered under its mandate.
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.
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.
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.
The capability and authority of the NPPO to track the history, location and
distribution of plants and their related products covered under its mandate.
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.
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.
144