AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
BUREAU FOR AFRICA
Office of Analysis, Research, and Technical Support
AFR/ARTS/FARA
Washington, DC 20523-0089
February 17, 2016
Mr. George Jones,
USAID/Asmara.
We have enclosed herewith, two copies of the Supplementary
Environmental Assessment for Locust Control In Eritrea (SEA).
This document was prepared by the Africa Emergency
Locust/Grasshopper Assistance (AELGA) Project, of the Bureau for
Africa, Office of Operations and New Initiatives. The SEA is
meant to provide country specific environmental information and
supplement the Programmatic Environmental Assessment for
Locust/Grasshopper Control in Africa and Asia that was developed
in 1989. The presence of the SEA allows the Mission to provide
assistance including procurement and use of pesticides for
locust/grasshopper control operations.
Please do not hesitate to contact us in case you need additional
copies.
Sincerely,
Yene Belayneh, AFR/ONI/TPPI
Tel.: 703-235-5441
FAX: 702-235-3805
CC:
Vicky Dreyer, AFR/ONI/TPPI
Allan Showler, AFR/ONI/TPPI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE AFRICAN ARMYWORM AMENDMENT TO THE
ERITREAN S.E.A. FOR LOCUST/GRASSHOPPER CONTROL
I. LITERATURE REVIEW OF SPODOPTERA EXEMPTA, THE AFRICAN ARMYWORM
A. Biology and Ecology
B. Distribution
C. Damage
D. Control
II. THE 1994 AFRICAN ARMYWORM OUTBREAK
III. ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN ARMYWORM CONTROL IN ERITREA
A. USAID
B. National Crop Protection Departments
C. Pesticide Regulatory Bodies
D. The Desert Locust Control Organization of East Africa
E. Donor Agencies
F. NGOs
G. United Nations
IV.
A.
B.
C.
AFRICAN ARMYWORM CONTROL
Control Operations of 1994
Future Directions
Environmental Impact
V. AREAS OF CONCERN IN THE 1994 AAW CONTROL OPERATION
A. Main Problems
B. National Capacity of Eritrea
VI. CONCLUSIONS
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Pesticides
B. Research
C. Training
D. Strategic Plans
APPENDIX 1. Amendment of the
to allow African armyworms to
memo from John Gaudet, Bureau
(AFR/SD/PSGE) to Paul Novick,
1994.
SEA for locust/grasshopper control
be dealt with in East Africa. A
Environmental Coordinator
Director (AA/AFR/DRC). August 9,
3
APPENDIX 2. Cable #02173: Armyworm and weather conditions in
Eritrea. July 1994
APPENDIX 3. Cable #239673: Armyworm infestation in the Horn of
Africa. Sept. 1994.
APPENDIX 4.
1994.
Ministry of Agriculture Organizational Chart.
APPENDIX 5.
1994.
Armyworm Control Operation in Eritrea 1994.
APPENDIX 6.
31, 1994
Migrant Pest Situation Report by Amare Beiene.
4
Oct.
Nov.
Oct.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF AFRICAN ARMYWORM CONTROL IN
ERITREA: AN AMENDMENT TO THE "ERITREAN SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT FOR GRASSHOPPER AND LOCUST CONTROL"
The 1994 African Armyworm (AAW) outbreaks in Eritrea most
likely originated in Tanzania or Kenya in January 1994. From
March through May 1994, AAW moths migrated from Tanzania to Kenya
and Uganda. Moths from Kenya probably migrated to Ethiopia. In
Ethiopia, the first outbreaks were reported from Borena on April
18, 1994. The outbreak then spread to eastern Ethiopia. By the
end of May the outbreak spread throughout Ethiopia with the
exception of the Afar region. By June the armyworms had entered
Eritrea. The outbreak ended in August 1994.
The Eritrean Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), requested
pesticides and equipment for the armyworm control operations, but
received no donor support until the outbreak was over. MOA used
pesticides remaining from locust campaigns to treat for AAWs.
MOA maintains that its pesticide stocks are now seriously
depleted. Since USAID lacked an environmental impact assessment
for armyworm control in Eritrea, USAID regulation 22 CFR
216.3(b)(1) prohibited USAID from providing pesticides or
donating funds that would be used in conjunction with pesticide
application activities. However, MOA used pesticides provided in
1993 by USAID for locust control, to control AAWs. DLCO/EA
provided Eritrea with one aircraft for aerial applications of
pesticide.
To allow USAID to deal with AAWs in the future, AELGA sent
Dr. Gary C. Jahn, an entomologist, to Eritrea to prepare an
amendment of the "Supplemental Environmental Assessment for
Locust/Grasshopper Control in Eritrea." During his TDY, Dr. Jahn
interviewed members of MOA and the Desert Locust Control
Organization of East Africa (DLCO/EA). He surveyed fields where
insecticides were applied for AAW control. He also inspected the
pesticide storage facilities of MOA and DLCO/EA in Eritrea.
During the 1994 AAW outbreak the most serious problems in
the Eritrean control campaign were insufficient warning time,
poor international communication, inadequate communication
between provinces, and a complete lack of pheromone traps in
Eritrea for monitoring armyworm moths.
5
The national pesticide stocks were greatly depleted by the
control operation. Currently the Government of Eritrea (GOE) has
about 30,000 liters of emulsifiable concentrate (EC) pesticides,
suitable for ground applications; and 7,600 liters of ultra-low
volume (ULV) pesticide, suitable for ground and aerial spraying.
GOE also has several hundred kilograms of insecticidal dust and
powder. During the 1994 AAW campaign approximately 43,700 liters
of liquid insecticide and 42,200 kg. of solid pesticide were
applied in Eritrea. A locust outbreak could require from 10,000
to 50,000 liters of pesticides. MOA staff, including the
Minister of Agriculture Dr. Tesfai Ghermatsion, told this
consultant of the need for USAID or other donors to help
replenish pesticide stocks. In accordance with these requests,
this consultant inspected all of the pesticide storage facilities
in Eritrea. All of the facilities were adequately maintained
with the exception of the Gonderand facility in Asmara.
The Gonderand facility is a serious public health hazard.
The facility consists of a single room containing over 30,000
liters of expired pesticides in leaking containers. Pesticides
stored there include Ekatin, Malathion, 2,4-D Amine, Sumithion,
Diazonon, Dieldrin, and DDT. This chamber is constantly emitting
pesticide fumes through a broken window. The chamber floor is
coated with a thick oily layer of pesticides about 1 cm deep.
The apartments above and adjacent to the store room are occupied
by families with small children. These families are exposed to
potentially deadly vapors continuously. The GOE was informed of
this dangerous situation in March and April 1993 by AELGA. Since
then approximately 4000 liters of ULV Fenitrothion and 2,600
liters of Sumithion have been removed from this facility and used
for AAW control. Other than that no changes have been made in
the Gonderand pesticide facility.
Without importing additional pesticides, the 1994 AAW
outbreak was brought under control by MOA. Large amounts of
grain were apparently saved from destruction, though there
are no estimates available of the amount of grain saved.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Pesticides
1. Relocate the residents of the Gonderand pesticide storage
facility as soon as possible. This is a priority item. No
other recommendations should be considered until this item
is implemented.
6
2. Remove all pesticides from the Gonderand facility and store
them outside Asmara in non-leaking containers. Cleanup all the spilled pesticides and pesticide residues at
Gonderand.
3. Do not stockpile pesticides in Eritrea at this time. The
dangerous situation at the Gonderand pesticide warehouse
indicates that the Government of Eritrea is not prepared to
handle a pesticide stockpile at this time.
4. Provide Eritrea with pesticides on an "as-needed" basis for
AAW, just as is done for locusts. If USAID provides
pesticides to Eritrea for AAW control, a technical expert
from USAID should accompany the pesticides to verify proper
storage, use, and ground surveys.
5. Support the development of a Pesticide Bank in Europe so
that assistance organizations and African governments
can be pre-positioned for major pest outbreaks.
6. Provide Eritrea with sufficient safety equipment.
7. Provide the Government of Eritrea with guidance on eveloping
pesticide regulations.
8. Test old pesticide stocks to determine which ones are
useable.
9. If pesticides must be used, use several different kinds of
insecticides to avoid selecting for resistance.
10. Use a front door for storing and a back door for removing
pesticides so that the oldest pesticides will be used first.
B. Research
1. Develop formulations of nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) for
control of AAW. NPV is safer to humans than
pesticides.
2. Determine if any commercial formulations of Bacillus
thuringiensis (B.t.), an insecticidal bacteria, control AAW.
3. Develop formulations of B.t. isolates shown to be effective
against AAW, e.g. B.t. isolate K-26-21.
4. Determine if natural enemies can control AAWs in Tanzania
and Kenya, thus preventing outbreaks in Eritrea.
5. Find out what happens to the AAW that migrate to the north.
6. Devise a means of killing the AAW pupae.
7. Develop transgenic plants that incorporate the gene for B.t.
toxin to protect crops from AAWs.
8. Identify egg parasites of AAWs.
C. Training
7
1. Support increased pesticide safety training for crop
protection workers and farmers.
2. Need for AAW control training similar to the AELGA training
for locust control.
3. Teach workers how to maintain pheromone traps and how to
report trap data.
D. Strategic plans
1. Prevent outbreaks by controlling AAWs in Tanzania and Kenya
before they reach Ethiopia or Eritrea.
2. Eritrea should be continuously informed of the status of AAW
in Kenya through DLCO.
3. Place AAW pheromone traps throughout the country,
concentrating more traps in southern Eritrea.
4. Have a planned response to possible monitoring outcomes.
5. All provincial crop protection units should be in radio
communication with the MOA in Asmara.
NOTE: The opinions expressed in this trip report are those of Dr.
Gary C. Jahn and are not the official views of USAID. The draft
AAW Amendment to the Eritrean Locust SEA also contains these
views. At the time of writing this trip report (12 Nov. 1994),
the AAW Amendment has not yet been approved by USAID/Washington
D.C.
I. LITERATURE REVIEW OF SPODOPTERA EXEMPTA, THE AFRICAN ARMYWORM
A. Biology and Ecology
The African armyworm (AAW), Spodoptera exempta (Walker)
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), larvae feed on all types of grasses,
early stages of cereal crops (e.g., corn, rice, wheat, millet,
sorghum), sugar cane, and occasionally on coconut (Odiyo 1984;
Yarrow et al. 1981). The armyworm gets it's name from it's habit
of "marching" in large numbers from grasslands into crops. AAWs
tend to occur at very high densities during the rainy season,
especially after periods of prolonged drought (Haggis 1984,
1986). During the long dry season in eastern Africa AAW
population densities are very low. Because outbreaks are never
observed during the dry season, it is called the "off-season" by
those that monitor AAWs (Odiyo 1981).
S. exempta moths live about 10 days. The female can lay a
maximum of about 1000 eggs in her lifetime. Eggs hatch in 2-3
days. Six larval instars are completed in 2-3 weeks. Larvae
occur in two morphologically distinct forms: a 'gregarious' form,
which is black with yellow stripes, and a solitary form, which is
8
green or brown. The morphological form is determined by density
-- becoming 'gregarious' at higher densities. However, the AAWs
do not exhibit the true gregarious behavior of locusts. It is
the gregarious forms of AAW that cause outbreaks. Generally,
AAWs are not noticed by farmers until the caterpillars are 10
days old and change from green to black (Brown 1972). In the
last instar, larvae burrow 2-3 cm into the ground to pupate.
Adults emerge in 7 to 10 days (Dewhurst 1985). The moths,
migrate over tens, and probably over hundreds, of kilometers
between their emergence sites and their oviposition sites (Riley
et al. 1983). The observation that AAW outbreaks can suddenly
occur in areas that were free of the pests for several months has
lead to the hypothesis that the moths migrate hundreds of
kilometers. Evidence for this hypothesis includes:
1) outbreaks in a geographical progression at one generation
intervals (Rainey 1979);
2) outbreaks are often preceded by high catches of moths and
associated with wind convergence (Blair et al. 1980);
3) results of isozyme analysis imply that AAW populations in
Kenya, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe regularly inter-breed (Den
Boer 1978);
4) laboratory tests show that the moths can remain in flight
for several hours (Gatehouse and Hackett 1980);
5) results of mark and capture studies, and radar tracking
indicate long distance, downwind migration of AAW moths
(Rose et al. 1985).
There is a trade-off between flight and reproduction, i.e.
the longer the moths fly, the lower their fecundity (i.e.,
reproductive potential) (Gunn et al. 1989; Gunn and Gatehouse
1993). The moths tend to fly downwind and infest new areas in
regions of wind convergence (Brown et al. 1969; Tucker et al.
1982). There are three distinct periods of flight activity each
night for moths: dusk, late evening, and just before dawn (Rose
and Dewhurst 1979). Migratory flights begin the night of
emergence; or newly emerged moths congregate in trees and mass
migration flights begin at dusk the following night (Riley et al.
1983).
During seasons when there are no outbreaks, the AAW persists
in it's solitary phase (in which caterpillars remain green, are
less active, and therefore less conspicuous). The first
outbreaks of the season probably result from concentrations of
moths before the synchronized mating and egg laying (Pedgley
1989; Rose 1979). These outbreaks frequently follow periods of
9
prolonged drought. Janssen (1992, 1993) found that plant's have
more nutrients than usual, especially nitrogen, following the
first rain after a drought.
While these nutritional differences
may account for increased AAW moth fecundity, this has not been
demonstrated. An alternative, and untested, explanation for
outbreaks following droughts is that the effectiveness of
predators and parasites in regulating population growth may be
significantly reduced through droughts (Marcovitch 1957).
It has been suggested that the outbreaks may result from
synchronized ending of pupal diapause, as opposed to mass
migration. However, no diapausing pupae have ever been found in
the field. Diapause in a small proportion of pupae has been
observed in the laboratory (Khasimuddin 1977).
B. Distribution
S. exempta is found throughout Africa south of the Sahara,
with large infestations concentrated in the eastern half of the
continent. The center of AAW breeding is around the MozambiqueZimbabwe area. Outbreaks progress from this area into 30 African
nations, from Mauritania and Senegal in the north-west to
Ethiopia and Somalia in the north-east, and to Namibia and South
Africa in the south (Odiyo 1984). AAW also occurs in southwestern Arabia, and intermittently in the oceanic countries of
South East Asia and the Pacific as far east as Hawaii, but not in
the Americas (Haggis 1984, 1986). The species is found as far
south as Australia and New Zealand (Commonwealth Institute of
Entomology 1972).
C. Damage
An infestation of AAW covering 65 square km2 of rangeland
with a larval density of 28/m2 consumes about 50 tons (dry
weight) of herbage per day during their final instar. This
feeding rate is equivalent to that of 8000 head of cattle (Odiyo
1979).
D. Control
1. Forecasting
African armyworm moths are monitored using pheromone traps
that attract sexually receptive males. Light traps, Aldis beam
observations, radar, and optical infra-red observations are also
used to track the movement of the moths and improve forecasting
ability (Tucker 1983). Dewhurst (1985) recommends controlling
AAWs with insecticides in the first larval instar, thus
preventing their northward spread. Control strategies could be
improved by determining the conditions that lead to
10
concentrations of moths. If moth concentrations could be located
and destroyed, then outbreaks could be prevented (Pedgley et al.
1989).
2. Biological control
There is tremendous potential for biological control of
AAWs. According to Dewhurst (1985), viruses can control AAWs
under suitable, but restricted, conditions. In an effort to use
viral control, farmers around the world have attempted to control
caterpillars by collecting dead caterpillars from the field,
grinding them up, mixing them with water, and spraying the
mixture on threatened crops. The mixture is sometimes referred
to as the "green milkshake." The green milkshake is unreliable
as a control method. If the farmers are fortunate enough to find
caterpillars infected with pathogenic viruses, if the virus are
not degraded by enzymes in the grinding process, if the viruses
are not rapidly degraded by sunlight, and if the virus can be
transmitted orally, the green milkshake can be very effective;
but a good deal of luck is needed. Even when the green milkshake
works, the potency of the shake tends to decrease with each
successive formulation.
The Plant Protection Bureaus of Thailand have modified the
green milkshake technique with some success. There, Spodoptera
exigua are reared in government laboratories. A certain portion
of the caterpillars are regularly infected with nuclear
polyhedrosis virus (NPV). Infected caterpillars are harvested at
the peak of the virus population and ground into the green
milkshake. The green milkshake is distributed to farmers. By
collecting the dead caterpillars from their fields, farmers are
generally able to successfully re-create the green milkshake 2 or
3 times. After that, the potency is too low to be effective and
farmers must be re-supplied with laboratory stock. Another
drawback is that infectivity rates tend to be low, so large
quantities of virus must be used. The rate of infectivity can be
greatly enhanced by formulating NPV with adjuvants to provide
protection from sunlight. For example, the addition of Tinopal,
an optical brightener to NPV adjuvants prevents degradation of
NPV by ultra-violet radiation, increasing the virulence of NPV to
Spodoptera frugiperda 164,000 to 303,000 times (Hamm and Shapiro
1992).
Bacteria can also be used to control Noctuid caterpillars.
Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.), an insecticidal bacteria, has
reduced AAW populations by 95% in field trials. The literature
11
is filled with seemingly contradictory results when it comes to
controlling Spodoptera with B.t.. This is because the
insecticidal activities of various B.t. strains differ with the
target pest species (Belda and Guerreo 1992; Jarret and Burges
1986; Lecadet and Mortouret 1987). Brownbridge (1991) screened
150 B.t. strains for insecticidal activity against AAWs. B.t.
strain K-26-21, isolated from soil in Kenya, showed the highest
level of toxicity to AAWs in the laboratory. In field trials,
isolate K-26-21 provided almost total control of larvae on maize
seedlings within 48 hours. In this experiment, ants and spiders
played a significant role in suppressing the AAW population,
especially early instars. Natural enemy populations were not
effected by the B.t..
It is not known to what extent natural enemies keep AAW
populations in check. A proposed sampling plan for AAW in maize
cannot be used where natural enemies are most efficient and keep
the AAWs at very low densities (Schulthess et al. 1991). Ants
are known to significantly reduce Spodoptera frugiperda
populations and associated damage in maize. Reducing
applications of broadspectrum insecticides, or replacing them
with biological insecticides, such as B.t., allows ants to
contribute to Spodoptera control (Perfecto 1990).
3. Antifeedants
The pyrrolidine 2(R), 5(R)-dihydroxymethyl-3(R), 4(R)dihydroxypyrrolidine (DMDP) deters feeding in S. exempta as well
as in the locusts Schistocera gregaria (Forsk.) and Locusta
migratoria L. (Blaney et al. 1984; Fellows et al. 1989; and
Simmonds et al. 1989 cited in Simmonds et. al. 1990). Due to
incomplete coverage, antifeedants alone are rarely sufficient to
protect a crop. However, antifeedants can be an important part of
an IPM program.
4. Pesticides
Several pesticides are used for AAW control, including
malathion, endosulfan, cypermethrin (a pyrethroid), carbaryl,
fenitrothion, and chlorpyriphos (Brown et al. 1970; Hewitt and
Meganasa 1993; Wheatley and Crowe 1967). Insect growth
regulators (IGRs) have only been used experimentally so far. In
laboratory studies IGRs have been shown to significantly increase
the mortality of another species of armyworm, S. frugiperda. The
addition of a feeding stimulant to the IGR increases its
effectiveness (Chandler 1993).
12
When spraying AAWs with cypermethrin the optimal droplet
size is 35 microns diameter or more. Field trials in Kenya
indicate that a minimum of nine droplets of 2.4% ULV formulation
of cypermethrin per square centimeter is required for 50% AAW
kill, whereas 95% mortality requires at least 28 droplets per
square centimeter. To achieve 50% AAW mortality requires track
spacing of 25 m for back-mounted sprayers and 45 m for vehiclemounted sprayers. As the track space is decreased, the AAW
mortality increases (Hewitt and Meganasa 1993).
II. THE 1994 AFRICAN ARMYWORM OUTBREAK
Eritrea is normally not a breeding area for African
armyworms. AAW outbreaks occur in Eritrea when moths migrate
there from Ethiopia or further south. The 1994 AAW outbreaks in
Eritrea most likely originated in Tanzania in January 1994.
Moths may have migrated from Tanzania to Kenya and Uganda in
March. From late March through May there were AAW outbreaks in
the Coastal, Nyanza and Rift Valley provinces of Kenya. These
outbreaks were monitored by the Desert Locust Control
Organization (DLCO) and sprayed by the Kenya Plant Protection
Department. Moths from Kenya probably migrated to Ethiopia. In
Ethiopia, the first outbreaks were reported from Borena Zone,
Teltele Wereda on April 18, 1994. Initial infestations in
southern Ethiopia were followed by small outbreaks in central
Ethiopia. It is possible that the moths detected in Ethiopia
resulted from primary outbreaks originating in southern Ethiopia.
In May 1994, the northeastern third of Ethiopia, the provinces of
Tigray and Wello, suffered widespread severe outbreaks. Two or
three days after the infestations began in Tigray, the AAWs
entered Eritrea.
The first reported AAW outbreaks in Eritrea came from
Hamassien and Serai provinces in June. Within one week, seven of
the nine Eritrean provinces were infested: Serai, Akeleguzay,
Hamassien, Senhit, Sahil, Semhar, Gash, and Setit. In the Serai,
Hamassien, and Senhit provinces alone, about 220,000 hectares
were infested. Armyworms attacked African finger millet, taff,
maize, sorghum and various grasses that serve as livestock
fodder. Larval densities were 60 to 100 larvae per square meter
in the Hazemo plain. The highest density recorded during the
outbreak was 500 larvae per square meter. Spraying is
recommended when caterpillar densities reach or exceed 15 larvae
per square meter (Appendix 6). Depending on the area, 25 to 90%
of crops were destroyed; forcing many farmers to resow their
crops. The outbreak ended in August 1994.
13
III.ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN ARMYWORM CONTROL IN ETHIOPIA
A. USAID
The Eritrean Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), requested
pesticides and equipment from USAID and other donors to control
the AAW outbreaks (Appendix 2). Since USAID lacked an
environmental impact assessment for armyworm control in Ethiopia,
USAID regulations [22 CFR 216.3(b) (1)] prohibited USAID from
providing pesticides or donating funds that would be used in
conjunction with pesticide application activities (Appendix 3).
According to USAID/Eritrea, the Mission did not participate in
AAW control operations, or provide any support. However,
according to Mr. Mehari Tesfayohannes, (Head of the Agricultural
Rural Development Department of MOA), MOA used malathion provided
in 1993 by USAID (for locust control), to control AAWs.
Interviews with Mr. Kidane Ghebrekidan, (a crop protection
specialist), and with Mr. Woldu Tekle-Giorgis, (Assistant Head of
Plant Protection), confirmed that USAID pesticides were used in
the armyworm control operations.
To allow USAID to deal with AAWs in the future, AELGA sent
Dr. Gary C. Jahn, an entomologist, to Eritrea to prepare this
amendment of the "Supplemental Environmental Assessment for
Locust/Grasshopper Control in Ethiopia" (Appendix 1).
B. National Crop Protection Departments
The structure of the Eritrean Ministry of Agriculture (MOA)
down to the department level is shown in Appendix 4. MOA is
divided into 15 departments. The Department of Agricultural
Rural Development (ARD), which deals with armyworm outbreaks,
works under the authority of the Vice Minister of Operations.
ARD is divided into four divisions: Extension, Plant Protection
& Quarantine, Crop Production, and Home Economics & Domestic
Handicrafts.
The consultant met with Dr. Tesfai Ghermatsion, Minister of
Agriculture; Mr. Mehari Tesfayohannes, Head of ARD; Mr. Kidane
Ghebrekidan, Plant Protection Expert; and Mr. Woldu TekleGiorgis, Assistant Head of the Plant Protection Section.
C. Pesticide Regulatory Bodies
As of Nov. 1994 Eritrea had no pesticide regulatory body and
no pesticide regulations.
D. Desert Locust Control Organization of East Africa (DLCO/EA)
14
The DLCO/EA has an AAW unit which monitors the movement of
armyworms.
A single Beaver spray aircraft was provided to the
Government of Eritrea (GOE) by DLCO/EA. All of the DLCO/EA
pilots wear protective clothing (i.e. respirators, helmets, and
coveralls) during spray operations. Fenitrothion 96% technical
and malathion 95% technical were the pesticides applied by air.
E. Donor Agencies
GOE did not receive any donor support for the 1994 AAW
control campaign.
F. NGOS
GOE did not receive NGO support for the 1994 AAW control
campaign.
G. United Nations
The UN sent Dr. C. F. Dewhurst to Asmara to present a 2 day
seminar on AAWs to MOA/ARD. FAO donated 5600 liters of Dursban
to Eritrea for armyworm control. Unfortunately, it arrived in
Eritrea in October 1994, two months after the outbreak ended.
MOA is saving the pesticide to use next year.
IV. AFRICAN ARMYWORM CONTROL
A. Control Operations of 1994
1. Forecasting
Current "forecasting" methods for Eritrea rely on light trap
collections made in and around Asmara. Light traps attract all
varieties of insects and are poor devices for monitoring AAW
moths. It would better if Eritrea had a network of pheromone
traps.
ARD was notified in June by the Ethiopian Ministry of
Agriculture that AAWs were infesting Ethiopia. The Ethiopian AAW
outbreak began in April. This delay in reporting was quite
costly to Eritrea (in terms of crop loss) which only had a week
to prepare for the outbreak. DLCO/EA only informed ARD of the
outbreak situation in Kenya after ARD had already heard from the
Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture.
Based on the data collected by DLCO, the 1994 AAW outbreak
in Ethiopia and Eritrea could have been predicted months in
advance. Eritrea would have had time to prepare for the outbreak
if the DLCO information had gone to Asmara promptly. Just as
15
DLCO notifies Ethiopia and Kenya of locust breeding in Eritrea,
so too should DLCO notify Eritrea and northern Ethiopia of AAW
outbreaks in Tanzania, Kenya, and southern Ethiopia.
2. Pesticide applications
ARD was responsible for coordinating AAW control operations
throughout Eritrea. A total of 22,970 hectares were treated from
the ground with 17,388 liters of liquid pesticide and 42,183 kg
of insecticidal dust. A total of 62,246 hectares were treated by
air with 26,316 liters of insecticide at an average application
rate of 0.42 lt./ha (Appendix 5). This is consistent with the
recommended application rate of 0.25 to 0.5 lt./ha for ULV
insecticides. Due to the control operations, a second generation
of AAWs was not able to re-infest Eritrea.
Malathion 96% ULV and fenitrothion 96% ULV were applied by
airplane and truck-mounted Micronair. Cypermethrin (a
pyrethroid), fenitrothion (an organophosphate or OP), diazinon
(an OP), Sevin (carbaryl, a carbamate), propoxur (a carbamate),
and Dursban (chlorpyriphos, an OP) were applied by backpack
sprayer. Though it was probably unintentional on the part of
ARD, using a variety of insecticides to control pest outbreaks is
a good strategy for avoiding pesticide resistance.
Ground applications were made by extension agents and
village brigades. Village brigades consist of farmers that
volunteer to apply pesticides with backpack sprayers. There were
15 to 20 teams per province. Each team consisted of 20 to 30
men. ARD does not send women on spray operations out of concern
that breast milk may be contaminated by pesticide exposure.
Considering that the pesticides are generally applied without
protective clothing, this precaution is not unfounded. Certain
organophosphates are exceptionally prone to storage in fat
tissue, which may be released back into circulation during
lactation. No organochlorine pesticides (e.g. aldrin,
endosulfan, DDT) were used in the 1994 AAW control operation, but
it is worth noting that all organochlorines are highly lipophilic
and therefore likely to be excreted in the milk of lactating
women (Morgan 1982).
3. Mechanical and cultural control
Mechanical control for AAWs was not used in Eritrea in the
1994 outbreak.
B. Future directions
16
1. MOA plans to:
a. Conduct research on the effectiveness of mechanical
control for AAW.
b. Request training on AAW control, similar to the AELGA
locust training.
c. Request more ULV pesticides and more carbamates.
2. DLCO/EA plans to:
a. Standardize pesticide emission rates.
b. Increase the use of malathion over fenitrothion for AAW
control to decrease the environmental impact.
c. Conduct quick ground surveys as crops start growing.
d. Be pre-positioned with pesticide stocks.
e. Have aircraft on stand-by.
C.
Environmental Impact of the 1994 AAW Control Operations
The GOE did not conduct an environmental impact assessment
in conjunction with the control operations. No pesticides
were applied to sanctuaries or wilderness areas. There were
no reports of human health impacts in treated areas, though
there was no GOE program to look for such effects.
Likewise, there were no reports of birds, fish, or mammals
being killed by the pesticides, but GOE made no effort to
look for any dead animals. The only reported environmental
impact came from bee keepers, who claimed that the
treatments caused the death many honey bees.
V. AREAS OF CONCERN IN THE 1994 AAW CONTROL OPERATION
A. Main Problems
1. Safety equipment shortage
While GOE had enough pesticides to control the AAWs, there
was a severe shortage of safety equipment.
2. Inadequate warning system
Outbreaks were not always reported in a timely manner.
There was poor communication between the Ethiopian Ministry of
Agriculture and the Eritrean Ministry of Agriculture; between the
Eritrean MOA and the Eritrean provincial offices; between DLCO/EA
and MOA; and between DLCO/Kenya and DLCO/Eritrea.
3. Damage to honey bees
Aerial control operations in Eritrea killed many honey bees.
B. National Capacity of Eritrea
1. Pesticides and Safety Equipment
17
The national pesticide stocks were greatly depleted by the
control operation. As of Nov. 1994, MOA had about 30,000 liters
of emulsifiable concentrate (EC) pesticides: Dursban and
Cypermethrin. The EC pesticide formulations are suitable for
ground applications. MOA also has 7,600 liters of ultra-low
volume (ULV) pesticide, suitable for ground and aerial spraying.
The ULV pesticide stock includes the 5,600 liters of ULV Dursban
received from FAO in Oct. 1994. The remaining 2000 liters of ULV
pesticides are fenitrothion and malathion. In addition, MOA has
several hundred kilograms of insecticidal dust and powder.
During the 1994 AAW campaign approximately 43,700 liters of
liquid insecticide and 42,200 kg. of solid pesticide were applied
in Eritrea. A locust outbreak could require from 10,000 to
50,000 liters of pesticides. MOA staff, including the Minister
of Agriculture Dr. Tesfai Ghermatsion, told this consultant of
the need for USAID or other donors to help replenish pesticide
stocks. According to Mehari Tesfayohannes, ARD needs more ULV
pesticides and more carbamate insecticides, especially Sevin.
The GOE has no B.t. stocks at all, and has never had any.
There is a shortage of all types of safety equipment.
2. Facilities
a. Pesticide Storage
(I) The Eritrean Ministry of Agriculture
The majority of useable MOA pesticides are stored at Daropaulos, former military barracks that have been renovated to
store pesticides. The pesticides stored at Daro-paulos are
properly labeled and are not leaking. The only problem observed
at Daro-paulos was that older pesticides were stored in the back
of the building while newer pesticides were piled in front of
those. There is only one door on the facility, so workers must
take out the new pesticides to get to the old pesticides. A
simple solution would be to place a back door on the facility so
that pesticides could be loaded in one door and removed from the
opposing door. In this way, the oldest pesticide would be used
first.
Other pesticides are stored in a government warehouse while
awaiting transfer to Daro-paulos. Several hundred kilograms of
solid pesticides are stored near the ARD office in steel shipping
cars. All of the facilities were adequately maintained with the
exception of the single room at the Gonderand facility in Asmara.
The Gonderand facility contains pesticides donated to Eritrea by
the Government of Ethiopia and the DLCO/EA 25 years ago.
18
Presently, the Gonderand facility belongs to the Eritrean
Ministry of Agriculture.
The Gonderand facility is a serious public health hazard.
As of Nov. 1994, the facility contained over 30,000 liters of
expired pesticides in leaking containers. Pesticides stored
there include Ekatin, Malathion, 2,4-D Amine, Sumithion,
Diazonon, Dieldrin, and DDT. This chamber is constantly emitting
pesticide fumes through a broken window. The chamber floor is
coated with a thick oily layer of pesticides about 1 cm deep.
The apartments above and adjacent to the store room are occupied
by families with small children. These families are exposed to
potentially deadly vapors continuously. The GOE was informed of
this dangerous situation in March and April 1993 by AELGA. Since
then approximately 4000 liters of ULV Fenitrothion and 2,600
liters of Sumithion have been removed from this facility and used
for AAW control. Other than that no changes have been made in
the Gonderand pesticide facility.
II) DLCO/EA
The DLCO office in Asmara has a small pesticide stock
consisting of approximately 1000 liters DDT and 1000 liters of
organophosphates. The barrels are stored outside beneath a roof.
The containers are not leaking.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The 1994 AAW outbreak was brought under control and large
amounts of grain were apparently saved from destruction, though
no agency has estimates of the amount of grain saved. Any crop
loss was the result of delays in the control operation. Several
problems hindered the operation:
1) Poor communication from Kenya and Ethiopia to Eritrea; and
inadequate internal communication within Eritrea.
Proper communication would have given Eritrea more time to
prepare for the outbreak.
2)
Improper monitoring.
Eritrea relies on light traps to detect AAW moths. Eritrea
needs a network of pheromone traps for AAW male moths. GOE also
needs personnel trained in the operation and maintenance of the
traps. Finally, there must be simplified, standardized reporting
of moth data so that Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia, and
Eritrea and easily and efficiently share AAW data. AAW outbreaks
in any of these five nations should be reported to the other four
19
nations as rapidly as possible. Reliance on regional monitoring
(i.e. limited to a single province) makes sense for non-migratory
pests, but not for migratory pests such as locusts or African
armyworms.
3) A shortage of trucks, safety equipment, and application
equipment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Pesticides
1. Relocate the residents of the Gonderand pesticide storage
facility as soon as possible. This is a priority item. No
other recommendations should be considered until this item
is implemented.
2. Remove all pesticides from the Gonderand facility and store
them outside Asmara in non-leaking containers. Cleanup all the spilled pesticides and pesticide residues at
Gonderand.
3. Do not stockpile pesticides in Eritrea at this time. The
dangerous situation at the Gonderand pesticide
warehouse indicates that the Government of Eritrea is not
prepared to handle a pesticide stockpile at this time.
4. Provide Eritrea with pesticides on an "as-needed" basis for
AAW, just as is done for locusts. If USAID provides
pesticides to Eritrea for AAW control, a technical expert
from USAID should accompany the pesticides to verify that
they are being stored and used in a manner consistent with
USAID regulations. The USAID technical expert should also
verify that ground surveys for pests are conducted prior to
aerial spraying. Donors should only provide pesticides in
conjunction with adequate amounts of safety equipment.
5. Support the development of a Pesticide Bank in Europe so
that assistance organizations and African governments
can be pre-positioned for major pest outbreaks.
6. Provide Eritrea with sufficient safety equipment; so that
the Government of Eritrea can provide village brigades
of farmers with respirators and other protective gear as
easily as they provide farmers with pesticides.
7. Provide the Government of Eritrea with guidance on
developing pesticide regulations.
8. Test old pesticide stocks to determine which ones are
useable.
9. If pesticides must be used, continue using several different
kinds of insecticides to avoid selecting for pesticide
resistance in AAWs.
20
10. Place a front and back door on all pesticide storage
buildings. Use one door for storing pesticides and the
other for removing pesticides. In this way, the oldest
pesticides will be used first without having to constantly
re-arrange the inventory.
B. Research
1. Develop formulations of nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) for
control of AAW. NPV is much safer to humans and the
environment than pesticides.
2. Determine if any commercial formulations of Bacillus
thuringiensis (B.t.), an insecticidal bacteria, provide
adequate AAW control. B.t. is more host specific than
conventional pesticides, is biodegradable, and is non-toxic
to humans.
3. Develop formulations of B.t. isolates shown to be effective
against AAW, e.g. B.t. isolate K-26-21. To obtain K26-21 contact Dr. Michael Brownbridge of the International
Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), P.O. Box
30772, Nairobi, Kenya.
4. Determine if natural enemies can reduce AAW populations at
the centers of origin, e.g. Tanzania and Kenya, thus
preventing outbreaks in Eritrea
5. Find out what happens to the AAW that migrate to the north.
6. Devise a means of killing the AAW pupae.
7. Develop transgenic plants that incorporate the gene for B.t.
toxin to protect crops from AAWs.
8. Identify egg parasites of AAWs.
C. Training
1. Support increased pesticide safety training for crop
protection workers and farmers.
2. Need for AAW control training similar to the AELGA locust
control training. Dr. Dewhurst gave a two day seminar
on AAW. The seminar was very popular but it wasn't enough.
3. Teach workers how to maintain pheromone traps and how to
report trap data.
D. Strategic plans
1. Prevent outbreaks by controlling AAWs in Tanzania and Kenya
before they reach Ethiopia or Eritrea.
2. Eritrea should be continuously informed of the status of AAW
in Kenya through DLCO.
3. Place AAW pheromone traps throughout the country,
concentrating more traps in southern Eritrea.
21
4. Have a planned response to possible monitoring outcomes.
5. Improve the internal communications of Eritrea. All
provincial crop protection units should be in radio
communication with the MOA in Asmara.
22
REFERENCES
Belda, J. and Guerrero, L. 1992. Evaluation of some
insecticides against beet armyworm Spodoptera exigua in
watermelon. Tests of Agrochemicals and Cultivars 13. Ann.
appl. Biol. 120 (Supplement), 12-13.
Blair, B. W., Rose, D. J. W., and Law, A. B. 1980. Synoptic
weather associated with outbreaks of African armyworm Spodoptera
exempta (Walker) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae), in Zimbabwe in 1973
and 1976/77. Zimbabwe Journal of Agricultural Research 18, 95110.
Blaney, W. M., Simmonds, M. S. J., Evans, S. V., and Fellows, L.
E. 1984. The role of the plant secondary compound 2,5dihydroxymethyl-3,4-dihydroxypyrroline as a feeding inhibitor for
insects. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 36, 209-216.
Brown, E. S.
Summaries.
1972.
Armyworm control.
Pest Articles and News
Brown, E. S., Betts, E. and Rainey, R. C. 1969. Seasonal
changes in distribution of the African armyworm, Spodoptera
exempta (Wlk.) (Lep. Noctuidae) with special reference to
Eastern Africa. Bull. ent. Res. 58, 671-684.
Brown, E. S., Stower, W. J., Yeates, M. N. D. B. and Rainey, R.
C. 1970. Armyworm control on rangeland. A further application
of aerial drift spraying. E. African Agric. For. J. 35, 350-358.
Brownbridge, M. 1991. Native Bacillus thuringiensis isolates for
the management of Lepidopteran Cereal Pests. Insect Sci. Applic.
12 (1/2/3), 57-61.
Chandler, L. D. 1993. Use of feeding stimulants to enhance
insect growth regulator-induced mortality of fall armyworm
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae. Florida Entomologist 76 (2),
316-326.
Commonwealth Institute of Entomology. 1972. Spodoptera exempta
(Walk.). Distribution Maps of Insect Pests 53.
Den Boer, M. H. 1978. Isozymes and migration in the African
armyworm Spodoptera exempta (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). Journal of
Zoology, London, 185, 539-553.
23
Dewhurst, C. F. 1985. The African armyworm (Spodoptera exempta)
-- the East African story outlined from 1962. Antenna 9, 12-18.
Fellows, L. E., Kite, G. C., Nash, R. J., Simmonds, M. S. J. and
Scofield, A. M. 1989. Castanospermine, swainsonine and related
polyhydroxy alkaloids: Structure, distribution and biological
activity, pp. 395-427, in J.E. Poulton, J.T. Romeo, and E.E. Conn
(eds.). Plant Nitrogen Metabolism. Plenum Publishing, New York.
Gatehouse, A. G. and Hackett, D. S. 1980. A technique for
studying flight behaviour of tethered Spodoptera exempta moths.
Physiological Entomology 5, 215-222.
Gunn, A. and Gatehouse, A. G. 1993. The migration syndrome in
the African armyworm moth, Spodoptera exempta: allocation of
resources to flight and reproduction. Physiological Entomology
18, 149-159.
Gunn, A., Gatehouse, A. G.and Woodrow, K. P. 1989. Trade off
between fight and reproduction in the African armyworm moth,
Spodoptera exempta. Physiological Entomology 14, 419-427.
Haggis, M. J. 1986. Distribution of the African armyworm,
Spodoptera exempta (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and the
frequency of larval outbreaks in Africa and Arabia.
Bulletin of Entomological Research 76, 151-170.
Haggis, M. J. 1987. Distribution, frequency of attack and
seasonal incidence of the African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta
(Walk.)(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), with particular reference to
Africa and south-western Arabia. Tropical Development Research
Institute, London, Report No. L69, pp. 116.
Hamm, J. J. and Shapiro, M. 1992. Infectivity of fall armyworm
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) nuclear polyhedrosis virus enhanced by a
fluorescent brightener. J. Econ. Entomol. 85 (6), 2149-2152.
Hewitt, A. J. and Meganasa, T. 1993. Droplet distribution
densities of a pyrethroid insecticide within grass and maize
canopies for control of Spodoptera exempta larvae. International
Pesticide Application Research Centre, Imperial College, Ascot,
Berkshire, UK. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd. pp. 59-62.
24
Janssen, J. 1992. Why do droughts often result in devastating
insect epidemics? The African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta, as
an example. Proc. 8th Int. Symp. Insect-Plant Relationships,
Dordrecht: Kluwer Acad. Publ., S.B.J. Menken, J.H. Visser & P.
Harrewijin (eds.), pp. 49-51.
Janssen, J. 1993. Soil nutrient availability in a primary
outbreak area of the African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in relation to drought intensity and
outbreak development in Kenya. Bulletin of Entomological
Research 83, 579-593.
Jarret, P. and Burges, H. D. 1986. Isolates of Bacillus
thuringiensis active against Mamestra brassicae and some other
species: alternatives to the present commercial isolate HD 1.
Biol. Agric. Hort. 4, 39-45.
Khasimuddin, S. 1977. On the occurrence of an
aestivating/diapausing phenomenon in the African armyworm,
Spodoptera exempta (Walk.) (Lep., Noctuidae). East African
Agriculture and Forestry Journal, 42, 350.
Lecadet, M. M. and Martouret, D. 1987. Host specificity of the
Bacillus thuringiensis delta endotoxin toward Lepidopteran
species: Spodoptera littoralis Bdv and Pieris brassicae. J.
Invertebr. Pathol. 49, 37-48.
Marcovitch, S. 1957. Forecasting armyworm outbreaks - a
possibility. J. Econ. Entomol. 50, 112-113.
Morgan, Donald P. 1982. Recognition and Management of Pesticide
Poisonings. Third Edition; United States Environmental
Protection Agency publication no. EPA-540/9-80-005; 120 pages.
Odiyo, P. O. 1979. Forecasting infestations of a migrant pest:
the African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta (Walk.). -pp. 403-413 in
Gunn, D.L. & Rainey, R.C. (Orgs.). Strategy and tactics of
control of migrant pests. -Phil. Trans. R. Soc.(B) 287, 245-488.
Odiyo, P.O. 1981. Development of the first outbreaks of the
African armyworm Spodoptera exempta (Walk.), between Kenya and
Tanzania during the 'off-season' months of July to December.
Insect Science and its Application 1, 305-318.
25
Odiyo, P. O. 1984. A guide to seasonal changes in the
distribution of armyworm infestations in East Africa. Insect
Sci. Applic. 5, 107-119.
Pedgley, D. E., Page, W. W., Mushi, A., Odiyo, P., Amisi, J.,
Dewhurst, C. F., Dunstan, W. R., Fishpool, L. D. C., Harvey, A.
W., Megenasa, T. and Rose, D. J. W. 1989. Onset and spread of
an African armyworm upsurge. Ecological Entomology 14, 311-333.
Perfecto, I. 1991. Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) as natural
control agents of pests in irrigated maize in Nicaragua. J.
Econ. Entomol. 84 (1), 65-70.
Rainey, R. C. 1979. Control of the armyworm Spodoptera exempta
in eastern Africa and southern Arabia: report of a mission to
formulate an inter-regional project. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, FAO AGPP: MISC/32.
Riley, J. R., Reynolds, D. R. and Farmery, M. J. 1983.
Observations of the flight behaviour of the armyworm moth
Spodoptera exempta, at an emergence site using radar and infrared optical techniques. Ecological Entomology 8, 395-418.
Rose , D. J. W. 1979. The significance of low-density
populations of the African armyworm Spodoptera exempta (Walk.).
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B,
287, 393-402.
Rose, D. J. W. and Dewhurst, C. F. 1979. The African armyworm,
Spodoptera exempta -- congregation of moths in trees before
flight. Ent. exp. & appl. 26, 346-348.
Rose, D. J. W., Page, W. W., Dewhurst, C. F., Riley, J. R.,
Reynolds, D. R., Pedgley, D. E., and Tucker, M. R. 1985.
Downwind migration of the African armyworm moth, Spodoptera
exempta, studied by mark and capture and by radar. Ecological
Entomology 10, 299-313.
Schulthess, F., Bosque, N. A., and Gounou, S. 1991. Sampling
lepidopterous pests on maize in West Africa. Bulletin of
Entomological Research 81, 297-301.
Simmonds, M. S. J., Blaney, W. M. and Fellows, L. E. 1990.
Behavioral and electrophysiological study of antifeedant
mechanisms associated with polyhydroxy alkaloids. Journal of
Chemical Ecology 16 (11), 3167-3196.
26
Simmonds, M. S. J., Fellows, L. E. and Blaney, W. M. 1989. Wild
plants as a source of novel anti-insect compounds: Alkaloidal
glycosidase inhibitors, pp. 365-377, in G. Wickens, N. Haq, and
P. Day (eds.). New Crops for Food and Industry. Croom Helm,
England.
Tucker, M. R. 1983. Light trap catches of African armyworm
moths, Spodoptera exempta (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).
Entomophaga 26, 179-190.
Tucker, M. R., Mwandoto, S. and Pedgley, D. E. 1982. Further
evidence for windborne movement of armyworm moths Spodoptera
exempta, in East Africa. Ecological Entomology 7, 463-473.
Wheatley, P. E. and Crowe, T. J. 1967. Pest Handbook. The
Recognition and Control of the More Important Pests of
Agriculture in Kenya. Government Printer, Nairobi, Kenya, 35 pp.
Yarrow, J. G. Otindo, B. L., Gatehouse, A. G., and Lubega, M. C.
1981. Dwarf variety of coconut, Cocos nucifera (Palmae), a host
plant for the African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta (Walk.)
(Lepidoptera, Noctuidae). Insect Science and its Application 1,
361-362.
27
TRIP REPORT: GARY C. JAHN IN ERITREA, 3-11 NOV. 1994
AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF AFRICAN ARMYWORM CONTROL IN
ERITREA: AN AMENDMENT TO THE "ERITREAN SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT FOR GRASSHOPPER AND LOCUST CONTROL"
The 1994 African Armyworm (AAW) outbreaks in Eritrea most
likely originated in Tanzania or Kenya in January 1994. From
March through May 1994, AAW moths migrated from Tanzania to Kenya
and Uganda. Moths from Kenya probably migrated to Ethiopia. In
Ethiopia, the first outbreaks were reported from Borena on April
18, 1994. The outbreak then spread to eastern Ethiopia. By the
end of May the outbreak spread throughout Ethiopia with the
exception of the Afar region. By June the armyworms had entered
Eritrea. The outbreak ended in August 1994.
The Eritrean Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), requested
pesticides and equipment for the armyworm control operations, but
received no donor support until the outbreak was over. MOA used
pesticides remaining from locust campaigns to treat for AAWs.
MOA maintains that its pesticide stocks are now seriously
depleted. Since USAID lacked an environmental impact assessment
for armyworm control in Eritrea, USAID regulation 22 CFR
216.3(b)(1) prohibited USAID from providing pesticides or
donating funds that would be used in conjunction with pesticide
application activities. However, MOA used pesticides provided in
1993 by USAID for locust control, to control AAWs. DLCO/EA
provided Eritrea with one aircraft for aerial applications of
pesticide.
To allow USAID to deal with AAWs in the future, AELGA sent
Dr. Gary C. Jahn, an entomologist, to Eritrea to prepare an
amendment of the "Supplemental Environmental Assessment for
Locust/Grasshopper Control in Eritrea." During his TDY, Dr. Jahn
interviewed members of MOA and the Desert Locust Control
Organization of East Africa (DLCO/EA). He surveyed fields where
insecticides were applied for AAW control. He also inspected the
pesticide storage facilities of MOA and DLCO/EA in Eritrea.
The most serious problems in the 1994 Eritrean AAW control
campaign were insufficient warning time, poor international
communication, inadequate communication between provinces, and a
complete lack of pheromone traps in Eritrea for monitoring
armyworm moths.
28
The national pesticide stocks were greatly depleted by the
control operation. Currently the Government of Eritrea (GOE) has
about 30,000 liters of emulsifiable concentrate (EC) pesticides,
suitable for ground applications; and 7,600 liters of ultra-low
volume (ULV) pesticide, suitable for ground and aerial spraying.
GOE also has several hundred kilograms of insecticidal dust and
wettable powder. During the 1994 AAW campaign approximately
43,700 liters of liquid insecticide and 42,200 kg. of solid
pesticide were applied in Eritrea. A locust outbreak could
require from 10,000 to 50,000 liters of pesticides. MOA staff,
including the Minister of Agriculture Dr. Tesfai Ghermatsion,
told this consultant of the need for USAID or other donors to
help replenish pesticide stocks. In accordance with these
requests, this consultant inspected all of the pesticide storage
facilities in Eritrea. All of the facilities were adequately
maintained with the exception of the Gonderand facility in
Asmara.
The Gonderand facility is a serious public health hazard.
The facility consists of a single room containing over 30,000
liters of expired pesticides in leaking containers. Pesticides
stored there include Ekatin, Malathion, 2,4-D Amine, Sumithion,
Diazonon, Dieldrin, and DDT. This chamber is constantly emitting
pesticide fumes through a broken window. The chamber floor is
coated with a thick oily layer of pesticides about 1 cm deep.
The apartments above and adjacent to the store room are occupied
by families with small children. These families are exposed to
potentially deadly vapors continuously. The GOE was informed of
this dangerous situation in March and April 1993 by AELGA. Since
then approximately 4000 liters of ULV Fenitrothion and 2,600
liters of Sumithion have been removed from this facility and used
for AAW control. Other than that no changes have been made in
the Gonderand pesticide facility.
Without importing additional pesticides, the 1994 AAW
outbreak was brought under control by MOA. Large amounts of
grain were apparently saved from destruction, though there are no
estimates available of the amount of grain saved.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Pesticides
1. Relocate the residents of the Gonderand pesticide storage
facility as soon as possible. This is a priority item.
No other recommendations should be considered until this
item is implemented.
29
2. Remove all pesticides from the Gonderand facility and store
them outside Asmara in non-leaking containers. Cleanup all the spilled pesticides and pesticide residues at
Gonderand.
3. Do not stockpile pesticides in Eritrea at this time. The
dangerous situation at the Gonderand pesticide
warehouse indicates that the Government of Eritrea is not
prepared to handle a pesticide stockpile at this time.
4. Provide Eritrea with pesticides on an "as-needed" basis for
AAW, just as is done for locusts. If USAID provides
pesticides to Eritrea for AAW control, a technical expert
from USAID should accompany the pesticides to verify proper
storage, use, and ground surveys.
5. Support the development of a Pesticide Bank in Europe so
that assistance organizations and African governments
can be pre-positioned for major pest outbreaks.
6. Provide Eritrea with sufficient safety equipment.
7. Provide GOE with guidance on developing pesticide
regulations.
8. Test old pesticide stocks to determine which ones are
useable.
9. If pesticides must be used, use several different kinds of
insecticides to avoid selecting for resistance.
10. Use a front door for storing and a back door for removing
pesticides so that the oldest pesticides will be used first.
B. Research
1. Develop formulations of nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) for
control of AAW. NPV is safer to humans than
pesticides.
2. Determine if any commercial formulations of Bacillus
thuringiensis (B.t.), an insecticidal bacteria, control AAW.
3. Develop formulations of B.t. isolates shown to be effective
against AAW, e.g. B.t. isolate K-26-21.
4. Determine if natural enemies can control AAWs in Tanzania
and Kenya, thus preventing outbreaks in Eritrea
5. Find out what happens to the AAW that migrate to the north.
6. Devise a means of killing the AAW pupae.
7. Develop transgenic plants that incorporate the gene for B.t.
toxin to protect crops from AAWs.
8. Identify egg parasites of AAWs.
C. Training
1. Support increased pesticide safety training for crop
protection workers and farmers.
30
2. Need for AAW control training similar to the AELGA training
for locust control.
3. Teach workers how to maintain pheromone traps and how to
report trap data.
D. Strategic plans
1. Prevent outbreaks by controlling AAWs in Tanzania and Kenya
before they reach Ethiopia or Eritrea.
2. Eritrea should be continuously informed of the status of AAW
in Kenya through DLCO.
3. Place AAW pheromone traps throughout the
country,concentrating more traps in southern Eritrea.
4. Have a planned response to possible monitoring outcomes.
5. All provincial crop protection units should be in radio
communication with the MOA in Asmara.
NOTE: The opinions expressed in this trip report are those of Dr.
Gary C. Jahn and are not the official views of USAID. The draft
AAW Amendment to the Eritrean Locust SEA also contains these
views. At the time of writing this trip report (12 Nov. 1994),
the AAW Amendment has not yet been approved by USAID/Washington
D.C..
31
Allan, I think that the way AELGA handled the Eritrean/Ethiopian
situation is an excellent example of rapid response, health &
environmental responsibility, and even cultural sensitivity
(AELGA treated Eritrea as an independent entity in anticipation
of the upcoming referendum). This was a good example of using
the participatory approach that is being emphasized by the
current Administrator. Participatory, in that all of the control
opertions and surveys were made by DLCO and DOA/Eritrea. We
proved guidance but the Africans were entirely in control of the
operation ----- as it should be. This was a good example of
USAID team work: Jahn (R&D, then) did the Eritrean SEA and
started an Ethiopian SEA, Schroeder completed the Ethiopian SEA,
Belayneh provided expert advice on toxicology, Showler returned
to Eritrea and Ethiopia for follow-up (follow-up is something
that many agencies fail to do!). OFDA, FAO, DLCO, and the
Eritrean Dept. Agr. were of course indispensible to the success
of this mission. So, in case you guys want to write the
Eritrean/Ethiopian experience up into a story for Brain Atwood,
I'm resending you my trip report as a quick reference (I know
these kind of things always get misplaced... at least around here
they do). My trip report does not include descriptions of how we
got DLCO to clean-up their dangerous pesticide storage facility,
nor the terrible situation at the Gowonderan apartment/storage
site. You may want to include those, though I imagine the press
could put a negative spin it, so it should be handled carefully.
If you'd like more input from me on this just let me know.
Gary
*****************************************************************
TRIP REPORT: Ethiopia & Eritrea (4-24 March 1993)
Gary C. Jahn
AAAS Science & Diplomacy Fellow
Major desert locusts outbreaks in the Eritrean desert were
reported by the Desert Locust Control Organization for East
Africa (DLCO-EA) in January and February of 1993. Scientists at
DLCO-EA determined that it was necessary to control the desert
locusts with pesticides in order to prevent a plague. All crops
in the region, except coffee and prickly pear cactus, were at
risk. Based on the history of grain loss in Eritrea and Ethiopia
during locusts plagues, 150,000 to 170,000 metric tons of grain
could be destroyed by locusts if the outbreak became a plague.
While this represents a loss of only 2-3% of the expected grain
32
yield, it is enough grain to feed 1 million people for a year.
DLCO-EA did not have adequate stocks of the appropriate
insecticide to bring the locusts under control. AID's
Environmental Procedures [22 CFR part 216] governing the
provision of pesticides require that a Supplemental Environmental
Assessment (SEA) be made for a country before USAID is permitted
to provide assistance in the form of pesticides. The SEA
identifies critical habitats in the country where pesticides
should not be applied, provides an overview on the state of
pesticide management in the country, and makes recommendations on
all aspects of pest control that effect the environment.
The USAID Mission in Ethiopia, and their branch office in
Eritrea, requested that an entomologist be sent to Eritrea to
prepare an SEA and to make recommendations on locust control.
Dr. Allan Showler (AFR/ONI/TPPI) asked me to travel to Eritrea to
prepare the SEA.
I arrived in Asmara on 4 March 1993. Originally I was
scheduled to return to the U.S. on 16 March 1993. However, the
USAID/Ethiopia Mission requested that I stay until 24 March 1993
to help coordinate locust control operations, to provide
oversight for the environmental aspects of the effort, and to
gather the background information for an SEA for Ethiopia (in
addition to Eritrea).
On March 5th I flew from Asmara to Alg Ma'amas with members
of DLCO-EA to observe the locust situation first hand. It is not
possible to observe the locust bands from an airplane, but the
first part of our journey had to be made by plane since the area
from Massawa to Alg Ma'amas was landmined; a grim reminder that
the 30 year Eritrean-Ethiopian war had ended only two years
earlier.
The recent rains made the land mined area green with new
vegetation. Historically, the area has been a major site for
desert locust breeding. Given that the weather conditions were
perfect for locust breeding, and that locust outbreaks had been
observed in the surrounding area, DLCO-EA assumed that locusts
were breeding in the mined area. To prevent a locust plague,
DLCO-EA used Beaver aircraft to blanket spray the entire mined
area with fenitrothion in February. In terms of locust control
the decision to blanket-spray was reasonable. However,
fenitrothion is highly toxic to birds and aquatic invertebrates.
Had DLCO-EA sprayed malathion, carbaryl, or acephate the risk of
environmental damage would have been less.
DLCO-EA wanted the Eritrean military to remove the landmines
as soon as possible. Aerial spraying is inefficient and costly.
To control hoppers (immature, wingless locusts) it is necessary
33
to send in ground teams that can spray the pesticides directly
where needed. Mr. Franz Herder, the USAID representative in
Asmara, discussed the situation with Eritrean and U.S. military
officers. The U.S. military was not able to assist in the mine
removal operations for political and logistic reasons. At the
time, the U.S. military was committed to aiding Somalia.
Meanwhile, the Eritrean military was clearing mines with tanks
fit with rollers in the front. The tanks were driven along
slowly, setting off the mine in front of them with the heavy
rollers. The process was slow and dangerous. One Eritrean
colonel claimed that the landmines did not present a major
obstacle to locust control operations, since the mines were
designed to be set-off by tanks. He suggested that unless the
mines were rusting or defective, automobiles and humans were
probably not heavy enough to trigger an explosion. Tragically,
an Australian journalist lost his leg a few days later when he
unknowingly stepped on a mine intended for tanks. Wisely, the
DLCO-EA has maintained a strict policy of never sending ground
teams into mined areas.
It took us about an hour to fly over the mines to a crude
runway near the DLCO-EA camp site. We moved into the desert in
land rovers to find the locusts. On the way to a wadi (a
temporary river) we saw nomads, camels, and a variety of
wildlife. These observations underscored the need for extreme
caution in applying pesticides to the area. We first spotted a
small swarm of adult locusts feeding on bulrush millet. This
swarm had already been sprayed a few days earlier at another
location. DLCO-EA estimated that the ground teams had killed
about 75% of this swarm with fenitrothion. The surviving locusts
covered an area of less than a hectare at an estimated density of
3 locust per square meter. Approximately one fifth of the
locusts were already bright yellow, indicating sexual maturity.
Conditions were ideal for oviposition (egg-laying) and rapid
development. Each female has the potential to lay 200 eggs,
although 160 is more typical. For reasons not yet understood, a
number of eggs will never hatch, so that the actual reproductive
capacity of each female is about 100 eggs. About half of the
locusts are female, so within a single generation the locusts can
increase their numbers 50 times. It takes only 120 to 130 days
for a new generation of desert locusts to reach adulthood.
Over the next four hours I saw two large bands of hoppers
marching across the sand. These bands were extremely dense,
having an estimated 50 to 100 locusts per square meter. Bands
were 1 to 2 meters wide and 10 to 20 meters long. It is not
known why the hoppers all march in the same direction within a
34
band. If the hoppers are approached they will initially scatter
and then move in unison in a different (apparently random)
direction, rather like a school of fish.
Based on my own observations and on reports from DLCO-EA,
the Eritrean Department of Agriculture, and the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) I estimated the extent of
the locust infestation. Approximately 1022 km2 of land needed to
be sprayed for desert locusts. After ascertaining the pesticide
inventories of DLCO-EA and the Eritrean Department of Agriculture
I determined that Eritrea needed an additional 25,000 liters of
96% ULV malathion to prevent a locust plague. Dr. Karrar, the
director of DLCO-EA independently came to the same conclusion.
Dr. Karrar and I presented our observations and conclusions at
the donor meeting in Addis Ababa on 10 March 1993.
Representatives of USAID/Ethiopia, FAO, the European Economic
Community (EEC), the Swedish International Development Agency
(SIDA), and donor organizations from Italy and Japan supported
our conclusions.
Following the donor meeting, Mr. Mike Harvey and Ms. Wendy
Fenton of USAID/Ethiopia requested 25,000 liters of malathion for
locust control from AID's African Emergency Locust and
Grasshopper Assistance (AELGA) Project. Dr. Allan Showler, who
helps runs AELGA, and Ms. Carol Siegel of the Office of Foreign
Disaster Assistance (OFDA) procured the malathion for Eritrea in
less than 2 weeks. In addition to pesticides, AELGA & OFDA
supplied Eritrea with safety equipment and radio communication
equipment vital to the locust control operation. Ms. Siegel's
and Dr. Showler's experience with locust emergency situations
made the entire operation run smoothly.
Surveys by DLCO-EA in April 1993 indicated that the
malathion applications successfully controlled the desert locusts
and prevented a locust plague.
My other activities in Eritrea and Ethiopia included:
evaluating the effectiveness and environmental impact of control
operations; meeting with donors to discuss the relative roles of
donor agencies (see attached list of contacts); inspecting
pesticide storage and disposal facilities; recommending safer
pesticide storage and disposal practices; evaluating locust
research at DLCO-EA; determining priority needs for locust
control; making long term recommendations for locust management
to minimize pesticide usage; identifying key areas of research
for a sustainable program of integrated locust management; and
identifying critical habitats in Eritrea and Ethiopia where
spraying should be restricted.
35
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
OF THE
ERITREAN LOCUST CONTROL PROGRAM
United States Agency for International Development
Mission to Eritrea
In Cooperation with the Provisional Government of Eritrea
Asmara, Eritrea
March 1993
36
xxxvii
xxxviii
xxxix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
iii
PREFACE
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
v
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.0 PURPOSE AND PROCEDURES
4
2.1 Background
2.2 Drafting Procedure
5
2.3 Previous Assessments
2.4 Environmental Procedures
6
Page
iv
1
4
6
3.0 LOCUST SITUATION IN ERITREA
8
3.1 Locust Infestation of July 1992 to March 1993
8
3.2 Agricultural Resources
10
3.3 Desert Locusts
11
3.4 Locust Management - Overview
12
3.5 Locust Management Operations
14
3.6 Pesticide Management
18
3.7 Cultural and Biological Management
20
3.8 Safety and Human Health
21
ii
4.0 ENVIRONMENT
4.1 Eritrea - Environmental Profile
23
4.2 Climate
4.3 Restricted Habitats
24
23
23
5.0 REFERENCES
25
APPENDIX
29
APPENDIX
30
APPENDIX
39
APPENDIX
A.
LIST OF PREPARERS/CONTACTS
B.
ANALYSIS OF PEA RECOMMENDATIONS
C.
RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION
D.
MAPS
iii
APPENDIX E.
APPENDIX F.
PESTICIDES
TABLES
CABLE: UPDATE ON A.I.D.-APPROVED LIST OF
FOR LOCUST/GRASSHOPPER CONTROL
LIST OF TABLES
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
PREFACE
This document is a supplement to the Programmatic
Environmental Assessment (PEA) concerning USAID
assistance in Locust control Programs. This
Supplementary Environmental Assessment (SEA) was
prepared by an AID/W Technical Assistant with the
support from the Provisional Government of Eritrea.
Document Preparers and contact persons are listed in
Appendix A.
v
This document has been reviewed by A.I.D./Ethiopia,
the Provisional Government of Eritrea, and AID/W. It
reflects the best current description of future options
for the USAID assistance programs to the Eritrean
Department of Agriculture (DOA) and to the Desert Locust
Control Organization for Eastern Africa (DLCO-EA) for
locust management. It contains the best available
estimates of environmental impact and possible
mitigating strategies. This may include training
programs covering improved health and environmental
protection, as well as support for early survey and spot
treatment programs. Encouragement is given for the use
of alternatives to chemical pesticides, along with
prudent and environmentally sound use of pesticides when
these materials are necessary. The commitments for any
possible future program are contingent on the future
needs for locust control, the capabilities of the DLCOEA, and on a decision by A.I.D. to provide assistance.
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AcetylCholinesterase
AELGA
African Emergency Locust/Grasshopper
Assistance Project - USAID/Washington
A.I.D./W
Washington,
Agency for International Development,
D.C.
APHIS
of USDA
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
CFR
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations
CIDA
Canadian International Development Agency
DLCO-EA
Desert Locust Control Organization for
Eastern Africa
DOA
Eritrean Department of Agriculture
EA
Environmental Assessment
EEC
European Economic Community
vi
AChE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPLF
Eritrean People's Liberation Front
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations
GTZ
German Technical Assistance Agency
ha
hectare (100 m x 100 m)
IFAD
Development
International Fund for Agricultural
IPM
Integrated Pest Management
km
kilometer
mg/kg
ODA
Kingdom
milligrams per kilogram
Overseas Development Administration, United
OFDA
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
OP
Organophosphate insecticide
PEA
Programmatic Environmental Assessment
PGE
Provisional Government of Eritrea
ppm
parts per million (ambient concentration)
SEA
Supplemental Environmental Assessment
SIDA
Swedish International Development Agency
vii
EPA
USAID
United States Agency for International
Development
viii
USAID/Ethiopia
- USAID Mission to Ethiopia, head
office located in Addis Ababa, field office
in Asmara, Eritrea
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This assessment is a supplement to the Programmatic
Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Locust and
Grasshopper Control in Africa and Asia. It was
developed to provide explicit, country-specific
environmental details and guidance in Eritrea to allow
A.I.D. assistance in regard to locust management. The
material in this document considers the specific locusts
and species in Eritrea, and the potential environmental
impact of control operations. This environmental
assessment is an extension of the PEA and is, as such,
an integral part of it. Both documents should be
consulted during planning and operational stages of
implementation .
The information contained in this document is
intended for use by USAID/Ethiopian Mission in Eritrea,
the Eritrean Department of Agriculture (DOA), the Desert
Locust Control Organization of Eastern Africa (DLCO-EA),
and the Food Agricultural Organization of the United
Nations (FAO/UN) to guide environmentally sound desert
locust management in Eritrea. Additional relevant
information should be added to this SEA in the future as
appropriate, in the form of appendixes.
Survey and immediate treatment operations prevent
locust outbreaks. Prevention reduces crop loss and
operational costs. Early season intervention requires
less pesticide than late season emergency operations,
and therefore has less impact on the environment.
2
This document therefore, recommends that any U.S.funded assistance concerning locust management should
promote the development of preventive pest management
program for locust control. An IPM program reduces
pesticides usage by relying on effective monitoring,
3
forecasting and a variety of locust control methods;
using insecticides only when necessary. Non-chemical
methods of locust control include: destroying locust
eggs by turning the soil, burning abandoned fields in
wadi areas to destroy potential locust breeding grounds,
and applying micro-organisms (that are pathogenic to
locusts, but not humans) to locust breeding ares. This
SEA recommends that FAO take the lead in this area, as
this
organization has had considerable experience in Africa
with such efforts.
Environmental awareness is emphasized. The fragile
ecosystems surrounding rivers, the Red Sea coast, and
the Dahlak Islands merit special attention. Fragile
ecological areas need to be protected from chemical
pesticides, as the impact can be both dramatic and long
lasting. Buffer zones of 2.5 to 5 km surrounding
protected areas should be observed in any U.S.-funded
locust control operation.
Training must be part of any USAID pest control
assistance program. Pesticide safety and the
environmental effects of pesticide use and misuse should
be conveyed to DOA personnel, to DLCO-EA personnel, and
to the general public through education and public
awareness campaigns. Farmer training and Village
Brigades can be an important part of management
operations, and their use should be stressed.
Proper pesticide management must be a priority in
locust control operations. Because misused pesticides
affect both the environment and crop production in terms
of increased costs, any locust control program must
consider possible consequences carefully. Pesticide
storage and application are important components of
pesticide use. Pesticides should only be stored with
other pesticides and should never be stored with
flammable or potentially explosive materials. Pesticide
containers must be disposed of in a manner that will
prevent food or water from being stored in them. This
SEA encourages the Provisional Government of Eritrea to
enforce Ethiopian regulations dealing with pesticides,
until Eritrea drafts its own pesticide regulations.
These issues must be fully considered and monitored in a
USAID-funded activity.
4
Monitoring of pesticide effects on non-target
species and the environment should be included as an
integral part of any pesticide use program. Monitoring
results should be used in the planning and operational
phases of future locust control programs to adjust or
curtail environmentally damaging operations.
This SEA suggests that Eritrea should monitor
environmental pesticide residues. Analysis of blood
acetylcholinesterase levels in organophosphate (OP)
insecticide handlers and applicators is recommended, and
should be part of a U.S.-funded program.
As of March 1993 the DLCO-EA in Eritrea had 10,000
liters of fenitrothion and 4,000 liters of malathion.
DOA in Eritrea had a variety of pesticides, including
7000 kg of expired Actellic.
DOA has four storage
sites for pesticides: two of the facilities are
buildings in the DOA compound; one site is at a
shipping-container stock yard; and the final facility is
a 10 m X 10 m X 5 m room in the Gwonderan district of
Asmara. Families reside in the rooms above and adjacent
to the Gwonderan storage facility. The barrels of
pesticides stored there are leaking. Decontamination of
the Gwonderan facility should begin as soon as possible.
5
2.0 PURPOSE AND PROCEDURES
2.1 Background
2.1.1 The Purpose of this SEA
Due to an outbreak of locusts in Sahelian Africa in
1987, the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) declared an emergency
waiver of the Agency's Environmental Procedures [22 CFR
part 216] governing the provision of pesticides. The
waiver permitted USAID to provide assistance for
procurement and use of pesticides for locust control
without full compliance with the Agency's environmental
procedures. The waiver expired on 15 August 1989.
Since then, all USAID assistance for procurement and use
of pesticides must fully comply with the Agency's
environmental procedures. The 1989 Programmatic
Environmental Assessment (PEA) and the country-specific
Supplemental Environmental Assessments (SEAs) will serve
as the basis for these regulatory procedures. The SEAs
contain specific environmental information and provide
guidance on environmentally sound pest management
procedures for pesticide use against locusts and
grasshoppers in a particular country. SEAs have been
completed and approved for most of the Sahelian
countries as well as for Morocco, Tunisia, and
Madagascar. In 1991, A.I.D.'s African Emergency Locust
and Grasshopper Assistance (AELGA) Project reviewed the
PEA and SEAs in a Review of Environmental Concerns in
A.I.D. Programs for Locust and Grasshopper Control,
Publ. Series No. 91-7.
Locust and grasshopper control involves preventive
intervention as well as emergency response. Ideally,
locust management will negate the need for emergency
response. The current outbreak of locusts in Eritrea
requires rapid, coordinated preventive measures to avoid
6
the development of a locust plague. Such a plague would
certainly devastate Eritrea's and Ethiopia's
agricultural production, and would threaten that of
North Africa and parts of Western Asia.
Unfortunately the Desert Locust Control Organization
for Eastern Africa (DLCO-EA) is severely limited in its
preventive capacity due to funding problems and the
civil strife. The most urgent task is to supply DLCO-EA
with the necessary funding, equipment, and labor to
prevent a massive upsurge of locusts that could develop
into a full scale plague. The long range goal of U.S.
assistance should be to help effect a sustainable
preventive approach to locust management in Desert
Locust outbreak areas. This SEA will describe both the
immediate and long term measures necessary to achieve
environmentally sound locust management in Eritrea.
2.1.2
Eritrea and
Problem
The Unique Political Situation in
its Relation to the Locust
In May 1991, the Eritrean-Ethiopian war ended. A
referendum on 24 April 1993 will determine whether or
not Eritrea is an independent nation. Eritrea is no
longer under Ethiopian rule, but it is not yet a fully
independent nation. Eritrea is currently governed by a
provisional government established by the Eritrean
People's Liberation Front (EPLF). This SEA will apply
to the pre- and post-referendum period of Eritrea,
regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
Eritrea currently has no laws regulating the use,
storage, or disposal of pesticides. The Provisional
Government of Eritrea's Department of Agriculture (DOA)
use DLCO-EA guidelines for pesticide usage in lieu of
national regulations when treating for locusts.
Eritrea has no effective intrinsic capacity to deal
with the locust outbreak. Access roads to northern
Eritrea are land-mined, making access by land extremely
7
dangerous. Land mines also prevent DLCO from surveying
key areas by ground for locust outbreaks. The
Provisional Government of Eritrea requested motorized
and manual sprayers from the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN). Spray
aircraft were mobilized through the DLCO-EA (with a
special allocation from the FAO) for aerial control
operations.
2.1.3.
Relation to USAID/Ethiopia Program
Should USAID/Ethiopia choose to provide chemical
pesticides to Eritrea, the Environmental Procedures in
Regulation 16 (22 CFR 216) must be followed. The PEA
and this document fulfill the requirements necessary to
allow USAID to provide assistance to Eritrea.
2.2 Drafting Procedure
A.I.D. Environmental Procedure 22 CFR 216.3 (a) (4)
describes the process to be used in preparing an
Environmental Assessment. The rationale and approach
for country-specific SEAs are outlined in cables State
258416 (12 Aug. 1989) and State 275775 (28 Aug. 1989).
This SEA was produced in March 1993 by a
consultant, Dr. Gary C. Jahn. The USAID/Ethiopia
Mission and AFR/ONI/TPPI in AID/W assisted in the
preparation of this draft by providing logistical
support for needed field work, reference documentation,
and contacts within the Eritrean government.
2.3. Previous Assessments
The previous assessment concerning this subject,
and the primary supportive document is the Programmatic
Environmental Assessment for Locust and Grasshopper
Control in Africa/Asia (TAMS/CICP, 1989) (PEA). The PEA
covers grasshopper and locust control operations in
Africa and Western Asia. This SEA is a supplement to
8
the PEA, and should be considered an integral part of
the PEA. This document concerns the country-specific
environmental issues not addressed in the PEA.
The following documents were used in preparing this
assessment:
(1) Review of Environmental Concerns in A.I.D.
Programs for Locust and Grasshopper Control
(U.S. Agency for International
Development,
Washington, D.C., September 1991);
(2) Final Report on the Handling of Pesticide
in Anglophone West Africa. (Youdeowei, 1989 FAO
Conference report, Accra, Ghana);
(3) Final Report on Pesticide Management in
Francophone West Africa. (Alomenu, 1989 Report
on the FAO Conference at Accra, Ghana);
(4) Supplemental Environmental Assessments for
Chad, Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania,
Niger, Senegal, and Madagascar;
(5) The Africa Emergency Locust/Grasshopper
Assistance Midterm
Evaluation (with specificcountry case studies for Chad, Mali,
Niger,
Mauritania, and Cape Verde) (Appleby, Settle &
Showler, 1989).
(6) Needs Assessments of SEAs to be conducted
in Botswana, Tanzania, and Zambia.
These documents, Internal USAID/Ethiopia data, and
Internal USAID/Eritrea data were used in this SEA
without citation. Other relevant documents are cited in
section 5.0 and Appendix C.
9
2.4
Environmental Procedures
2.4.1 Eritrean Pesticide Regulations
Eritrea does not have procedures equivalent to the
U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or USAID
Environmental Procedures. The provisional government
does not have any regulation governing pesticides.
Instead, Eritrea is relying on the FAO guidelines
established for DLCO-EA to govern pesticide usage.
These guidelines are consistent with the USAID
environmental regulations: 22 CRF Part 216, A.I.D.
Environmental Procedures; Foreign Assistance Act,
Section 117, Environment and Natural Resources; and the
1991 A.I.D. Pest and Pesticide Management Guidelines.
Eritrea is also using Ethiopian pesticide regulations
until Eritrean pesticide regulations can be enacted.
This SEA recommends that A.I.D. support FAO
leadership in assisting Eritrea to develop national
pesticide regulations. The FAO codes of conduct
regarding pesticide safety may be a logical starting
point for those concerned with creating Eritrean
pesticide regulations.
2.4.2
Other Environmental Regulations in
Eritrea
While Eritrea has national parks and forests where
building of homes is prohibited, there are no
restrictions on where pesticides can be applied. This
SEA recommends that the Provisional Government of
Eritrea establish designated zones, especially of
fragile habitats, that are protected from pesticide use.
2.4.3
U.S. Regulations
10
It is USAID policy to ensure that any negative
environmental consequences of an A.I.D.-financed
activity be identified and mitigated to the fullest
extent possible prior to a final funding and
implementation decision. This document covers specific
environmental consequences involved with chemical
pesticide use, and necessary safeguards and mitigation
for any future control programs. In addition,
alternatives to chemical pesticide use are recommended
when appropriate, and considered to be part of an
overall integrated pest management (IPM) program.
According to Pest Management Guidelines of the
Agency for International Development (1991):
"A.I.D.'s regulations require that the
potential environmental consequences of A.I.D.financed activities are identified and
considered by A.I.D. and the host country prior
to the final decision to proceed with an
activity. The procedures that guide this
regulation are set forth in 22 CFR Part 216.
Section 117(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act
and Section 533(g) of the 1991 Approbation Act
require that A.I.D. review its projects,
programs, and activities in accordance with
requirements of 22 CFR Part 216. A.I.D.'s
policy is to approve for procurement or use
only those pesticides that are critically
needed and proven safe."
U.S. pesticide contributions to Eritrea will be
regulated by U.S. pesticide regulations and procedures
(as described in the PEA). Only those pesticides listed
in the PEA (or amendments thereof) as being approved for
use against locusts or grasshoppers are acceptable (see
Appendix F). In a U.S. operation, pesticides are to be
used according to label instructions only. Used
11
pesticide containers and any unwanted pesticide
resulting from a U.S.-funded operation must be disposed
of properly and safely. No U.S. funds shall be used to
purchase, transport, or apply any pesticide that has
been banned in the U.S.. This includes the chlorinated
hydrocarbons, such as dieldrin and lindane.
3.0
LOCUST SITUATION IN ERITREA
3.1
Locust infestation of July 1992 to March 1993
The origins of the infestations are uncertain.
Locust breeding occurred on the central Tihama of Saudi
Arabia between April and June 1992. These locusts were
presumably controlled, but survivors may have moved
westward. In July 1992 a locust upsurge in the central
and southern Red Sea coastal plains of Eritrea, Sudan,
Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt was reported by DLCO. In
late July there was widespread heavy rain on the
Eritrean coast and on the Tihama of Yemen. There was
also localized breeding in the interior of Sudan during
the summer rains. Thus, the latest infestation probably
has multiple origins. This is typical of locust
upsurges in the Red Sea trench in winter and spring.
Above average rainfall in September and October of
1992 led to an upsurge of desert locust in the winter
breeding areas along the Red Sea Coast of Yemen, Sudan,
and Eritrea (Map 1). Adult locust started breeding and
two generations probably occurred before the first
swarms were observed in early November 1992.
In
November 1992 adults were found at an average density of
500 per hectare. DLCO-EA initiated spraying activities
in the infested areas of Sudan and Eritrea to control
the locust populations before they reached the adult
stage, where they develop wings and start to swarm.
Unfortunately, these efforts were not sufficient and the
12
locusts produced a third generation of gregarious
hoppers.
By January 1993 there were desert locust outbreaks
in at least three separate areas of Eritrea, though the
locusts were still in the desert. Locust outbreaks
usually result in partially gregarised populations that
die without producing hopper bands. In February 1993,
however, fully gregarised populations produced hopper
bands in Eritrea and Sudan. There were over 1000 adult
desert locusts per hectare, and more than 5000 hoppers
per hectare. All of the locusts in a band were at the
same stage of development. Desert locusts infested a
total area of approximately 1180 km2. By late February
158.08 km2 were treated: 608 hectares were sprayed from
the ground and 15,200 hectares were sprayed from the air
using 8,130 liters of fenitrothion.
The sprayed area included land mined areas from
Masawa to Alg Ma'amas. The land-mines prohibited ground
survey and ground spraying. Air surveys indicated that
the conditions and vegetation in the mined areas were
suitable for locust breeding. However, air surveys were
not sufficient to indicate whether or not locusts were
present. DLCO-EA assumed that locusts were in the mined
areas and blanket sprayed ULV fenitrothion by air.
While this decision made sense in terms of locust
control, it may not have been the best environmental
choice. Given that the spraying was done near the Red
Sea coast, the potential for damage to wildlife,
especially aquatic wildlife, was high. Under these
conditions it may have been better to apply acephate or
malathion to the mined areas. Acephate and malathion
are less toxic than fenitrothion to fish, birds, and
aquatic invertebrates. Bioaccumulation is also less of
a problem with acephate and malathion than with
fenitrothion. However, fenitrothion is one of the
A.I.D.-approved insecticides. A complete list of
pesticides approved by A.I.D. for locust control is
given in Appendix F. Each of these pesticides can be
13
used in a locust control operation that receives
assistance from A.I.D., but only after consulting the
labels for safety and usage information. More detailed
information on each of the insecticides listed in
Appendix F can be found in the PEA.
As of 1 March 1993, 1022 km2 of locust-infested
desert remained to be treated. After assessing the
pesticide inventory (section 3.6) of DLCO-EA and DOAEritrea, USAID determined that 25,000 liters of 96% ULV
malathion were needed to prevent a locust outbreak.
If the desert locust infestation was not controlled
successfully, it could have spread into the northeastern
and eastern parts of Ethiopia, the Ogaden, and Somalia
in April and May. More rain was expected from late June
through the beginning of September. Temperatures were
expected to increase steadily from March until
September. All of these factors tended to favor plague
formation. It was possible that a plague could begin
early enough to affect the 1993 main rainy season
planting. The outbreak of locusts in Eritrea required
rapid, coordinated preventive measures to avoid a locust
plague. A plague cycle would have serious consequences
for agriculture in Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Sudan, and
possibly points further West to Sahel.
3.2
Agricultural Resources
The donor community and the Provisional Government
of Eritrea expect food stocks to exceed those of the
past 30 years which were extremely low due to war and
drought. Whether or not Eritrea has adequate food
stocks for it's expected needs is a source of
controversy. First of all, there are no reliable
statistics on the population of Eritrea. Estimates
range from 2.7 to 4 million. The number of refugees
that will return to Eritrea is unknown. Another problem
in making these estimates is in determining crop
production. Given the decades of drought and war that
14
have ravaged Eritrea, there is no historical basis for
estimating production in peace time with favorable
weather conditions. USAID/Ethiopia estimates that
undelivered 1992 food assistance and present food stocks
will provide Eritrea with a 1993 surplus of 42,000
metric tons. However, a locust plague could result in
losses of 150-170 thousand metric tons of food.
Due to unusually heavy rains in September 1992 (Map
2) and the end of the war in May 1991, Eritrea has an
opportunity to achieve food self-sufficiency for the
first time in 30 years. It would indeed be a tragedy if
this opportunity were lost to a locust plague.
If the plague spreads to Ethiopia the situation
could be even worse. Even without a locust plague the
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Food Program
(FAO/WFP) forecasts a structural food aid import need of
530,000 metric tons of cereal and an emergency food need
of 340,000 metric tons for Ethiopia for 1993. These
emergency requirements do not include the food needs of
refugees and returnees. In 1991/92 Ethiopia produced
approximately 7.1 million metric tons of cereals and
pulses (Table 1). Thus, the estimated need for imported
food is at least 12.4% of last year's production,
without including the needs of refugees and returnees.
According to FAO/WFP, approximately 4.5 million people
in Ethiopia are at risk of not having enough food in
1993. A locust plague in Ethiopia could place an
additional 1 million people at risk of starvation.
3.3
Desert Locusts
The following plague species of locust are found in
Eritrea: the Desert Locust (Schistocera gregaria), the
African Migratory Locust (Locusta migritoria
migratoriodes), and the tree locusts (Anacridium
melanorhodon and A. m. arabafrum).
15
The Desert Locust is potentially the most dangerous
of the locust pests because of the ability of swarms to
fly rapidly across great distances. It has two to five
generations per year. The northern highlands of
Ethiopia (Tigray and Eritrea) slow the movements of
desert locusts to the breeding areas of the Red Sea
coast. This means that potential desert locust plagues
originating in east Africa can be prevented if action
is taken during or before localized outbreaks in Eritrea
and Sudan.
Most of the crops grown in Eritrea are subject to
desert locust infestation, including: bulrush millet,
sorghum, maize, wheat, barley, fruit trees, and
vegetables. Coffee is not usually attacked, though
locusts occasionally defoliate bushes. Locusts do most
damage to coffee at the flowering stage or when they
settle on bushes in such large numbers that branches
break under their weight. In addition, the rangelands
used for feeding livestock are vulnerable to the desert
locust. Thus, a locust plague can have a major impact
on the supply of grain, fruit, vegetables, meat, and
dairy products. By destroying seeds, a locust plague
can affect local crop production for years.
Eritrea hosts the spring, summer, and winter
breeding areas of the desert locust. Egg incubation
periods vary from region to region, and vary with the
change in seasons due to differences in the weather.
Below 1500 m eggs incubate for 15 to 17 days in June, 10
to 23 days in July, 10 to 20 days in August, and 10 to
12 days in September.
Above 1500 m, eggs incubate for
13 to 23 days in July and 14 to 20 days in August.
Along the Red Sea coast eggs incubate for 12 to 29 days
in January, 11 to 22 days in February, 10-15 days in
April, 15 days in June and July, 12 to 16 days in
August, 10 to 16 days in September, 9 to 17 days in
October, 1 to 18 days in November, and 9 to 25 days in
December. Desert locust eggs are generally not found
16
along the Red Sea coast in May. Hopper development to
adulthood takes 24 to 48 days.
Between plagues, swarms and hopper bands are rare
and the desert locust inhabits the central, drier part
of its distribution area. Populations tend to be
scattered and the locusts exhibit solitary behavior.
They are not economically important pests while
solitary. Such periods of time are called locust
recessions. Adult desert locusts and hoppers are found
in Eritrea during recessions. If the locust population
rapidly increases in a fairly localized area, this is
known as an outbreak. If the population increase
continues and gregarization spreads across regions while
swarms move well beyond the initial outbreak areas, a
plague may result. When there are many bands and swarms
over large areas (perpetuated by large scale breeding, a
plague is in process.
Ideally, swarming should be
prevented through locust management, rather than
controlled as an emergency measure. Prevention is more
economical and is less damaging to the environment than
emergency response.
3.4
Locust Management - Overview
3.4.1
Past Locust Campaigns
The longest recorded desert locust plague began in
1941 and lasted, with one short lull, more than twenty
years. This plague began in India. In 1940, the Indian
Locust Warning Service reported locusts invading from
the west. The locusts were not yet swarming when they
were first detected, but during the Indian monsoon
season swarms began to form in north-western India.
These locusts invaded Persia (Iran) and the Arabian
Peninsula where fresh breeding began. By the summer of
1941 the plague had spread to Egypt, Sudan, and Eritrea.
Due to the war preventive actions could not be taken and
17
the locusts could not be controlled in Eritrea. Within
weeks the locusts invaded British Somaliland, Somalia
and eastern Ethiopia. The British mounted a crop
protection campaign against this plague with the
assistance and cooperation of the World War II Allies.
A complete account of the campaign has never been
published. The description of the campaign that follows
is summarized from The Desert Locust (1972) by Stanley
Baron.
An Interdepartmental Committee on Locust Control
was established in England, to ensure that every
department of the government could be utilized as needed
in the operation. Emphasis was placed on military
cooperation. Control operations began in Sudan in 1941,
but the first major expedition to control the locusts
was in 1943-4.
The plague temporarily subsided in 1947.
Applications of sodium arsenate and BHC (used for the
first time against locusts) had prevented major crop
losses. There is no record of the health and
environmental effects of applying these two highly toxic
chemicals. Only Eritrea and Sudan sustained major crop
losses. In Eritrea, the campaign cost 150,000 British
pounds for one year alone.
The locust situation in Eritrea, Sudan, and other
Red Sea coastal areas was worsened by the system of
cultivation dependent on seasonal rains and floods.
This is still the case today (see section 3.7 "Cultural
and Biological Management").
In October 1948 renewed locust outbreaks were
reported from parts of Saudi Arabia that had received
rain. By 1949 the swarms had spread back to India,
Pakistan, and Iran. Campaign plans by FAO could not be
implemented due to a lack of funds. The estimated cost
of the proposed campaign was $1.5 million. According to
Baron, it was the failure to take action in 1948 that
led to the next ten years of locust disasters. The
worst of these disasters was the 1958 plague that
18
destroyed 167,000 metric tons of grain in Ethiopia,
enough food to feed 1 million people for a year.
In 1963, the plague's epicenter in Saudi Arabia
died out. It is not know if the control efforts
contributed to the end of the plague, or if weather
conditions were sufficient to stop the plague. A period
of recession followed until November 1967. Heavy rains
initiated a new locust breeding season in Eritrea and
Sudan. The situation worsened when locusts from
southern Arabia flew into Eritrea.
FAO issued a warning on 27 December 1967 that 30
countries were in danger of locust plagues if there was
successful breeding in the spring of 1968. A
coordinated control effort by DLCO and the Ministries of
Agriculture in affected countries brought the plague to
an end in 1969. Dieldrin and BHC were the main
insecticides used. Dieldrin, BHC, and all other
chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides are no longer used
for locust control, due to the environmental damage
caused by these chemicals.
In 1986, desert locust populations in Ethiopia
(including Eritrea) and Sudan developed to plague
status. Swarms reached Morocco and Algeria in 1987. By
1988, Tunisia was also invaded (Showler 1993). From
1986-89 DLCO coordinated a campaign against locust
outbreaks in Eritrea, using fenitrothion (also called
Sumithion, and Folithion). In spite of the war between
Eritrea and Ethiopia, DLCO was given permission by both
parties to fly spray planes from Ethiopia to Eritrea and
return. Neither the Eritrean People's Liberation Front
(EPLF), nor the Ethiopian military interfered with DLCO
operations. In fact, some members of the EPLF and of
the Ethiopian military worked for DLCO. Apparently
weather conditions, and not crop protection tactics,
caused a decline in desert locust activity in early 1989
(Potter and Showler 1990, Showler and Potter 1991).
19
3.4.2
Crop Loss Assessment
All crops in the region, except coffee and prickly
pear cactus, are at risk. Based on the history of grain
loss in Eritrea and Ethiopia during locusts plagues,
150,000 to 170,000 metric tons of grain could be
destroyed by locusts if the current outbreak becomes a
plague. While this represents a loss of only 2-3% of
the expected grain yield, it is enough grain to feed 1
million people for a year. Eritrea does not have the
financial resources to buy 150,000 metric tons of grain,
or to pay for the transportation of it.
3.5
for
Locust Management Operations
3.5.1 The Desert Locust Control Organization
Eastern Africa (DLCO-EA)
The Desert Locust Control Organization for Eastern
Africa (DLCO-EA) was established by an international
convention signed in Addis Ababa on 22 August 1962.
DLCO-EA headquarters were originally in Asmara, but were
moved to Addis Ababa during the war. Headquarters
remain in Addis Ababa. DLCO-EA has a branch office in
each member nation, as well as an office in Asmara.
Member nations are Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya, Somalia,
Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda. The objectives of DLCO-EA
are:
1) to promote the most effective control of the
desert locust in the region;
2) to offer services in the coordination and
reinforcement of national action against desert
locust in the region;
20
3) to assist member governments in the control
of other major pests provided that the locust
situation so permits and that the member
governments requiring such services avail
chemicals and ground logistics for such
operations. The other major pests are Tsetse
fly, Quelea quelea, and Armyworm.
The DLCO-EA staff consists of 60 professional and
290 general service staff who serve under three
specialized departments: Operations, Scientific
Research, and Administration and Finance. Finances are
obtained from annual contributions paid by member
countries. Only Ethiopia has paid its contribution in
full. The lack of steady funding has made
DLCO-EA difficult to operate. Salaries are often paid
several months late. In addition to the contributions
of member countries, DLCO-EA receives external
assistance from a variety of donors including, FAO, the
Swedish International Development Organization (SIDA),
ODA(UK), EEC, GTZ, CIDA, and IFAD. The external
assistance is generally given during emergency locust
outbreaks. External assistance is in the form of money,
equipment, and technical assistance.
On 10 March 1993 the capacity of DLCO-EA in
Eritrea, prior to assistance from donor agencies, was as
follows:
1) Aircraft: 2 Beaver airplanes in Eritrea, 5
Beaver airplanes total;
2) Ground transport: two land rover pickups in
Eritrea;
3) Protective clothing: only a few respirators;
immediate need for 25 suits of protective
clothing/equipment;
21
4) Insecticides: (see section 3.6);
5) Spray equipment: Four exhaust-driven mist
blowers and 40 hand operated sprayers;
6) Communication: DLCO-EA headquarters in Addis
Ababa had radio linkages with DLCO offices in
Eritrea, Sudan, and Kenya; planes were in
communication with Asmara, but trucks could not
communicate with planes or other trucks;
7) Camping equipment: 4 sets;
8) Salaries: staff of DLCO-EA had not been paid
for the past three months.
Only fenitrothion was being applied by DLCO-EA and
DOA for desert locust control when the drafter of this
document arrived in Eritrea on 4 March 1993. USAID and
DLCO-EA independently determined that there was an
immediate need for 25,000 liters of ULV malathion in
order to prevent a locust plague. USAID supplied the
malathion to DOA (see 3.5.2). SIDA sent $70,000 to DLCO
of Eritrea for vehicles. FAO sent $50,000 to DLCO-EA in
Eritrea for aircraft parts and fuel. Helicopters for
surveying and spraying were not an immediate priority,
since the locusts were still in the lowlands where they
are accessible by aircraft. In the event that locusts
move into the highlands, helicopters could be leased by
USAID. Locust breeding generally does not occur in the
highlands until July.
3.5.2 The Provisional Government of Eritrea
Department
of Agriculture (DOA)
DOA is officially under the direction of the
Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture although at times it
had been functioning independently. During the last few
22
years of the war, DOA was non-functional for all
practical purposes. Since May 1991, when the war ended,
DOA has functioned independently of the Ethiopian
Ministry of Agriculture. Most of DOA's supplies were
originally provided by the Ethiopian Ministry of
Agriculture. This includes most of the pesticides (see
section 3.6). The Provisional Government of Eritrea DOA
received additional supplies in March 1993 from USAID
and SIDA. USAID/OFDA sent 25,000 liters of ULV
malathion, 25 sets of protective clothing and safety
equipment, and 5 mobile radios for locust control
operations in Eritrea at an approximate total cost of
$300,000. SIDA donated $500,000 to DOA for vehicles,
fuel, spare parts, and camping equipment.
3.5.3
Village Brigades
The staff of DOA is quite small, about 20 people,
so DOA relies on volunteers for large scale operations.
The volunteers are mainly local farmers. According to
Mr. Bereke Ogbamichael, the assistant secretary of DOA,
DOA gave 360 farmers one month of training in pesticide
application and safety procedures in 1992. In 1993 DOA
plans on training 600 more farmers. The trained farmers
have already been utilized (though not all at once) for
some locust control operations.
Farmers can play a major role in a desert locust
control campaign: from reporting population levels to
actively protecting crops from hopper infestations.
Farmers that are enlisted to apply insecticides must
first pass a training course on pesticide usage and
safety. A.I.D. and FAO have had highly successful
"Train the Trainer" pesticide use and safety programs.
Since 1987, these programs have been implemented in some
parts of Africa that are subject to locust infestations.
The drafter of this document did not observe any
farmer brigades or any training programs in Eritrea.
23
Given the lack of safety equipment at DOA, and that DOA
personnel seemed unfamiliar with the correct way to wear
and use a pesticide respirator, it seems unlikely that
Eritrean village brigades are receiving appropriate
instruction (or equipment) for safe pesticide usage.
Future A.I.D. trips to Eritrea should include an
analysis of the effectiveness and adequacy of the DOA
village brigade program (see Appendix B.9, 15, 23, 30,
37, and 38 for recommendations concerning village
brigades).
3.5.4
Crop Protection versus Strategic Control
The goal of crop protection is to destroy locusts
near or in crops during plagues, while strategic control
is an attempt to prevent plagues by managing sexually
immature desert locusts in major breeding areas
(Duranton et al. 1989, FAO 1989, Showler and Potter
1991). This SEA recommends that strategic control be
implemented whenever possible. If strategic control is
successful, then locust plagues will be prevented and
there will be no need to implement crop protection.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an important
part of a strategic control program. An IPM program
uses a variety of methods to keep locust populations
below levels where crop loss is imminent. Pesticides
are only used when necessary, thereby reducing the
environmental impact of locust control operations.
To apply pesticides at the optimal time, it is
necessary to survey for locusts early in the season with
trained personnel and proper equipment. A successful
locust survey program requires survey teams that:
1) know the physical and temporal distribution of
locusts;
24
2) monitor environmental conditions which could
lead to increased numbers of locust;
3) conduct vulnerability assessments of the crops
threatened by locusts;
4) have access to pest management support
resources that can be rapidly mobilized for
control, such as: pesticides, safety equipment, and
application equipment.
The DLCO-EA should ensure that each DLCO-EA station
is prepared to respond to a locust infestation.
Adequate preparation includes: radio communication,
vehicles, application equipment, clean protective
clothing and safety equipment, and a sufficient amount
of the proper pesticides carefully stored and ready for
use.
3.6
Pesticide Management
As of March 1993 the DLCO-EA in Eritrea had 10,000
liters of fenitrothion and 4,000 liters of malathion.
These were stored outside under relatively safe
conditions. There were an additional 14,600 liters of
malathion and 7,600 liters of fenitrothion at the DLCO
in Addis. The pesticides in Addis were available for
desert locust control in Eritrea or any member nation of
DLCO-EA. These pesticides were held in a large
concrete, well-ventilated building. The pesticides at
the DLCO storage facility in Addis were stored with
fertilizer, old papers, broken electronics equipment,
and used jet fuel containers. Many of the pesticides
containers were unlabeled though the contents were
known. Expired pesticides were not separated from
useable pesticides. The problems with this facility
were explained to Dr. Karrar, the director of DLCO-EA.
25
Within a week the facility was cleaned and organized
properly. All flammable materials were removed, all
pesticide containers were labeled, and all pesticides
were stored in order of their expiration date (with
oldest pesticides near the front and most accessible).
Expired pesticides were kept separate from usable
pesticides and clearly labeled.
The Eritrean DOA has the following stock of
pesticides:
1) Fenitrothion
1000 ULV =
2)
"
95 ULV
3)
"
98 ULV
4) Basudin
60 ULV =
5) Cypermethrine
ULV
=
6) Fenitrothion
50% E.C. =
7) Sumithion
50% E.C.
8) Cypermethrine
5% E.C.
9) Malathion
65% E.C.
10) Actellic
50% E.C.
=
11) Actellic
2% dust
=
(Expired)
12) Propoxur
2% dust =
13) Endosulfan/Thiodan 35% E.C.
14) 2,4-D Amine
liquid
=
15) DDT
dust =
16) Dursban (Chlorpyrifos) dust
7,200 liters
=
800
"
=
600
"
5,800
"
600
"
60,000
"
=
9,000
"
=
15,100
"
=
13,000
"
20,000
"
7,000 kg
5,000 kg
=
20,000 liters
7,920
"
5,000 kg
=
6,500 kg
DOA-Eritrea keeps these pesticides in three storage
facilities at their office and two shipment containers
outside of Asmara.
In addition, there is another storage area in an
abandoned factory in the Gwonderan district of Asmara.
The Gwonderan facility is a public health hazard. The
facility is a room of approximately 10 m X 10 m X 5 m.
located in the ground floor of a former factory. The
factory has been converted into an apartment building.
26
Families reside in the rooms above and adjacent to the
storage facility. The barrels of pesticides stored
there are apparently leaking, as the floor is oily and
sticky. Dust and oil cover most of the drums of
pesticide. Manufacturing dates and expiration dates are
absent, or not visible, in most cases. The smell of the
pesticides is extremely strong. Although the door to
the room is always locked, the window to this facility
is broken, and fumes are noticeable even when the
garage-type door is closed.
Decontamination of the Gwonderan facility should
begin as soon as possible:
First, powdered limestone should be placed on
the floor to neutralize certain pesticides, hazard
signs should be placed on the facility, and the
broken window should be securely covered to prevent
people and animals from entering the facility.
Second, all containers of pesticides should be
removed from the area. Then, at an alternate
storage location, the pesticides should be
transferred to barrels which do not leak. If any
of the pesticides are still viable they should be
properly stored at the alternate site for future
use. Otherwise, they should be stored at the
alternate site until they can be properly disposed
of. A possible storage location is a former
Ethiopian military barracks, now held by the
Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF). The
site is approximately 40 km. from the city of
Asmara and is continuously guarded by the EPLF.
Third, the room must be completely
decontaminated so that it can be put to a better
use.A toxicologist should be consulted to determine
the proper procedure for decontamination. A
physician specializing in pesticide poisoning
should examine the residents of the building.
27
The Gwonderan storage room contains these
pesticides:
1) Ekatin (#27407 038)
13 (100 l) drums = 1,300
liters
2) Malathion 75% in oil
61 (200 l) drums = 12,200
liters
3) 2,4-D Amine (91/02)
371 (5 l) bottles = 2,055
liters
4) Sumithion (Pharmecor)
13 (200 l) drums = 2,600
liters
5) Diazonon
11 (100 l) drums = 1,100
liters
6) Dieldrin
10 (200 l) drums = 2,000
liters
7) DDTox 20%
71 (200 l) drums = 14,200
liters
8) ULV Fenitrothion 96%
20 (200 l) drums = 4,000
liters
3.7 Cultural and Biological Control Tactics
The major locust habitats in Eritrea are created by
the practice of shifting cultivation, mainly within wadi
areas (i.e., river beds, superficially dry except during
floods). After wild plants are destroyed, millet is
usually planted. The millet patches are a suitable
habitat for locusts, particularly if the patches are not
weeded. Abandoned fields invaded by certain weeds
(e.g., Heliotropium pterocarpum, Dipterygium glaucum,
and Aerva persica) are excellent locust habitats. The
patchy nature of the vegetation cover leads to locust
concentration which promotes gregarization. Among the
cultural practices which discourage locust plagues are:
use of irrigation to avoid dependence on seasonal rains
and floods for growing crops, weed control, and
destroying abandoned fields (e.g., by burning). To
prevent erosion, or maintain the water table it may be
desirable to have plant cover in an abandoned area. In
28
such cases, plants which locusts do not favor should be
planted in the area. Coffee and most types of cactus
are examples of plants that locusts generally will not
feed on. These cultural practices could be part of an
integrated pest management (IPM) program for desert
locusts.
IPM utilizes all available control methods to
achieve the most economically and environmentally sound
management program. A.I.D. supports the implementation
of IPM programs whenever possible. IPM is not an
alternative to chemical pesticides; instead it is an
integration of methods which may reduce the use of
pesticides by employing them more judiciously. Some
examples of IPM techniques are: determination of
intervention thresholds, correct timing of sprays based
on pest population dynamics, and biological control
agents. Among the biological control agents with the
potential for use in locust management are: the bacteria
Coccobacillus acridiorum d'Herelle; the fungal pathogen
Beauvearia bassiana, Metarhizium flavoviridae; various
microsporidia in the genus Nosema; and nematodes. An
important research project would be a search for local
strains of egg parasites of locusts in Eritrea. Until
such parasites are discovered or other exotic straines
are screened against the desert locust eggs in Eritrea,
the eggs can be destroyed by cultural control. When
egg-laying sites are discovered the soil is turned to
expose eggs to the sun and to predators. This practice
is apparently quite effective for eliminating locust
eggs. The difficulty lies in finding the eggs.
Missions to destroy locust eggs could utilize
Village Brigades (section 3.5.3). Each Village Brigade
could consist of a group of 5-10 or more interested and
enthusiastic villagers, farmers, or nomads. The
participants would receive intensive training for 3 or
more days and the training could covering the
identification and biology of local pests and beneficial
insects, the fundamentals of good survey techniques, the
29
safe handling and use of pesticides, and instructions on
locating desert locust egg laying sites, collection and
egg-destroying techniques.
3.8
Safety and Human Health
3.8.1
Public Awareness
It is important that the Provisional Government of
Eritrea monitor the effects of pesticides on human
health and the environment. The medical community and
pesticide applicators need to have an understanding of
the potential hazards of pesticides, of the precautions
to prevent mishaps, and of the steps taken to solve
problems associated with pesticide mishaps. Before
applying pesticides in an inhabited area, pesticide
handlers and the general public should be educated on
pesticide safety. The Eritrean public must be informed
that pesticides are dangerous and that empty pesticide
containers should not be used for food or water storage.
People should also be warned against eating locusts in
areas where insecticides are being sprayed. In Tunisia,
public warnings against locust consumption discouraged
people from eating locusts in treated areas (Potter and
Showler 1990, Showler (in press)). A good public
information program would include:
1) warnings against eating pesticide-treated
locusts;
2) information on specific pesticides and labels;
3) safe methods of pesticide transport and storage;
4) measures in cases of container leakage;
5) conditions for pesticide use;
30
6) safe use of application equipment;
7) prevention of pesticide poisoning.
8) warnings against the use of empty pesticide
cont
aine
rs
for
the
purp
oses
of
stor
ing
wate
r,
feed
, or
anim
al
feed
This information can be spread through newspapers,
posters, radio, and public lectures.
31
3.8.2
General Pesticide Safety Concerns
Pesticide misuse and improper storage presents
hazards to the health of the general public and to the
environment. Pesticides should be stored away from
humans and animals. The situation at Gwonderan clearly
violates this principle (section 3.6). Unwanted or
leaking pesticide containers must be repackaged or
disposed of as soon as possible. Until the Provisional
Government of Eritrea drafts its own pesticide
legislation, the Ethiopian pesticide regulations should
be enforced.
3.8.3
Handler & Applicator Safety Training
A.I.D. supports pesticide safety training in
Africa. Pesticide handlers and applicators working for
DLCO-EA or DOA should be trained in pesticide safety.
Every U.S.-funded pesticide donation should be overseen
by a properly trained pesticide handler. A.I.D. can
encourage the University of Asmara, College of
Agriculture to include hands-on pesticide safety and
application courses as an essential part of an
agricultural degree if such courses are not currently
offered.
Properly trained DOA and DLCO-EA personnel are
encouraged to work with farmers and Village Brigades in
"Train the Trainer" programs. This type of training
allows essential information on pesticide safety and
application to reach everyone working with pesticides.
A.I.D. encourages this type of training.
3.8.4
Monitoring of Human Exposure
DLCO-EA and DOA probably do not have the capability
to monitor either the behavioral or chemical symptoms of
32
pesticide poisoning. Behavior symptoms include the loss
of muscular control. Chemical symptoms include
acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibition. Testing all
pesticide handlers for blood AChE inhibition should be a
part of the requirements for all U.S.-funded pesticide
operations that use organophosphates (OP). This is a
fairly simple and inexpensive test. It can be performed
by trained health workers in the field. The background
cholinesterase level for each person involved with
organophosphate insecticides must be determined before
OP exposure. Then testing should be performed at
intervals throughout the season to ensure that no worker
is being overexposed to OPs.
4.0
ENVIRONMENT
4.1
Eritrea - Environmental Profile
An air and ground-based 8 hour field trip to
northern Eritrea was undertaken as part of the
preparation of this document. In addition to the locust
bands and swarms, the drafter observed a tremendous
variety of plant and animal life in the Eritrean desert.
Among the animals observed were hawks, swallows, snakes,
and jackals. There are also Nubian ibex found in the
northern tip of Eritrea. Plants observed included
cacti, wild melon, and various wild and domestic
cereals. Eritrea and Ethiopia are also the home of the
Abyssinian Rose, the only rose that is indigenous to
Africa.
Even in very remote desert regions of Eritrea,
nomadic people and their camels were seen. The desert
is not a collection of lifeless sand dunes, but a unique
and thriving ecosystem, rich in biological diversity, as
well as supporting human life. This is why
environmental protection, including human health
33
protection, must be given due consideration during
locust control operations.
4.2
Climate
Eritrea can be divided into three major climatic
zones: the central highlands, the coastal region, and
the western lowlands.
Highlands: the hottest month is May with highs
around 85oF;
coldest months are December through
February with lows around 32oF. The difference between
each day's high and low temperatures is about 33
degrees. There are two rainy seasons. The short rainy
season is in March and April. The main rainy season is
from late June through the beginning of September. Fog
is common during the main rainy season and from December
through February.
Coast: the hottest months are June - August when
daily temperatures range from 72oF to 105oF. During the
coldest season, December - February, the temperatures
range from 65oF to 90oF. The northern coast has a rainy
season from December through February. Rain is rare
along the southern coast.
Western lowlands: high temperatures can reach 105oF
during the hottest months, April - June. During the
coldest month, December, the temperature falls to 55oF.
The difference between each day's high and low
temperatures is about 38 degrees. Rainy seasons are
similar to the highlands.
4.3
Restricted Habitats
Under current Eritrean law there are no protected
areas, though the Dahlak Islands are being considered.
34
Until the referendum in April 1993 (to vote on the issue
of Eritrean independence), there will be no legislation
concerning national parks or other forms of protected
land.
Based on aerial and land surveys, and on
discussions with DOA, DLCO, and the Eritrean Dept. of
Marine Resources and Inland Fisheries this SEA
identifies the following areas as critical habitats (Map
2):
1) Red Sea coast: the Red Sea is a major source of
seafood for the Middle East. The Red Sea coast
provides a unique habitat for a variety of
wildlife, including birds. The migration routes of
storks pass through this area. Acacia and fig
trees are grown in the human settlements along the
coast. The Dahlak Islands are off the Eritrean
coast. It has been proposed that some of these
islands be protected as the Dahlak Marine National
Park. There are unspoiled coral reefs and
multitudes of brightly colored fish surrounding the
200 islands. Some of the islands are occupied by
dwarf Soemmerring gazelles. Turtles, porpoises,
dugongs, ospreys, Arabian buzzards, and a variety
of sea birds occupy these islands. There is
tremendous potential for wildlife tourism in these
islands. But care must be taken so that tourism,
pollution, or pesticide run-off do not destroy this
precious wildlife sanctuary.
2) Tekeze River: between Eritrea and Ethiopia, this
is the major source of fresh water for many people
and animals in Eritrea and Ethiopia. According to
the DOA this area is rich in wildlife, including a
colony of baboons and a herd of about 80 elephants,
the only elephants in all of Eritrea. The drafter
of this document was not able to visit the area to
confirm that these animals are there.
35
3) Gash River: passes through Tessani. Antelopes,
hawks, swallows, and snakes have been reported near
this river in the rainy season. Wild melons,
cacti, and cereals grow along the banks.
4) Barka River: passes through Tokhar. Jackals,
small rodents, snakes, hawks, insects, and cacti
live along the banks of this river.
5) Anseba River: nomadic tribes rely on this river
as a source of fresh water for themselves and their
domestic animals, including camels, mules, goats,
and sheep. Cereals are grown along the banks.
It is recommended that no pesticides be applied within
2.5 to 5 km of these areas. Large portions of Eritrea
remain unexplored by biologists. Future scientific
expeditions may identify additional critical habitats.
36
5.0
REFERENCES
A.I.D. 1989a. Locust/Management, Operations Guidebook.
Office
of Federal Disaster Assistance, Agency for
International
Development, Washington, D.C., USA.
A.I.D. 1989b. Implementation Plan for Government of
Niger to
Reduce Hazard of Surplus an Unusable
Insecticides Acquired
for Use in the Locust Control
Program. Agency for International Development,
Washington, D.C., USA.
A.I.D. 1991a. Integrated Pest Management and Pesticide
Management. Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.
USA.
A.I.D. 1991b. Pest Management Guidelines of the Agency
for International Development. Washington, D.C. USA.
Alomenu, H.S. 1989. Provisional Report on Pesticide
Management
in Francophone West Africa. Food &
Agriculture Organization, Accra, Ghana, 58 pp.
Appleby, G., W. Settle and A. Showler. 1989. The
Africa
Emergency Locust Assistance Mid-term
Evaluation, Tropical Research & Development, Inc.
Gainesville, Florida, 146 pp.
Baron, S. 1972. The Desert Locust.
Sons, New
York, 228 pp.
Charles Scribner's
Boberschmidt, L., S. Saari, J. Sassaman and L. Skinner.
1989.
Pesticide Background Statements, Volume IV,
Insecticides.
Agriculture Handbook No. 685, US Forest
Service, Washington, D.C., USA, 578 pp.
Coppel, H.C. and Mertins, J.W.
37
1977.
Biological Insect
Pest
Supp
ress
ion.
Spri
nger
Verl
ag,
Berl
in,
314
pp.
DLCO-EA.
1986.
Desert Locust Control Organization for
East
ern
Afri
ca:
Stru
ctur
e
and
Acti
viti
es.
DLCO
-EA,
19
pp.
Duranton, J.F., M. Launois, M.H. Launois-Luong, M. LeCoq
a
n
d
T
38
.
R
a
c
h
a
d
i
.
1
9
8
9
.
L
a
l
u
t
t
e
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
v
e
39
c
o
n
t
r
e
l
e
c
r
i
q
u
e
t
p
e
l
e
r
i
n
e
n
A
f
r
i
q
u
e
.
40
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
d
e
R
e
c
h
e
r
c
h
e
s
I
n
t
e
r
d
i
s
c
i
p
l
i
n
41
a
i
r
e
F
r
a
n
c
a
i
s
s
u
r
l
e
s
A
c
r
i
d
i
e
n
s
d
u
S
a
h
42
e
l
,
M
o
n
t
p
e
l
l
i
e
r
,
F
r
a
n
c
e
.
Dynamac. 1988a. Results of the Mali Pesticide Testing
Trial
Against the Senegalese Grasshopper. Dynamic
Corporation,
Rockville, Maryland, USA, 111 pp + 9
Appendices.
Dynamac. 1988b. Results of the Locust Pesticide
Testing Trials
in Sudan. Dynamac Corporation,
Rockville, Maryland, USA, 84 pp + Appendices.
FAO 1989.
International strike force to control the
desert
locu
43
st,
Schistoce
rca
gregaria
(Forsk);
plan for
1989 and
early
1990.
FAO,
Rome.
Jahn, G.C. 1992. Effect of neem oil, monocrotophos,
and carbosulfan on green leafhoppers, Nephotettix
virescens
(Distant) (Homopera: Cicadellidae) and rice
yields in
Thailand. Proc. Hawaiian Entomol. Soc. 31:
125-131.
Morgan, D.P. 1989. Recognition and Management of
Pesticide
Poisonings. 4th Edition. EPA-450/9-88001. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
USA, 207 pp.
N.R.C. 1992. Neem: a tree for solving global problems.
Report
of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Board on Science and
Technology
for International Development, National
Research Council (NRC), National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C., 141 pp.
Potter, C.S., M.G. Rutanen-Whaley, H. Khoury and A.
Messer.
1988. Draft Environmental Assessment of
the Tunisia Locust
Control Campaign. Agency for
International Development,
Tunis, Tunisia, 48 pp.
Potter, C.S. and A.T. Showler. 1990. "The Desert
Locust: Agricultural and Environmental Impacts", in
Tunisia: the
Political Economy of Reform (edited by
44
I. William Zartman), Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder
& London; pp. 153-165.
Schwartz, T.K., M.F. Speers, G.P. Owens, J.B. Hannum,
O
.
M
.
A
l
i
,
A
.
G
a
m
e
l
a
n
d
S
.
E
l
B
a
s
h
45
i
r
.
1
9
8
8
.
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
o
f
46
t
h
e
S
u
d
a
n
L
o
c
u
s
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
A
g
e
n
47
c
y
o
f
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
K
h
a
r
t
48
o
u
m
,
S
u
d
a
n
,
6
2
p
p
.
Shaikh, A., E. Arnould, K. Christopherson, R. Hagen, J.
Tabor,
and P. Warshall. 1988. Opportunities for
Sustained
Development, Successful Natural Resources
Management in the
Sahel. Agency for International
Development, Bureau for
Africa, Sahel Office, Four
Volumes.
Shannon, M. et al. 1987. Rangeland Cooperative
Management
Program, Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Animal and
Plant Health Inspection
Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington,
DC, 251 pp + Appendices.
Showler, A.T.
(in press).
Desert Locust Plagues in
North
Afri
ca:
Environme
ntal
49
Protectio
n and
Human
Safety.
Showler, A.T.
1993.
Desert locust, Schistocera
gregaria
(For
skal)
(Orthopte
ra:
Acrididae
),
Campaign
in
Tunisia,
1988.
Agricultu
ral
Systems
42: 1-15.
Showler, A.T. and C.S. Potter. 1991. Synopsis of the
1986-1989
Desert Locust (Orthoptera: Acrididae)
Plague and the Concept
of Strategic Control.
American Entomologist 37 (2): 106- 110.
Steedman, A. (ed.) 1988. Locust Handbook. 2nd Edition.
Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute,
London, England, 180 pp.
TAMS. 1989. Locust and Grasshopper Control in Africa &
Asia, A Programmatic Environmental Assessment. TAMS
Consultants,
Inc., Arlington, Virginia, USA, 305 pp
+ Appendices.
Ware, G. 1978. Pesticides: Theory and Application.
H. Freeman and Company, New York, 308 pp.
50
W.
51
APPENDIX A.
LIST OF CONTACTS AND PREPARERS
CONTACTS
DLCO-EA
Dr. A.H. Karrar - Director
Mr. Ronald Funa - Manager
Provisional Government of Eritrea
Dr. Tesfai Ghermazien - Secretary (Director), Department
of Agriculture
Mr. Bereke Ogbamichael - DOA
Mr. Mehari Tesfa-Yohannes - DOA
Mr. Ermias Tsegay - DOA
Dr. Saleh Meky - Secretary (Director) of Department of
Marine
Resources & Inland Fisheries
Other Donor Organizations
Mr. Michael Askwith - Chief, UNDP Liason Office
Mr. Olivier Gordon - Financial Sector Specialist, The
World Bank
Mr. Tomio Ota - Second Secretary, Embassy of Japan
Mr. Gunnar Thunstrom - First Secretary, Swedish Embassy
USAID/Ethiopia
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Franz Herder - USAID Coordinator for Eritrea
Michael T. Harvey - Food and Humanitarian Assistance
Wendy Fenton - Food Aid Monitor
James E. Beck - Food Aid Monitor
USAID/Washington
Ms. Carol Siegel - Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
Mr. Bill Douglas - AFR/EA
Ms. Vickey Dreyer - AFR/ONI/TPPI, Project Officer
52
PREPARERS
USAID/Washington
Dr. Gary Jahn - Entomologist and AAAS Fellow,
USAID/R&D/H
Dr. Yeneneh T. Belayneh - Ecotoxicologist and Assistant
Technical
Advisor for AELGA Project,
USAID/AFR/ONI/TPPI
Dr. Allan T. Showler - Entomologist and Technical
Advisor for AELGA
Project, USAID/AFR/ONI/TPPI
APPENDIX B.
ANALYSIS OF PEA RECOMMENDATIONS
BASIC PRE-CONDITION OF PROGRAM
1. A.I.D should continue its involvement in locust
control. Operationally, the approach to be adopted
should evolve toward Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
This recommendation should be applied in the
context of the specific needs of Eritrea.
USAID/Ethiopia & Eritrea support IPM in the management
of locusts, as well as other insect pests.
USAID
should also encourage the Peace Corps to get involved in
locust control in Eritrea. Peace Corps Volunteers in
Eritrea could:
1) Keep organize village brigades
2) Teach pesticide safety
3) Conduct research on biological control of
locusts
4) Teach nomads agricultural techniques that would
reduce the
number of locust habitats
5) Teach cultural locust control techniques
6) Teach the principles of IPM
53
INVENTORY AND MAPPING PROCEDURES
2. An inventory and mapping program should be started
to determine the extent and boundaries of
environmentally fragile areas in Eritrea.
A.I.D. should encourage the Provisional Government
of Eritrea to define and establish areas where pesticide
use is banned or limited, and to designate such areas on
official maps.
3. A system for dynamic inventory of pesticide chemical
stocks should be developed.
Poor pesticide management in Eritrea has resulted
in an accumulation of old and degraded pesticide stocks.
Pesticides are often transported, applied, and disposed
of carelessly. Improvements in the system for managing
pesticide stocks must be implemented to protect human
health and the environment. Proper storage and recordkeeping will reduce pesticide degradation.
4. A.I.D. should take an active role in assisting host
countries in identifying alternate use or disposal of
pesticide stocks.
A plan for disposal of obsolete or excess pesticide
stocks should be drafted by the Eritrean DOA and DLCO-EA
with the support of USAID and FAO. Additional
activities should include the periodic testing of stored
pesticide stocks to insure that the material is usable.
The future accumulation of unwanted pesticides should be
minimized.
5. FAO should be requested to establish a system for
the inventory of manpower, procedures and equipment.
54
USAID/Ethiopia-Eritrea and AID/Washington support
this recommendation. It should be implemented by the
DOA with the assistance of the DLCO-EA and FAO, during
and following the control campaign.
MITIGATION OF PESTICIDE EFFECTS ON NON-TARGETS
6. There should be no pesticide applications in
environmentally fragile areas and in human settlements.
Pesticides should only be donated to Eritrea with
the understanding that pesticides cannot be used in
certain areas, such as protected wetlands (if any),
national parks, national forests, and fragile areas and
in human settlements.
7. Pesticides should be those with the minimum impact
on non-target species.
Pesticide recommendations in the PEA should be
followed until research indicates that safer pesticides
are available. USAID/Ethiopia & Eritrea is strongly
encouraged to investigate traditional and cultural
locust control methods. This SEA repeats the list of
preferred pesticides given in the PEA and the recently
up-dated list (see Appendix F).
8. Pre- and post-treatment monitoring and sampling of
sentinel organisms, water, and soils should be carried
out as an integral part of each control campaign.
This recommendation should be implemented as
appropriate to the local conditions in Eritrea. The
expense of sampling and the lack of supportive
infrastructure will make it difficult to implement this
recommendation in Eritrea. A program of research
monitoring is important both as a basis for design of
operational monitoring and as a means of establishing
55
statistically verifiable base line data. In addition,
periodic sampling of target and non-target mortality,
population numbers, and behavior should be made at
locations where pesticides are used.
APPLICATION OF INSECTICIDES
9.
The minimum area should be sprayed.
1) Emphasis should be placed on an early and
vigorous surveillance program. This allows early
treatment applications and reduces the amount of
pesticide used.
2) Establish economic thresholds.
3) Identify non-treatment areas and minimum
treatment areas.
4) Training of decision makers should emphasize
restraint in pesticide use.
5) Include farmers and village brigades in
pesticide training, survey, and application.
10. Helicopters should be used primarily for survey to
support ground and air control units.
In the flat lowlands of Eritrea, airplanes are
sufficient for surveying and spraying. But in the
rugged highlands it is necessary to use helicopters.
11. Whenever possible, small planes should be favored
over medium to large two- of four- engine transport
types (for application of pesticides). In all cases,
experienced contractors will be used.
56
This SEA supports this recommendation. However,
medium sized aircraft may be needed in Eritrea to spray
areas far from supportive infrastructure.
12. Any USG-funded locust control actions which provide
pesticides and other commodities, or aerial or ground
application services, should include technical
assistance and environmental assessment expertise as an
integral component of the assistance package.
This SEA agrees with this recommendation.
should be a part of USAID assistance.
Training
13. All pesticide containers should be properly
labeled.
the
and
the
FAO
This SEA agrees with this recommendation and urges
EPLF to give high priority to pesticide legislation
implementation of laws requiring pesticide labels in
regional language Tigrinya. EPLF should follow the
pesticide label guidelines.
DISPOSAL OF PESTICIDES
14. A.I.D. should provide assistance to host
governments in disposing of empty pesticide containers
and pesticides that are obsolete or no longer useable
for the purpose intended.
A.I.D. Washington and FAO have developed guidelines
on disposal programs for unwanted pesticides and empty
containers. Several pilot disposal projects have been
implemented. USAID/Ethiopia & Eritrea should follow
such disposal guidance, and should continue to assist
with pesticide management. Disposing of empty pesticide
barrels properly is especially important.
PUBLIC HEALTH AWARENESS
57
15. A.I.D. should support the design,reproduction, and
presentation of public education materials on pesticide
safety.
USAID, DLCO-EA, and ministries of agriculture
should develop public and applicator education materials
on pesticide safety, pesticide poisoning recognition,
avoidance, and treatment. These materials could be used
in "Train the Trainer" programs, and in village brigade
training courses.
16. Training courses should be designed and developed
for health personnel in areas where pesticides are used
frequently.
This SEA supports this recommendation and advocates
intergovernmental collaboration in training programs.
17. Each health center should be provided with posters
describing diagnosis and treatment of pesticide
poisonings, as well as medicines and antidotes required
for treatment of poisoning cases.
This SEA supports this recommendation.
Eritrea should be in Tigrinya.
Posters in
18. Presently available tests for monitoring human
exposure to pesticides should be implemented in the
field.
This SEA supports the need to monitor the health of
pesticide applicators and handlers during control
operations.
PESTICIDE FORMULATION AND MANAGEMENT
58
19. Specifications for A.I.D. purchase of locust
insecticides should be adapted for all insecticides.
This is an AID/W activity that should be
implemented through a revision of A.I.D's Pest
Management Guidelines. No Eritrea-specific
recommendation is included in this SEA, since it is an
AID/W activity.
20. Pesticide container specifications should be
developed.
This is an AID/W activity that has been implemented
through a revision of A.I.D's Pest Management
Guidelines.
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
21. Beauvearia, Metarhizium and other biological
control agents such as plant extracts should be field
tested under African and Asian conditions in priority
countries.
AID/W is currently supporting research on
biological control in Africa. USAID/Eritrea should
support local research on parasites, pathogens, and
predators of locusts.
TRAINING
22. A comprehensive training program should be
developed for A.I.D. Mission personnel who have
responsibility for control operations.
Currently, USAID/Eritrea is a branch of
USAID/Ethiopia. There are no personnel at
USAID/Ethiopia that have responsibility for pest control
operations. Such a position should be developed.
59
23. Local programs of training should be instituted for
pesticide storage, management, environmental monitoring
and public health (see Recommendation 16).
This SEA support this recommendation, and
recommends that priority be given to teaching on how to
use pesticides safely and appropriately, especially in
village brigade programs.
24. When technical assistance teams are provided, they
should be given short-term intensive technical training
(including language if necessary) and some background in
the use and availability of training aids.
This SEA supports this recommendation as an AID/W
activity.
ECONOMICS
25. Field research should be carried out to generate
badly needed economic data on a country-by-country by
basis.
This SEA supports this recommendation.
Implementation in Eritrea should begin with agricultural
productivity analysis.
26. No pesticides should be applied unless the
provisional economic threshold of locusts is exceeded.
Research should be conducted in Eritrea to
establish an economic threshold for the desert locust.
27. A.I.D. should provide assistance to host countries
in drawing up regulations on registration and management
of pesticides and in drafting environmental policy.
60
This SEA supports this recommendation. AID/W and
EPA have developed a program to assist LDCs with
drafting pesticide regulations and policies. Dr. Allan
Showler (AID/AFR/ONI), Mr. Bill Douglas (AID/AFR-EA),
and Dr. Gary Jahn (AID/R&D) met with Mr. Hagos
Ghebrehiwet the Chief Delegate of the Provisional
Government of Eritrea (i.e., Eritrean People's
Liberation Front (EPLF)) to inform him that AID/W, EPA,
and FAO have documents that would be useful guidelines
for writing environmental regulations for Eritrea. The
Chief Delegate was also told about the public health
hazard at the Gwonderan pesticide storage facility (see
section 3.6). He was given AID guidelines on safe
pesticide storage.
PESTICIDE USE POLICY
28. A pesticide use inventory covering all treatments
in both agricultural and health programs should be
developed, on a country-by-country basis.
This SEA supports this recommendation and considers
this to be a topic appropriate for EPLF action. In
addition, DLCO-EA should keep an up-to-date, accurate
inventory of all of their pesticides. This inventory
should be made available to any donor agencies upon
request.
PESTICIDE HANDBOOK
29. A.I.D. should produce a regularly updated pesticide
handbook for use by its staff.
AID/W has produced a number of documents, which are
regularly up-dated: Integrated Pest Management and
Pesticide Management, Pest Management Guidelines of the
Agency for International Development, pesticide training
manuals in Arabic, English, French and Portuguese, which
can be made available on request from the Bureau for
61
Africa, Office of Operations and New Initiatives,
Technical Projects Program Implementation. This SEA
supports the continued up-dating of these handbooks.
SUPPORT AND TRAINING
30. Technical assistance, education and training, and
equipment should be provided to crop protection services
of host countries with a view to making the services
eventually self-sustaining.
This SEA supports this recommendation, but the
actual needs of DLCO-EA and DOA should be thoroughly
assessed by USAID before providing assistance. USAID
should support and encourage changes in DLCO-EA that
promote the efficient use of donated equipment. For
example, if the DLCO-EA head-quarters were moved back to
Asmara, less time, money, and fuel would be spent on
sending people and equipment from Addis Ababa to
Eritrea. Originally DLCO-EA headquarters were in Asmara
since Eritrea contains the major locust breeding
grounds. Due to the war, the head office was re-located
to Addis Ababa. Now that the war is over, there is no
logical reason for the head office to remain 700 to 1000
km from the locust breeding grounds.
"Train the Trainer" programs for village brigades
are a potentially valuable contribution that A.I.D. can
make in Eritrea. The current village brigade program in
Eritrea should be evaluated by A.I.D..
PESTICIDE STORAGE
31. More pesticide storage facilities should be built.
Until that occurs, emergency supplies should be stored
in the United States.
62
Establish a pesticide bank run by the United
Nations to reduce the need for on-site storage and
disposal of pesticides.
FORECASTING
32. A.I.D. should make the decision whether to continue
funding forecasting and remote sensing or to use FAO's
early warning program.
This SEA is in favor of continuing and improving
forecasting as an AID/W or FAO activity. USAID should
support thorough field research programs for studying
the ecology of outbreak areas in northeastern Africa and
Arabia, so that plagues can be predicted with greater
accuracy.
PUBLIC HEALTH MONITORING AND STUDY
33. A series of epidemiological case-control studies,
within the countries involved in locust control, should
be implemented in areas of heavy human exposure to
pesticides.
While this is desirable, it seems far fetched even
under ideal conditions, to conduct case-control
epidemiological studies on a continuous bases. However,
this SAE agrees that routine monitoring activities
should be carried out to determine pesticide relatedtoxicities in areas where heavy human exposure to
pesticides and residues are suspected. This could be
done in collaboration with FAO and DLCO-EA.
RESEARCH
34. Applied research should be carried out on the
efficacy of various pesticides and insect growth
retardants, as well as pesticide application.
63
The main function of DLCO-EA is currently locust
control, not research. An international locust research
facility is needed. Research should focus on the
following areas:
1) Improved aerial spraying.
drift are major problems.
Coverage and
2) Identify pathogens and parasites of locusts
for each stage of the locust life cycle and
develop systems to deliver and apply these
natural enemies. By targeting each stage of
the locust life cycle, it is unlikely that
sufficient numbers of locusts could reach
adulthood for swarms to develop. When a
pesticide is sprayed it serves only to kill
locusts at that particular place and time. A
pathogen would have the advantage of spreading
and multiplying to kill future generations of
locusts.
3) Determine the conditions which cause
solitary grasshoppers to become gregarious and
swarm. Determine the physiological response of
grasshoppers to those conditions. Finally,
investigate ways to interfere with that
response (e.g., through applications of
synthetic hormones).
4) Develop safer pesticides. This would
include "pesticide cocktails" that mix
pyrethroids with organophosphates to promote
rapid knockdown.
5) Find a safe, biodegradable dye to mix with
the insecticides, so that it would be obvious
to farmers, shepherds, and nomads which plants
64
and locusts are sprayed. A colored pesticide
would also aid pesticide applicators evaluate
the effectiveness of coverage and existence of
contamination. Ideally the dye should be added
at the factory that is producing the
insecticides so that leaks and contamination
would be obvious throughout operations. The
dye must not interfere with the efficacy of the
pesticide.
35. Applied research should be carried out on the use
of plant extracts as anti-feedants.
Plant species which desert locusts in Eritrea do
not eat should be identified. Next, investigators
should determine why certain plants are not eaten by
locusts. In some cases, such as certain types of
cactus, thorns and other physical barriers will be found
to deter locusts. In other cases, such as coffee, a
physical explanation may not suffice and research should
focus on a finding the chemical deterrents in the plant.
If such chemicals can be identified and isolated, they
may be useful in locust control.
Small scale laboratory and field studies should be
used to determine which botanical extracts are the most
promising anti-feedants and repellents. A common error
in repellant research is to give the insect a choice of
treated vs. untreated food. If insects are seen to
prefer the untreated food the repellent is declared
effective. However, under field conditions, where an
entire crop is treated, the insects may choose to
consume the treated crop instead of starving. This is
one of the reasons that neem tree extracts are so
effective in laboratory choice tests, but frequently
ineffective in field trials (Jahn 1992, N.R.C. 1992).
65
36. Research should be carried out to determine the
best techniques for assessing the environmental impact
of organophosphates used for locust control.
This research is an appropriate activity for AID/W
to fund.
ENHANCING AND ACCELERATING IMPLEMENTATION
37. AID/W should provide guidance in locust control to
missions in the field.
This guidance to Eritrea should include a program
for training village brigades, and should encourage the
following agricultural practices:
1) Develop irrigation systems if possible so that
crops are not entirely dependent on local rainfall.
Growing crops in accordance with local rainfall
insures that locust and crops will be in synchrony.
2) Nomadic farmers that shift agricultural sites
should be encouraged to weed their fields.
3) After harvest, nomads should burn their old
fields to destroy weeds and any remaining crop
which could serve as locust habitat.
38. Detailed guidelines should be developed for A.I.D.
to promote common approaches to locust control and safe
pesticide use among UN agencies and donor nations.
Coordination of efforts is becoming increasingly
important because of the increasing number and magnitude
of multilateral agreements and follow up efforts in
subsequent years by various donors.
66
This SEA supports this recommendation. The
guidelines should include information on forming and
training village brigades.
International cooperation must continue and should
be strengthened. Suggestions that each country should
only be concerned with their own locust problems are
short-sighted. Nations that host breeding areas should
not be expected to bear the entire burden of plague
prevention. It is in the best interest of all nations
effected by plagues to pool their resources in the
campaign against locusts as an insurance policy. It is
also in the best interest of donor agencies to
coordinate their efforts so that assistance is used as
effectively as possible.
If there is evidence of poor management or
mismanagement of DLCO-EA, donors should not hesitate to
withhold funding. The director and staff of DLCO-EA
should be held accountable by FAO and other donors for
the management and condition of the facilities,
including:
1) Locust survey and control
2) Keeping well-organized, accurate, accessible
records of
all locust survey and control
operations
3) Keeping well-organized, accurate, accessible
records of
inventory of pesticides, pesticide
application
equipment, and pesticide safety
equipment
3) Research
4) Pesticide storage
5) Pesticide disposal
6) Pesticide drum disposal
7) Maintenance and proper use of equipment
8) Following all safety procedures for pesticide
handling
and application
67
APPENDIX C.
RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION
FAO Pesticide Management Documents:
a) International Code of Conduct for Distribution
and Utilization of Pesticides.
b) Guidelines for safe pesticide distribution,
storage, and handling.
c) Guidelines for pesticide disposal and container
disposal.
d) List of FAO approved pesticides.
e) Pesticide storage and packaging guidelines.
f) Guidelines for pesticide approval and
management.
g) Ecotoxicological guidelines.
h) Ground and aerial application guidelines.
i) Insecticide poisoning: prevention, diagnosis,
and treatment.
j) Guidelines for effective labeling.
k) Efficacy requirements for pesticide approval.
Other Documents on Pesticides and Locust Control
a) Guidelines for selection, procurement, and use
of pesticides in World Bank-financed projects.
b) Crop protection Service Organization (D.310) T.
1. PRIFAS. Dec. 1988.
68
c) Effectiveness of localized pesticide treatment.
(D.309) T. 2. PRIFAS - Dec. 1988.
d) Effects of locust and control on the
environment. (D. 308) T. 3. PRIFAS - Dec. 1988.
e) Locust and Control - Inter-ministerial
Instruction No. 3 related to protection of man and
environment. Algerian doc. - March 1989.
f) First aid in cases of poisoning by locust and
control products. CIBA-GEIGY.
USEPA Pesticide Fact Sheets:
Acephate
# 140
October 1987
Bendiocarb
# 195
June
1987
Carbaryl
# 21
March
1984
Chlorpyriphos
# 37
September
1984
Diazinon
# 96.1 December 1988
Fenitrothion # 142
July
1987
Malathion
# 152
January 1987
Lindane
# 73
September
1985
These are some of the many Pesticide Fact Sheets issued
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, selected
for relevance to locust and grasshopper control. The
Pesticide Fact Sheets summarize data, including
information on acute and chronic toxicity to humans and
other non-target organisms, handling precautions, and
instructions for use. They are available from:
Office of Pesticide Programs
US Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460 USA
69
APPENDIX D.
MAPS
70
APPENDIX E.
TABLES
[insert Table 1 here]
71
[insert Table 2 here]
72
i
APPENDIX F.
PESTICIDES
CABLE: UPDATE ON A.I.D.-APPROVED LIST OF
FOR LOCUST/GRASSHOPPER CONTROL
ii
UNCLASSIFIED
AID/AFR/ONI/TPPI:YBELAYNEH:YB
04/08/93 {703} 235-5411
AID/AFR/ONI/TPPI:ZHAHN
AID/AFR/ONI/TPPI:VDREYER{DRAFT}
AID/NE:GJACKSON{DRAFT}
AID/AFR/ARTS:JGAUDET{DRAFT}
AID/GC/AFR:ESPRIGGS{DRAFT}
ROUTINE
APPR:
ZH
{
}
DRAFT:
YB
{
}
CLEAR:
{
}
CLEAR:
{
}
CLEAR:
{
}
CLEAR:
{
}
CLEAR:
{
}
AID/AFR/ONI/TPPI:ASHOWLER{DRAFT}
AID/POL:JHESTER{DRAFT}
AID/AFR/FHA/OFDA:GHUDEN{DRAFT}
AID/ASIA/DR/TR:MKUX{DRAFT}
AIDAF
iii
AIDAC NAIROBI FOR REDSO/ESA; ABIDJAN FOR REDSO/WCA;
NE/ENA
E.O. 12356:
N/A
TAGS:
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON A.I.D.-APPROVED LIST OF PESTICIDES FOR
LOCUST/GRASSHOPPER CONTROL
1. SUMMARY: AID/AFR/ONI IS IN THE PROCESS OF REFINING THE
LIST OF PREFERRED PESTICIDES PRESENTED IN THE 1989
PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT {PEA} FOR LOCUST AND
GRASSHOPPER CONTROL IN AFRICA AND ASIA. THE INFORMATION
IN THIS CABLE UPDATES SIMILAR TABULAR DATA IN THE PEA, AND
SUPERCEDES SIMILAR DATA IN A.I.D.'S 'REVIEW OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS IN A.I.D. PROGRAMS FOR LOCUST AND
GRASSHOPPER CONTROL, PUBL. SERIES NO. 91-7'. THE
INFORMATION ON PESTICIDES IN THIS CABLE SHOULD BE
iv
UNCLASSIFIED
v
v
UNCLASSIFIED
vi
CONSIDERED TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PEA. THE TABLE
LISTING PESTICIDES IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS DOCUMENT
WAS ONLY MEANT TO INDICATE PESTICIDES THAT CAN BE
PURCHASED WITH A.I.D. FUNDS, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE
CONSIDERED AS GUIDANCE FOR PESTICIDE SELECTION, END
SUMMARY.
2. WITH MORE AND MORE INFORMATION ON PESTICIDES BEING
GENERATED, AID/AFR FINDS IT NECESSARY TO REFINE ITS LIST
OF A.I.D.-APPROVED ANTI-LOCUST/GRASSHOPPER PESTICIDES.
THE FOLLOWING IS AN ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF THE PESTICIDES
APPROVED IN THE PEA. THE LIST INCLUDES RELEVANT
INFORMATION ON TOXICITY, BIO-ACCUMULATION AND SIGNAL WORDS
{TO INDICATE THE RELATIVE TOXICITY OF EACH INSECTICIDE}.
THIS INFORMATION PROVIDES A SKETCH OF PROPERTIES OF THE
A.I.D.-APPROVED ANTI-LOCUST/GRASSHOPPER PESTICIDES. ALL
OF THE CHEMICALS LISTED BELOW ARE CURRENTLY REGISTERED
EITHER BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY {EPA}
OR ITS EQUIVALENT IN OTHER COUNTRIES FOR LOCUST AND
GRASSHOPPER CONTROL.
==
==
==
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
TOXICITY TO
--------------------FISH INVER BIRD MAMML
ACEPHATE
BENDIOCARB
CARBARYL
CHLORPYRIFOS
DIAZINON
FENITROTHION
LAMBDACYHALOTHRIN
8. MALATHION
9. TRALOMETHRIN
BIOAC
PERS
SIGNW
L
M
L
M
M
L
L
M
L
H
H
H
L
M
L
M
M-H
H
M
M
L
M
L
L
L
M
L-M
M
M
M
L
M
L
L
M
L
C
W
C
C-W
C-W
W
H
L
H
H
L
H
L
M
L
H
L-M
L
H
L
H
M
L
M
D
C
D
LEGEND:
NON-TARGET ORGANISMS: FISH, INVERTEBRATES {INCLUDING
HONEYBEES}, BIRDS, MAMMALS
BIOAC = BIO-ACCUMULATION, PERS = PERSISTENCE,
L = LOW; M = MODERATE;
H = HIGH {APPLY TO TOXICITY
LEVELS
TO NON-TARGET ORGANISMS, BIOACCUMULATION AND
PERSISTENCE; RELATIVE
TOXICITY IS ALSO A
FUNCTION OF
FORMULATION AND ACTIVE INGREDIENT
CONCENTRATION}
vi
UNCLASSIFIED
vii
SIGNW = SIGNAL WORD: C = CAUTION; W = WARNING; D = DANGER
{POISON}; {APPLIES TO THE RELATIVE TOXICITY OF
PESTICIDES IN ASCENDING ORDER; RELATIVE
TOXICITY IS ALSO A FUNCTION OF FORMULATION AND
ACTIVE INGREDIENT CONCENTRATION}
SPECIFIC DOSAGES MUST BE WORKED OUT BY HIGHLY EXPERIENCED
PERSONNEL FAMILIAR WITH THE APPLICATION EQUIPMENT,
PESTICIDE FORMULATION, ETC., TO BE USED. FOR ELABORATION
ON THE PROPERTIES OF A.I.D.-APPROVED ANTI-LOCUST/
GRASSHOPPER PESTICIDES, CONSULT THE PEA AND COUNTRYSPECIFIC SUPPLEMENTARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS {SEAS}.
3. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ALL PRECAUTIONS INDICATED ON THE
PESTICIDE LABELS, E.G., APPLICATION DOSAGES, SAFETY
MEASURES, INSTRUCTIONS ON HANDLING AND STORAGE PROCEDURES,
DISPOSAL OPTIONS, ENTRY BY UNPROTECTED PERSONS INTO
TREATED AREAS, EMERGENCY GUIDELINES, ETC., BE CAREFULLY
OBSERVED, AS OUTLINED IN THE COUNTRY-SPECIFIC SEAS.
4. AID/W WILL KEEP MISSIONS INFORMED OF FUTURE UPDATES ON
THE LIST OF A.I.D.-APPROVED ANTI-LOCUST/GRASSHOPPER
PESTICIDES.
___________________
ADDITIONAL CLEARANCES:
AID/AFR/EA:PGUEDET{INFO}
AID/AFR/CCWA:MGOLDEN{INFO}
AID/AFR/SWA:JGILMORE{INFO}
AID/AFR/SA:KBROWN{INFO}
AID/AFR/ARTS/FARA:WKNAUSENBERGER{DRAFT}
AID/RD/AGI:RHEDLUND{INFO}
U:\..\YENE\AELGA\SEA\SEA4ERTR.EA
vii
UNCLASSIFIED
viii
viii
UNCLASSIFIED
9
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
10
UNCLASSIFIED