Crop Protection in Africa

Crop Protection in Africa:

Situation Analysis

and

Strategic Framework

Prepared for

FAO Regional Office for Africa

CABI Africa

April 2011

Acknowledgements

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

Summary / 4
1. Introduction / 14
2. Methods / 14
3. The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme / 17
4. Crops and Pests / 27
5. Pesticides and Pesticide Management / 43
6. Other Control Methods / 58
7. National Crop Protection Systems / 74
8. Education, Extension and Information Technology / 102
9. Framework for Crop Protection in CAADP / 110
References / 122
Annexes / 133

Summary

Background

The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) provides the general strategy for the sector. It touches on issues of crop protection, pest management, and phytosanitary systems in various places, but does not and cannotprovide detail, so crop protectionists need additional guidance on how to align their work to CAADP.
This document seeks to provide that guidance in three ways:

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

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

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

A. Crop protection in CAADP

CAADP is NEPAD’s strategy for agricultural development, launched in 2002. It was initially conceived as a response to the crisis in African agriculture, and was intended to have an early and significant impact. The third and final phases were planned for 2011–2015, but many countries have only recently embarked on implementing what has become known as the CAADP process. There is thus both a need and the opportunity for ensuring crop protection issues are adequately reflected in country implementation.
CAADP has four pillars: extending the area under sustainable land management and reliable water control systems; improving rural infrastructure and trade related capacities for market access; increasing food supply and reducing hunger; agricultural research, technology dissemination, and adoption. Each pillar has a companion framework document.
Pillar 1. This does not explicitly refer to crop protection, but the framework document refers to integrated pest management (IPM) (p.27) and notes that climate change is likely to increase pest pressure (p.43). Crop protection can be seen as a component of integrated natural resource management, but more intensive land and water management, including a greater use of inputs, provides challenges as well as opportunities for crop protection. More intensive resource use often leads to more serious pest problems.
Rural infrastructure development in Pillar 2.This is related to crop protection as facilitating output and input markets will lead to intensified agricultural production with risks and opportunities. Trade related capacity for market access is clearly stated to include sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) capacity (pp.38, 39, 41). SPS capacity supports trade, but must also be deployed to protect the natural resources on which that trade is based.
In Pillar 3it is acknowledged that few farmers use IPM (p.47). The use of improved varieties is also noted to be low (p.47).Even though improved varieties may include those bred for pest resistance, they can also be more susceptible to pests than traditional varieties. The problem of postharvest losses is also recognized (p.47), which improved storage facilities (Pillar1) could address. Pillar 3 includes consideration of the need to buildpreparedness and improved response capacity for emergencies, which include pest outbreaks (p.48). Thus, improved crop protection is clearly seen as a component in increasing food supply and reducing hunger.
Pillar 4 mentions weeds as a consequence of unsustainable land management (p.71), and this also applies to other types of pests. Of the four research themes identified, integrated natural resource management is stated to include pest management (p.73), while the theme on the adaptive management of appropriate germplasm envisages high yielding varieties that are also resistant to pests (p.74). The research themes on sustainable market chains and agricultural policies do not explicitly refer to crop protection, but the harmonization of standards and regulations for seed certification (which are related to crop protection) (p. 65), and research that will support the establishment of policy frameworks promoting ecologically sustainable production (p.75) are both envisaged. Building research capacity will include the area of IPM (p.76).
CAADP thus mentions the issue of crop protection both explicitly and implicitly. Addressing pest problems is a route to increased productivity and profitability, with IPM being seen as the appropriate strategy. The importance is emphasized of ecologically based integrated natural resource management (including IPM), but how this can be achieved with greater use of inputs in more market oriented production systems is not articulated. This is the challenge that CAADP presents, and which this document addresses.
Country implementation of CAADP now focuses on the process as much as on the areas to be addressed, and the round-table process is intended to be participatory and evidence based. It is important that crop protectionists engage with the process to ensure that the crop protection issues, referred to in general terms in the CAADP document, are addressed in more detail in the national agricultural investment plans that emerge.

B. Situation review and assessment

Crops and pests

Spanning over 70 degrees of latitude, Africa has a very wide range of agro-ecological zones. There are many different cropping systems producing a large number of different crops. The diversity of African crop production reaches down to the farm level, where numerous different crops may be grown in a small area.
Some of the most important crops in Africa are globally important; maize is Africa’s most widely planted crop, yet only about 7% of global production is in Africa. Cassava is the continent’s most important crop by production (>120million tonnes/year), which is over 50% of the global production. Yam is the fourth most productive crop in Africa where over 95% of the global production is grown. Some crops are important because of their export value, cocoa beans being the most valuable at over $3 billion/year, followed by cotton and tobacco. Horticultural exports (flowers, fruits, and vegetables) have expanded greatly in the last decade.
Much of the increase in crop production in Africa over the last decade has been through an increase in the area planted (extensification), rather than through increased yield (intensification), as envisaged by CAADP. A doubling of fruit and vegetable production is projected, supported by increased irrigation. More foreign investment in agricultural production is likely to result in greater use of fertilizer and pesticides.Biofuel production will bring new pest problems and the risks of creating new weeds. Crop pests include plant diseases caused by microorganisms; insects and other invertebrates; mammals and birds; and plants (weeds). Globally, about 70% of pests are introduced, i.e., not native to the area. In the twentieth century, 66 insects and mites, and 167 plant pathogens were reported as having been introduced to Africa, but this is likely to be an underestimate. Many plant protection or related acts provide for pests to be declared, allowing for strict measures to limit their spread in a country. But such declarations are often not systematic, and the implementation of the legal provisions is generally weak.
Accurate data on the potential and actual losses due to crop pests are scarce. A global study suggested potential losses in Africa are around 70–85%, with actual losses of about 30–55%. The effectiveness of control (i.e., the difference between potential and actual loss) was lowest in East and West Africa. Worldwide,the actual losses to plant pathogens, animal pests, and weeds are similar at 10–15% each, although the potential losses to weeds are the greatest. Crop loss rates have not significantly declined globally in the last four decades, although yields have increased.
Climate change will have many direct and indirect effects on pests. It will change their distribution, modify their impact, alter the effectiveness of control, lead to the introduction of new pests, and affect their rate of establishment. At the same time, there will be a change in what crops can be grown and where. The net effect on pests from climate change coupled with society’s responses is hard to predict, but pest problems will change more rapidly than in the past, requiring increased capacity to detect and respond to the changes.
Intensified crop production, the reduction in cropping system diversity, increased irrigation, and climate change will all cause new or different pest problems that will have to be addressed.

Pesticides and pesticide management

Africa accounts for less than 5% of global pesticide use, but from 2001 to 2008, the value of pesticides imported to Africa increased from about $0.5 billion to $1.25 billion. South Africa, Ghana, Morocco, Kenya, and Nigeria are the top importers, together accounting for over 50% of the total pesticide imports into the continent. Few pesticides are manufactured in Africa, so imports are an indicator of use. Ghana’s imports over the same period have increased by over 600%.
Pesticide use is very uneven. In staple crops, pesticide use is usually very low or absent, although the control of migrant pests, such as locusts, sometimes results in heavy pesticide use to protect food crops. Commodity crops, such as cotton and cocoa, have a higher use of pesticides, also horticultural crops for local urban markets. Export horticulture has used pesticides extensively in the past, but stringent market demands have caused a reduction.
Despite the relatively low volume of pesticides used in Africa, problems with their use occur throughout their life cycle from manufacture to the disposal of old stock. Weak capacity for regulation and enforcement leads to a range of negative effects from pesticides. Obsolete stockpiles are a particular problem, with an estimated $200million or more required to dispose of current stockpiles.
Poisoning as a result of pesticides is not always reported or documented but, where pesticides are used and studies have been undertaken, there is a frequent occurrence of short and long-term illness, as well as fatalities, including suicide. Other results of pesticide mismanagement include environmental damage, pest resistance and resurgence, and trade problems.
Several international agreements aim to manage the risks from chemicals, including pesticides, and most countries in Africa are signatories to most of the agreements. But the domestication and implementation of the agreements are problematic for many countries. Numerous initiatives aim to build capacity in the management of chemicals, but whether the “safe use” of pesticides is an appropriate goal is open to debate.
The International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides was adopted by FAO in 1985, pre-dating the international conventions. The revised version (2002) includes greater emphasis on IPM, and a set of guideline documents provides practical guidance on the different aspects of pesticide use for the various stakeholders involved. A recent survey on the implementation of the code concluded that lower- income countries had made progress in some areas, but lag behind higher-income countries in a number of areas, including that of implementing IPM.
National policies affect pesticide use in many ways. Obvious price factors, such as Government or donor subsidies of various types, are now less common, but a hidden subsidy, such as the exclusion of externalities (damage to health or environment), encourages pesticide use. Hidden factors that can promote pesticide use include funding by Government of pesticide research rather than alternative approaches, education and training curricula, and the dominance of the pesticide industry as a provider of crop protection information.
National pesticide regulatory agencies license different aspects of the distribution and use of pesticides but often lack the capacity,in particular, for postregistration monitoring. Unsophisticated pesticide registration requirements can make the registration of less toxic products uneconomical, as they often have smaller markets. Regional collaboration can improve the efficiency of pesticide registration, and the Comité Sahélien desPesticides (CSP) has succeeded in formalizing this cooperation. CSP recently banned Endosulfan, a broad spectrum insecticide that had been widely used, especially in cotton production.

Other control methods

IPM emphasizes using different control methods in combinations, particularly resistant crop varieties, biological controls, and agronomic practices. Environmental sustainability is also emphasized so, if pesticide use is seen as part of IPM, then its use should be minimized and in keeping with the principles of natural resource management. Empowering farmers to make informed decisions on pest management is a key aspect of attempts to implement IPM in developing countries.
Widespread enthusiasm for the principles of IPM is matched by widespread disappointment at the level of implementation. Where farmers grow low-value crops, production is risky, few inputs are used, and markets are weak, so investing cash or labor in IPM is not attractive. Thus, some of the best examples of the use of IPM are (not surprisingly) in cash crop production for export, particularly where markets are demanding reduced pesticide use.
Failure to understand and take account of the socioeconomic context of crop protection, including gender aspects, may therefore explain in part why the uptake of IPM has been poor. Conversely, if the socioeconomic context can be changed, such as through reducing risk or creating output markets, IPM uptake could be stimulated.
Crop plants that are resistant to pests provide an attractive approach to crop protection, as the protection is built into the seeds and there is little or no environmental impact. The breeding of cassava resistant to mosaic virus is one of several good examples of the success of the approach.
Plant breeding for resistance requires sustained investment, as it takes time and the durability of the resistance is not easy to predict. Recent developments in molecular genetics techniques allow more sophisticated plant breeding, but the capacity for using these techniques is, in many countries, limited. Regional and international collaboration provides opportunities for their application, such as through NEPAD’s centers of excellence.
The uptake of pest resistant crop varietiescan be constrained by various factors, even where participatory approaches have been used to ensure traits match farmers’ needs. The related areas of the regulation of seed production and distribution, intellectual property protection, and commercialization can all be significant problems in the way of the adoption of a pest resistant crop variety.
Genetically modified (GM) cotton and maize with resistance to lepidopterous pests are grown only in South Africa, Burkina Faso, and Egypt. A number of other countries have established the necessary biosafety frameworks, and trials of GM pest resistant crops are in progress in various countries, so commercial production is projected to expand. Some countries remain concerned about the socioeconomic aspects of GM crops, as well as their environmental or health risks. Many countries lack the mechanisms for informed public debate on technologies such as genetic modification, including separating scientific risk assessments from policy decisions on risk management.
Biological control using introduced natural enemies of pests has achieved some notable successes, such as control of the cassava mealybug. Cost–benefit analysis indicates that much greater investment in the approach would be justified, including building capacity and confidence in the risk analysis of biocontrol introductions. Microbial biological control (biopesticides) is also an underexploited approach, due to unfavorable regulatory systems and the limited understanding of commercialization among public sector scientists.
Semiochemicals, such as food attractants and pheromones, are little used in Africa, but also provide opportunities for use in IPM. Commercialization and regulatory issues again need to be addressed to promote uptake. Sterile insect technique (SIT) has been little used outside South Africa for agricultural pests, although capacity exists from the development of the technique for the control of pests of medical importance. SIT and other approaches are most effective when an area-wide approach is used, requiring good coordination and the effective implementation of centrally made decisions that can be difficult to achieve.

National crop protection systems

In many countries, most or all of the functions required of a national crop protection system are performed by a plant protection department or directorate within an agricultural ministry. These functions include providing advice to farmers, surveillance and response to new pests, emergency control operations, the regulation of pest control products, and phytosanitary inspections and certification. In a few countries, some of these functions, particularly those concerning regulation, are mandated to specific agencies.
The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) requires contracting parties to establish a National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO), with specific responsibilities as described in the IPPC, covering some but not all of the above functions. Most countries are parties to the IPPC, but none fulfillsall the reporting requirements. In some cases this is because the plant protection legislation is outdated. NPPOs have responsibilities in the areas of policy and legislation as well as scientific and technical functions including diagnostics, risk analysis, surveillance, import and export inspection, and certification. In all these areas capacity is lacking, although there is some indication that the capacity for supporting trade (exports) is more developed than the capacity to protect plant resources from pests.
Emergency preparedness is required for non-quarantine pests, such as locusts, as well as for new pests, such as the fruit fly Bactrocera invadens. Some capacity for emergency response has been developed for tackling the major migrant pests, particularly through regional and international collaboration. But the capacity to detect and respond to incursions and outbreaks of new pests is severely limited, as the example of B. invadens demonstrates.
Thus, the IPPC has recognized the development of phytosanitary capacity as a major area for attention, and has recently developed a strategy for capacity development. The InterAfrican Phytosanitary Council (AU-IAPSC) is developing a similar strategy for Africa, which must be aligned to the IPPC’s strategy, promoted and supported by the African Union and member countries and vigorously implemented.
Most countries are signatories to the IPPC, the World Trade Organization, (WTO) and its SPS agreement, and the CBD, all of which aim (among other things) to limit the introduction and spread of pests. While non-signatories need to be supported to join, full participation in the workings of the agreements and national implementation of their provisions requires sustained assistance in the technical areas listed above, as well as in the development of ‘soft’ capacity such as leadership, the management of inter-organizational relationships, and adaptation to changing needs.
Several regional economic communities (RECs) have regional SPS agreements, but it is not always clear that they add value to the international agreements. RECs need support to identify and execute their appropriate roles in the SPS arena.