REPUBLIC OF MALAWI
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security
Agricultural Sector Wide Approach – Support Project – Additional Financing
Pest Management Plan
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security
Capital Hill
P O Box 30134
Capital City
Lilongwe 3
MALAWI
January 2012
Updated November 2013
i
CONTENTS
CONTENTS i
LIST OF ACRONYMS iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 7
1.1 THE NATIONAL CONTEXT 7
1.2 THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR 7
1.3 THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR WIDE APPROACH SUPPORT PROJECT (ASWAP-SP) 8
1.4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 9
1.5 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES 10
1.6 PROJECT IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 11
1.7 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES 12
1.8 PROPOSED PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 12
1.9 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT 13
1.10 JUSTIFICATION OF THE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN 14
1.11 METHODOLOGY FOR PREPARATION OF THE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN 14
1.11.1 Field Investigations, Consultations and Literature Review 14
1.12 FORMAT OF THE INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN 14
CHAPTER TWO: PEST MANAGEMENT POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK 16
2.1 AGRICULTURE AND PEST MANAGEMENT IN MALAWI 16
2.2 PEST MANAGEMENT (OPERATIONAL POLICY 4.09) 17
2.3 PRINCIPLES IN SELECTING PESTICIDES 18
2.4 PESTICIDES TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE ASWAP - SP 18
2.5 PESTICIDES MANAGEMENT: LEGISLATION AND REGISTRATION 19
2.5.1 International Policies 19
2.5.2 National Policies 19
2.6 USE OF NON-CHEMICAL PLANT PROTECTION METHODS 21
2.7 ADVANTAGES OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT 23
CHAPTER THREE: STEPS IN SETTING UP INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT 25
3.1 IDENTIFY THE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM 25
3.2 DECIDE ON THE SCALE OF IMPLEMENTATION 25
3.3 REVIEW AND SET MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES FOR THE IPMP 25
3.4 ANALYSE CURRENT HOUSEKEEPING, MAINTENANCE AND PEST CONTROL PRACTICES 26
3.5 ESTABLISH A SYSTEM OF REGULAR IPM INSPECTIONS 26
3.6 DEFINE THE TREATMENT POLICY SELECTION 27
3.7 ESTABLISH COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS 27
3.8 DEVELOP FARMER TRAINING PLANS AND POLICIES 27
3.9 TRACK PROGRESS AND REWARD SUCCESS 27
CHAPTER FOUR: IMPACTS OF PEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 29
4.1 POSITIVE IMPACTS OF CHEMICAL PESTICIDES 29
4.2 NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF CHEMICAL PESTICIDES 29
4.3 POSITIVE IMPACTS OF NON CHEMICAL PESTICIDE 31
4.3.1 Positive impacts of biological controls 31
4.3.2 Positive impacts of mechanical methods 32
4.3.3 Positive impacts of manual methods 32
4.4 NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF NON CHEMICAL PESTICIDES 32
4.4.1 Negative impacts of biological controls 32
4.4.2 Negative impacts of mechanical methods 33
4.4.3 Negative impacts of manual methods 33
4.5 POSITIVE IMPACTS OF IPM 33
4.2 COMMON MAIZE PEST PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDED IPM PRACTICES 34
CHAPTER FIVE: PEST MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING PLANS 37
5.1 PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN 37
5.2 PEST MONITORING PLAN 37
CHAPTER 6: CAPACITY AND TRAINING NEEDS 49
FOR SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IPMP 49
6.1 CAPACITY NEEDS 49
REFERENCES 54
APPENDICES 55
Appendix 2.1: Internationally accepted standards on pesticides 55
Appendix 2.2: Pesticides for Registration Consideration in Malawi 63
i
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADD Agricultural Development Division
ADMARC Agriculture Development and Marketing Corporation
ADP-SP Agriculture Development Program – Subsidy Program
AEDC Agriculture Extension Development Coordinator
AEDO Agriculture Extension Development Officer
AEZ Agricultural Ecological Zones
AF Additional Financing
AGRES Agriculture Gender Roles and Extension Support Services
AISP Agriculture Input Subsidy Program
ASWAp Agricultural Sector Wide Approach
ASWAp-SP Agricultural Sector Wide Approach Support Project
ATCC Agricultural Technology Clearing Committee
AVO Agriculture Veterinary Officer
CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program
CFA Core Function Analysis
CLRCO Chief Lands Resources Conservation Officer,
CPM Commission on Phytosanitary Measures
CSA Common Services Assessment
DADO District Agriculture Development Officer
DAES Department of Agricultural Extension Services
DAHLD Department of Animal Health and Livestock Development
DEA Director of Environmental Affairs
DEC District Executive Committee
DHS Demographic and Health Survey
EA Extension Area
EAD Environmental Affairs Department
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMC Executive Management Committee
EMP Environmental management plan
EPA Extension Planning Area
ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework
EU European Union
FAO Food Agriculture Organisation
GDP Gross domestic Product
GoM Government of Malawi
IDA International Development Association
IGA Income Generating Activities
IHS2 Integrated Household Survey 2
IMF International Monitory Fund
IPM Integrated Pest Management
IPMP Integrated Pest Management Plan
IPMMP Integrated Pest Management and Monitoring Plan
IPPC International Plant Protection Convention
ISCRAL Scheme for the Conservation and Rehabilitation of African Lands
ISP Input Subsidy Program
ISPM International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures
LHTC Land Husbandry Training Centre
LRCO Land Resources and Conservation Officer
MAWTCO Malawi Agricultural Warehousing and Trading Company
MBS Malawi Bureau of Standards
MDTF Multi-Donor Trust Fund
MGDS Malawi Growth and Development Strategy
MoAFS Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security
MTPW Ministry of Transport and Public Infrastructure
MPRS Malawi Poverty and Reduction Strategy
NAC National AIDS Commission
NHBG National Herbarium and Botanic Gardens
NRCM National Research Council of Malawi
NCE National Council for the Environment
NEAP National Environmental Action Plan
OPC Office of the President and Cabinet
PCB Pesticides Control Board
PDO Project Development Objective
PLRCO Principal Land Resources Conservation Officer
RA Roads Authority
SADC Southern African Development committee
SALRCO Senior Assistant Land Resources and Conservation Officer
SAFEX South African Commodity Exchange
SLRCO Senior Land Resources Conservation Officer
SPGI Sustainable Productivity Growth Initiative
SWAp Sector Wide Approach
TCE Technical Committee on the Environment
WB World Bank
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Agriculture is the single most important sector of the Malawi economy, contributing about 38% of value-added to GDP, employing 85% of the workforce, and contributing 80% of foreign exchange earnings in 2006. Agriculture continues to be the primary source of livelihood for the estimated 80% of the country’s poor who are based in rural areas. Sustained improvements in agricultural productivity and stable food supplies remain essential for reducing high rates of malnutrition and poverty in Malawi.
The development objective of the ASWAp - Support Project (ASWAp-SP) is to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of investments in the agricultural sector, aimed at food security and agriculture-led economic growth. The project will strengthen (i) institutional capabilities necessary to develop and implement a harmonized and aligned investment framework leading towards a full-fledged SWAp in the agricultural sector; (ii) land, water and nutrient use efficiency of maize based rain-fed cropping systems; and (iii) resilience of the maize supply system to cope with climate and market induced risks and shocks.
The project is already financed by an IDA credit, a GEF Grant and a Kingdom of Norway Grant. A first additional financing (AF1) was approved in March 2012 to respond to the request from the Government of Malawi (GoM). A second additional financing (AF2) is proposed based on a Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) established to pool contributions from various donors as a joint effort to improve harmonization, alignment and donor coordination in the agricultural sector in Malawi. The Bank is the administrator of the MDTF. The core concept is to reduce the number of agricultural projects with similar objectives by jointly support the existing ASWAp-SP which is implemented using country systems by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MoAFS). The breakdown of contributions from the donors to the MDTF is as follows: European Union (28,890,000 Euros); Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (220,000,000 Norwegian Kroners); United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (14,175,000 British Pounds); Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Republic of Ireland (14,000,000 Euros); Flanders International Cooperation Agency (5,300,000 Euros); and United States Agency for International Development (US$2.5 million).
The ASWAp-SP has four components: Component 1: Institutional Development, will strengthen the capacity of the MoAFS to develop and implement systems for management of the sector and to establish a Sector Wide Approach (SWAp); Component 2: Sustainable Smallholder Productivity Growth, is aimed at sustainable increase of land, water and nutrient use efficiency, in maize based smallholder production systems; Component 3: Project Coordination is aimed at ensuring efficient use of resources, in accordance with the project’s objectives and procedures and, Component 4 Improvement and maintenance of unpaved rural roads.
The objective of AF2 is to scale up on-going activities with particular attention to: (a) Strengthening MoAFS administrative systems, particularly at the district level with a stronger focus on monitoring and evaluation systems; and strengthening MoAFS's capacity to implement the ASWAp; (b) Enhancing FISP organization and implementation, monitoring and evaluation, with a stronger focus on maize and legumes seeds availability; (c) Increasing the nationwide coverage of research and extension activities to reach out to more farmers and to increase FISP payoffs and sustainable impact on smallholders; and (d) Improving the efficiency of agricultural research and extension services while promoting a more pluralistic approach to delivering these services.
In addition, the AF2 will also help develop the following additional activities: (a) Diversification of the maize-based production systems by: (i) extending the current research and extension approach to increase the adoption rate of selected technologies, diversified crops (cereals, roots and tubers, pulses and leguminous, agro-forestry products, etc.) and livestock production by farmers; and (ii) improving crop production and marketing, and ensuring availability of sufficient certified seeds to meet increasing demand both within and outside of FISP; (b) Improve the agricultural business environment and promote agribusiness partnerships in support of agricultural diversification with a more market oriented agriculture and integration into agricultural value chains and regional markets; and (c) Improve market access to the most productive agricultural areas through the improvement and sustainable maintenance of feeder roads.
Part of the proceeds of the ASWAp-SP will be directed towards the development of an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP), which is fundamentally a progressive environmentally friendly approach to pest management. The IPMP ensures safety, efficiency, and amounts to pragmatically wise pest management acumen.
Consultation with a wide range of people and institutions were conducted and revealed that inadequate funding is the primary challenge to the establishment of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Systems. This IPMP provides steps towards the establishment of IPM approaches to the project impact districts as follows:
1. Identification of the implementation team;
2. Deciding on scale of implementation;
3. Setting goals and measurable objectives for the IPM program;
4. Analysis of current housekeeping, maintenance and pest control practices;
5. Establishing a systems for regular IPM inspections;
6. Defining treatment selection policy;
7. Establishing communication protocols;
8. Developing worker training plans and policies; and
9. Tracking progress and rewarding success
This IPMP investigates several alternatives for pesticide control, including biological treatment, mechanical and manual methods with the ultimate objective of reducing the application of chemical pesticides and replacing them with more environmentally friendly options.
As part of the ASWAp-SP’s objectives to strengthen MoAFS’ capacities, AF2 will provide adequate resources to deliver additional training that extend to 5 new districts, namely Karonga, Kasungu, Machinga, Nsanje and Phalombe. More specifically, provisions have been made to deliver more training on IPM at the grassroots level to front line staff and farmers.
i
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 THE NATIONAL CONTEXT
Malawi has a population of about 13 million and is one of the poorest countries in the world; with average per capita income of only US$170. 52 percent of the population lives below the poverty line (Integrated Household Survey2004/2005); and poverty rates have only marginally improved since the 1997/98 household survey. GDP per capita incomes increased at only one percent annual rate between 1996 and 2005.
One of the consequences of the prevailing poverty situation is persistently high malnutrition. Approximately 43% of the children are stunted, and 22% are underweight.
1.2 THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR
Agriculture remains the main source of growth and exports in Malawi. With 85 percent of the population residing in the rural areas, the sector accounts for over 80 percent of the country’s employment, over one-third of GDP, and about 80 percent of merchandise exports.
The primary staple food for most of these households is maize. Over 70 percent of all farmers in the country cultivate less than one hectare (ha) and a significant number of these farmers still struggle to produce enough food to meet their annual consumption requirements.
The country continues to experience dry spells, especially in the southern region, rendering a significant number of households in these regions perpetually food insecure. In areas where production has been good, poor roads have often prevented the marketing of surpluses.
With the current low prices in the tobacco market, Malawi is facing a dramatic decrease in export revenues, leading to severe foreign exchange constraints, while leaving many tobacco farmers in need of alternative sources of cash income.
There is thus an urgent need to help the country to diversify the maize and tobacco-based production systems, and to encourage traditional (often subsistence) smallholder farmers to engage in more market oriented agriculture, through better market access and integration into agricultural value chains.
High population density and poverty have led to significant pressure and degradation of Malawi’s natural resource base (land, water and forests). The growing population increases the land area under cultivation and exploits forests and woodlands for firewood and charcoal production. Deforestation, resulting in increased incidences of soil erosion, run-off and flash floods, and sedimentation are serious threats to the environment and natural resource base. These problems are a direct result of unsustainable land use and management practices, and increased use of chemical fertilizers without complementary soil conservation measures.
Malawi’s agricultural development strategy is detailed in the Agricultural Sector Wide Approach (ASWAp) investment plan drafted by the Government of the Republic of Malawi (GoM) together with its Development Partners. The largest and most costly investment program in the sector is the Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP) targeted towards the poorer households, to attain food security. Notwithstanding the success of FISP, rates of malnutrition and especially stunting levels among children, remain high.
1.3 THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR WIDE APPROACH SUPPORT PROJECT (ASWAP-SP)
The main development goal of the Government is food security. This goal is described in the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) in terms of two medium term outcomes: