1

LOCUST EMERGENCY PREVENTION AND

MANAGEMENT

GCP/INT/134/USAID

Locusts in Caucasus and Central Asia (CCA)

(Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan,

Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2

ACRONYMS

AFG Afghanistan

AG Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department (FAO)

AGPM Plant Production and Protection Division (FAO)

ARM Armenia

AZE Azerbaijan

CCA Caucasus and Central Asia

CIT Calliptamus italicus (Linnaeus 1758), Italian Locust

CLCPRO Commission de Lutte Contre le Criquet Pèlerin dans la Région

Occidentale (FAO) / Commission for Controlling the Desert Locust in the Western Region

CR Central Region of the distribution area of the Desert Locust

CRC Commission for Controlling the Desert Locust in the Central Region (FAO)

DCHA Bureau for Democracy Conflict prevention and Humanitarian Assistance (USAID)

DMA Dociostaurus maroccanus (Thunberg 1815), Moroccan Locust

EC Emulsifiable Concentrate

EMPRES Emergency Prevention System for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and Diseases (FAO)

EMPRES/CR EMPRES Programme in the Central Region

EMPRES/WR EMPRES Programme in the Western Region

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GEO Georgia

GIS Geographical Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

IGR Insect Growth Regulator

KAZ Kazakhstan

KYR Kyrgyzstan

LMI Locusta migratoria (Linnaeus 1758), Asian Migratory Locust

MoA Ministry of Agriculture

OFDA Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID)

PP Plant Protection

PPD Plant Protection Department

PPE Personal protective equipment

RUS The Russian Federation

SGR Schistocerca gregaria (Forskål 1775), Desert Locust

SWAC Commission for Controlling the Desert Locust in South-West Asia (FAO)

TAJ Tajikistan

TCP Technical Cooperation Programme (FAO)

3

ToT Training of Trainers

TUK Turkmenistan

ULV Ultra-Low Volume

UN United Nations

USAID United States Agency for International Development

UZB Uzbekistan

VIZR Institute All-Russian Plant Protection Institute (the Russian Federation)

WR Western Region of the distribution area of the Desert Locust

4

CONTENTS

1. Executive summary (four components)..............................................................................5

2. Background (four components)...........................................................................................6

2.1. General.................................................................................................................................6 2.2. Locusts in Caucasus and Central Asia.................................................................................7 3. Problem statement (CCA)....................................................................................................7

3.1. Locust control in CCA: past and present situations.............................................................7 3.2. Main challenges...................................................................................................................8 3.3. FAO’s response....................................................................................................................9 4. Objectives (CCA)................................................................................................................10

5. Expected results (CCA)......................................................................................................10

6. Responsibilities, indicators, sources of verification and assumptions (CCA)...............11

7. Budget (CCA)......................................................................................................................11

8. Risks (CCA).........................................................................................................................12

9. Project Reporting (CCA)....................................................................................................12

ANNEXES................................................................................................................................13

ANNEX A. Locusts in CCA – Logical framework..................................................................13 ANNEX B. Locusts in CCA - Budget: Breakdown by result and year....................................18 ANNEX C. Locusts in CCA - Budget: Breakdown by budget line and year...........................20 ANNEX D. Global budget for the four components ...............................................................21

5

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (four components)

Programme Title: Locust emergency prevention and management Country/Region: Global Disaster/Hazard: 1. Locust threats to food security and livelihoods of rural

populations; 2. Adverse impact of locust control operations on human

health and environment safety; 3. Adverse impact of mismanagement of obsolete and useable toxic pesticides on human health and the environment.

Beneficiary groups: - Vulnerable rural populations whose crops and other

assets are under constant locust threats; - Herders whose livestock are in competition with

locusts in infested rangelands; - Vulnerable communities living in rural areas whose

health and environment can be adversely impacted by inappropriate locust control operations;

- Producers and consumers from the concerned countries whose food safety and agricultural exports will be improved thanks to appropriate pesticides management;

- MoA or National Locust Control Units’ staff whose knowledge will be refreshed and enhanced - National and international non-governmental organizations whose capacities will be reinforced by playing a key role in awareness rising on pesticide misuse and their impact on human health and natural resources.

Estimated number of beneficiaries 95 millions (rural populations living in locust affected

areas) Dollar amount requested from OFDA: USD 3 million Dollar amount requested this year USD 700,000 Distribution by components: Component 1 – Locusts in Caucasus and Central Asia

(CCA): USD 1,660,000 Component 2 - Desert Locust (EMPRES/Phase II) in the Western Region: USD 490,000 Component 3 - Desert Locust in the Central Region, Horn of Africa: USD 380,000 Component 4 – Sound management and use of pesticides in locust control: USD 470,000

Project start date April 2011 Period of activity: April 2011 to March 2016 Project Executing Agency/ Implementing Partner: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO)

6

2. BACKGROUND (four components)

2.1. General

Consistent with its mandate, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) plays an important role in coordinating efforts to manage locust issues at global level. In particular, it provides technical assistance for supporting adequate and timely locust monitoring, introducing less hazardous pesticides and updated techniques for locust control operations and promoting their use, thus safeguarding human health and the environment, and developing regional cooperation for dealing with these transboundary plant pests. This role is partly ensured in the framework of the Emergency Prevention System for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and Disease (EMPRES) Programme, which was initiated in 1994 by the Director-General of FAO. The specific objective of the component dedicated to the Desert Locust1 was to reduce risks of Desert Locust upsurges, thus helping to fight poverty, build food security and preserve the environment. In the framework of the EMPRES (Desert Locust Component) Programme, locust preventive approach was first implemented in nine countries around the Red Sea, known as the Central Region (CR) of the Desert Locust distribution area2. The Programme, which started in 1997, came to an end in 2006 and its activities were handed over to the FAO Commission for Controlling the Desert Locust in the Central Region (CRC), which provides continuous support to its Member countries. Specific assistance is required for countries of the Horn of Africa, where important Desert Locust breeding areas are located in remote and sometimes inaccessible places. In West and North-West Africa, designated as the Western Region (WR) of the Desert Locust distribution area3, the EMPRES (Desert Locust Component) Programme became operational in 2006. It is coordinated by the Commission for controlling the Desert Locust in the Western Region (CLCPRO). Major progresses were made during the first phase (2006-2010), which is now coming to an end. A second phase (2011-2014) was recommended by the Mid-term evaluation of EMPRES/WR and requested by the concerned countries, in order to consolidate the main achievements of Phase I and ensure the sustainability of the locust preventive approach in the WR. The EMPRES Programme is also being extended to Caucasus and Central Asia (CCA)4, following requests from the concerned countries. A major effort is required to meet such requests and implement locust preventive approach in these relatively new FAO Member countries, where locusts are becoming a growing issue, and to improve locust management, both at national and regional levels. An important cross-cutting issue, which concerns pesticide management related to locust control, aims at reducing or eliminating associated risks and building capacities for the

1 Schistocerca gregaria (Forskål 1775). 2 Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. 3 Algeria, Chad, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal and Tunisia. 4 Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia; Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; Adjacent concerned countries: Afghanistan (northern part) and Russian Federation (southern part).

7

elimination of obsolete pesticide stockpiles and prevention of their further accumulation. In this regard, FAO has developed a comprehensive strategy for effective and safe management of pesticides used against locusts. The strategy was implemented in West and North-West Africa over the past five years. There is a need for further support to improve pesticide management in a sustainable way. As more and more counties request for the establishment of this strategy, it will be extended to other parts of the world, including the Red Sea region, Central Asia and the Caucasus as well as South West Asia. In November 2009, during the 36th FAO Conference, the EMPRES Programme was defined as one of the seven FAO Impact Focus Areas (IFAs) for fund mobilization. Taking into consideration the above, the present proposal includes locust pest management in Caucasus and Central Asia (Component 1), support to EMPRES/Phase II in the Western Region (Component 2), Desert Locust management in the Central Region, particularly in the Horn of Africa (Component 3) and sound pesticide management (Component 4). Components 2 and 3 particularly focus on environmental aspects, including innovative approach using alternatives to conventional chemical pesticides. Component 4 is a cross-cutting component.

2.2. Locusts in Caucasus and Central Asia

Locusts are a serious threat to agriculture in Caucasus and Central Asia. The three main locust pests present, the Italian Locust (CIT), the Moroccan Locust (DMA) and the Migratory Locust (LMI)5, have a high capacity to multiply, form groups, migrate over relatively large distances and to settle and breed in various habitats. They are opportunistic insects, able to react quickly to suitable weather and ecological conditions. Locusts have a huge distribution area. In addition, borders are located across the traditional locust habitats and breeding areas, both in Caucasus and Central Asia. During outbreaks, locusts attack a wide range of cultivated crops and other plants and jeopardize food security and livelihood. More than 25 million hectares of cultivated areas are under direct threat and at least 20 million people are at risk in the concerned area. The most affected populations are often the most vulnerable communities living in the concerned rural areas, whose health and environment can moreover suffer from negative impacts of locust control operations.

3. PROBLEM STATEMENT (CCA)

3.1. Locust control in CCA: past and present situations In the Soviet era (1917-1990), locust control was the responsibility of the Federal Government and implemented through the Plant Protection Service (PPS), which conducted locust surveys and control operations in all CCA republics. All locust activities were centrally funded. The transparency of administrative borders facilitated locust control across the republics. Massive areas, averaging 1 million ha and 2 million ha per year were sprayed from 1950-1960 and 1970-1980, respectively. The numbers peaked to over 4 million ha in outbreak years in 1989 and 1990. The situation changed after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, when the eight former Soviet Republics gained their independence (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan). A major difference was the newly-

5 Calliptamus italicus (Linnaeus 1758); Dociostaurus maroccanus (Thunberg 1815); Locusta migratoria

migratoria (Linnaeus 1758).

8

created state boundaries, which precluded from timely and efficient locust monitoring and control operations across the borders. The situation was aggravated by the total destruction of the Soviet PPS, which severely impaired all phytosanitary activities, including locust survey and control. The independent republics faced significant economic, social and political challenges. From 1991 to 1999, locust infested areas increased 5 to 10-fold in most CCA countries. This occurred partly because significant areas of formerly arable land were abandoned: weedy fallows favored breeding and increase of locust numbers. The young countries did not have sufficient means to adequately address the situation. The unprecedented 1999-2000 upsurge of the Italian Locust therefore resulted from the abandonment of vast areas of cultivated lands and insufficient related control, together with severe drought in the preceding years. Over 10 million ha were treated in the former Soviet Republics of Central Asia in 2000, including 8.1 million ha in Kazakhstan alone, where 220 000 ha of cereal crops were destroyed, with an estimated damage of USD 15 million. After 2000, locust operations started to improve gradually in most countries, with plant protection services restored to some extent6, increased funding for pest control, including locusts, and establishment of legal base for phytosanitary activities. As of today, all countries collect locust information to monitor locust situations but analysis and forecast are not carried out everywhere although it is crucial for early warning and early reaction. Full cover spraying of conventional chemical pesticides remains the predominant method to control locusts. The commonly used pesticides are non selective (broad spectrum) and their formulation is water-based (emulsifiable concentrate -EC), which requires huge quantities of water. Ready-to-use ultra-low volume (ULV) formulations are still marginal. Considerations for human health and environmental issues are still sparse although new alternatives to conventional chemical insecticides such as Insect Growth Regulators are available. Some level of mitigation measures are being practiced but monitoring spraying operations and impact assessment are rarely conducted. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, locust control operations have been carried out at the national level with little or no cooperation between countries although it has improved since 2000. Despite the overall improvement of the anti-locust situation, significant increases have been witnessed in locust infested areas since 2006 in the CCA region. The locust situation deteriorated with recurring droughts in the beginning of the twenty-first century. Locust species are indeed becoming more dangerous in the context of exceptional weather events associated with climate change because of their bio-ecological characteristics (adaptability and reactivity). Overall, there was an increase of 63 per cent of the infested areas in the five Central Asian countries between 2006 and 2009, from 2.7 million to 4.4 million ha. Similar trend exist in the adjacent countries, i.e. Afghanistan and the Russian Federation, as well as in Azerbaijan.

3.2. Main challenges

In 2006-2008, Caucasian and Central Asian countries sent official requests for assistance to FAO, at national and regional levels7. They raised concerns about the current response to locust outbreaks and related impact on food security, and stressed the transboundary nature of

6 However, none of the concerned countries has a specific unit dedicated to locusts. 7 Written requests were received from Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan and the Russian Federation verbally expressed its interest.

9

these pests, thus highlighting the two main challenges currently faced in locust management, as described hereafter. The first major challenge is that national capacities must be strengthened as they are most often still insufficient to adequately address locust issues. The situation is highly variable from one country to another, depending on availability of funds, new technologies and technical expertise. The main issue is that techniques are most often outdated (and therefore neither the most efficient ones nor the most appropriate in terms of impact on human health, environment and biodiversity, timeliness and logistics). Indeed, contacts of CCA countries with other parts of the world have been scarce and most countries have not kept up with progresses, especially in the latest twenty years; there is a gap in terms of innovations. As a result, a major concern is to create or update competencies for better addressing locust issues, with particular attention to human health and environment aspects. This is also particularly important because agricultural production systems are vital to the viability and growth of the young CCA republics, which increasingly rely on agriculture; their stability is prone to disturbances by several external pressures, including locust outbreaks, and has to be preserved. The other major challenge is that only a regional approach will allow successful locust management. The fact that political borders are situated across locust traditional habitats and breeding areas means that when a country is facing locust infestations or outbreaks, it is more than likely than neighboring countries have to deal with similar situation. In addition, because of their migratory nature, locusts frequently cross countries’ political borders during their daily back and forth movements and as swarm flights. So, even if a country has the capacity to carry out appropriate control operations on its national territory, it will not be protected from locust infestations arriving from neighboring countries. As such, locusts also represent a source of tensions at regional level. In other words, it is impossible to solve locust issues in one single country or, alternatively, a country cannot address locust issues in a sustainable way without collaboration with the neighboring ones. The positive changes in the anti-locust national managements, the fact that all countries have a plant protection unit able to absorb external resources to improve locust management, and the first steps undertaken towards cooperation in CCA since the early 2000s open the way for substantial improvements, including through effective regional cooperation.

3.3. FAO’s response

In order to meet the above-mentioned countries’ requests, FAO initiated a process for assessing the needs, which was funded by the FAO Regular Programme, a FAO regional Technical Cooperation Project (TCP)8 and the United States Agency for International Development, Office of US Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID/OFDA)9. This process included: the collection of technical, institutional and legal information on national locust

8 FAO project TCP/INT/3202 (D), funded by the FAO Technical Cooperation Programme, is entitled “Improving management of Migratory and other locusts in the Caucasus and Central Asia”, concerns nine countries (Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) and has a two-year duration (February 2009-March 2011). It was intended as a first tool towards improved locust management in CCA, with the objective to launch regional cooperation. This included the definition by all countries of ways and modalities to improve national and regional locust management, which was done during the Regional Consultation on Locust Management in CCA. 9 Upon USAID agreement, funds from project GCP/INT/967/USA were dedicated to the funding of the assessment missions in CCA.

10

situations and management in ten countries (2008-09); the preparation of the Analytical

Report on locust situations and management in Caucasus and Central Asia (2009); and the discussion with all countries on the Five-year Programme for improving national and regional locust management in CCA, during the Regional Consultation on Locust Management in

Caucasus and Central Asia (October 2009, Almaty, Kazakhstan). This Programme is part of EMPRES and is therefore based on the key concepts of locust preventive control. It was built to respond specific CCA needs and requirements but the lessons learnt during the implementation of EMPRES (Desert Locust) were also into account. The Programme was endorsed by all countries during the Regional Consultation10. Multi-donor funding is sought.

4. OBJECTIVES (CCA)

The strategic objective of the five-year regional Programme is to contribute to food security and the livelihoods of rural populations in Caucasus and Central Asia by preventing, controlling and limiting the threats posed by locust and damage to crops and rangelands. Its immediate objective is to improve national and regional locust management in ten countries of Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia), Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) and adjacent areas (Afghanistan and the Russian Federation).

5. EXPECTED RESULTS (CCA)

The present proposal includes five main results to be achieved, as follows:

• Result 1: Regional cooperation developed for better locust management

• Result 2: National capacities strengthened

• Result 3: Locust issues and disasters better anticipated and mitigated

• Result 4: Improved response mechanisms to locust outbreaks

• Result 5: Impact on human health and the environment mitigated and monitored The Five-year Programme also includes a sixth Result 611 but related activities are not included in the present proposal.

10 Nine countries participated in this meeting, namely: Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as well as the Russian Federation as an observer. Turkmenistan did not attend this Regional Consultation due to National Independence Day celebrations at the same dates. However, comments of the Five-year Programme had been received prior the Regional Consultation. The version endorsed by countries, which was sent to the national authorities after the meeting, is currently under review at national level. 11 Public information and awareness increased.

11

6. RESPONSIBILITIES, INDICATORS, SOURCES OF VERIFICATION AND

ASSUMPTIONS (CCA)

Overall and budgetary responsibility for the EMPRES Programme, which is a Special Programme of FAO Director-General, rests with the Plant Production and Protection Division (AGPM) at FAO Headquarters. This includes extension of EMPRES to CCA. During the Regional Consultation on locust management in CCA, held in Kazakhstan in October 2010, the whole Five-year Programme was discussed and endorsed by countries. Coordination of the Five-year Programme will be ensured from FAO Headquarters (AGPM) in line with the preference expressed by the countries themselves and because there are two regions.

7. BUDGET (CCA)

The overall amount of funds being requested for the proposal for the four components, is USD 3,000,000. Budget breakdown by line item and year is provided in Annex E.

Concerning the Five-year Programme in order to improve locust management in CCA, the overall budget required is of USD7,8 million covering ten countries during a five-year period (2011-2015). It is expected that it will be multi-funded. So far, there is a two-year project funded by the FAO Technical Cooperation Programme, entitled “Improving management of Migratory and other locusts in the Caucasus and Central Asia”, of USD 322,000. Discussions are ongoing with various donors concerning the funding of the Five-year Programme. The budget submitted to USAID for funding is of USD 1,660,000. Details are provided in Annexes A.2 and A.3 (budget breakdown by result and by budget line).

12

8. RISKS (CCA)

Risk Impact Probability Mitigation

Major CIT or DMA or LMI outbreaks in several countries of the Caucasus or Central Asia.

Unavailability of technical staff to participate in regional activities, which could hamper exchange of information and functioning of regional network.

Medium Facilitate immediate and extensive exchange of information between countries and with donors; obtain data from infested and other countries to get an overview of the regional locust situation.

Major LMI outbreaks elsewhere (for ex. Madagascar, South-west Asia).

FAO Locust Officer less or no more available for CCA.

Medium to high

Recruitment of appropriate consultant for assistance.

Major Desert Locust upsurge in the Western Region (West or North-west Africa).

FAO Locust Officer only partially available for CCA.

Low Recruitment of appropriate consultant for assistance.

Unavailability of human resources, including national and international experts, translators and interpreters.

Unavailability of national experts could hamper exchange of information/ regional network. Unavailability of international consultants would delay planned provision of assistance.

Low Regularly update a roster of relevant persons or institutions.

Conflicts between countries or internal troubles.

No data from insecure areas.

Low to medium

Gather historical data and information from neighbouring areas to continue monitoring the regional situation and establishing regional strategy.

9. PROJECT REPORTING (CCA)

Periodic progress reports will be sent to the donor in line with FAO procedures. At the end of the project, a terminal report will be prepared by the executing agency. Other reports may also be provided, as mentioned hereafter.

• Reports of workshop and meetings (also posted on the bilingual website “Locust Watch in Caucasus and Central Asia”12);

• Mission reports of international and national consultants (available upon requests);

• Regular updates on the locust situations in CCA (also available on the website); in case of locust emergency, alerts will be issued without delay and donor immediately informed;

• End-of-Programme evaluation report.

12 http://www.fao.org/ag/locusts-CCA/en/index.html

13

ANNEXES

ANNEX A. LOCUSTS IN CCA - LOGICAL FRAMEWORK

(Out of the whole Programme, results and activities submitted for funding only)

Title TOWARDS BETTER NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LOCUST MANAGEMENT IN CAUCASUS AND CENTRAL ASIA

Principal Objective

Enhance protection of crops and rangeland and therefore contribute to safeguard on a long-term basis food security and livelihood of highly vulnerable rural communities in Caucasus and Central Asia (CCA)

Intervention Logic & Responsibilities Objectively Verifiable Indicators Sources-verification Risks and Assumptions

Specific Objective

Improve national and regional locust management in Caucasus and Central Asia to reduce occurrence and intensity of locust outbreaks

Locust outbreaks are better anticipated and responded, in the respect of human health and the environment

Programme final report (gathering the detailed sources mentioned below)

Upsurge in CCA or several simultaneous locust in-country emergencies

Result 1 Regional cooperation developed for better locust

management

Cooperation is effective thanks to circulation of locust information and coordination of activities in CCA

Programme final report

Activity 1.1.

1.1. Facilitate regional exchanges to manage locust situations 1.1.1. Establish and maintain regular sharing of standardized data: Use regularly standardized survey and control forms (Resp. Countries); Issue standard monthly national bulletins (Resp. Countries &

FAO) and monthly regional bulletins (Resp. FAO) 1.1.2. Allow direct experience exchange to the mutual benefit of the concerned countries and discussions on lessons learnt from last campaign(s) and preparation of the next one, programme implementation, including joint activities, latest developments in the field of locust management, etc. (Resp. FAO)

1.1.1. Standardized information collected with approved survey and control forms is available in all countries during locust seasons. National monthly bulletins (in Russian with English summary) are timely issued & distributed from March to October as well as Regional bulletins (in English) 1.1.2. Five regional technical workshops organized; direct communication and exchange of information and advice occur between technicians who know each other

1.1.1. Filled-in forms (in Russian or national languages); eight-ten annual bulletins issued in each country and at regional level 1.1.2. Technical workshop reports, including list of participants, and FAO Website

Countries do not provide timely and pertinent information to the staff in charge of preparation of national and regional bulletins

14

Activity 1.2.

1.2. Develop coordination including through transboundary policy 1.2.1. Promote coordination for implementation of national survey and control plans, in particular in border areas (Resp. Countries) 1.2.2. Facilitate cross-border activities and intra-regional assistance: Conclude bilateral or multilateral specific agreements for simplifying joint activities; Organize bilateral or multilateral working groups for coordinating joint activities; Transfer teams and equipment from one country to another when needed (Resp. Countries, with FAO assistance)

1.2.1 National survey and control plans effectively implemented after exchanges on appropriate timing and location 1.2.2. Bilateral working groups meet for coordinating joint activities. Teams and equipment are transferred from one country to another if needs arise. Bilateral or multilateral specific agreements are concluded for simplifying joint activities

1.2.1. Timetable for main activities 1.2.2. Minutes of joint working groups’ meetings. Reports on logistic aspects (transfer and use of equipment). Bi or multilateral agreements

Countries do not prepare or distribute annual survey & control plans

Activity 1.3.

1.3. Identify the best long-tem solution for sustainable regional cooperation through a comprehensive study on various possible options –including the creation of a FAO Locust Commission, take related decision and define next step (Resp.

FAO)

A study evaluating all solutions to ensure sustainability of regional cooperation after the five-year Programme, with all financial and non-financial implications is available; Decision is taken by countries during an ad-hoc meeting and related actions are defined

Study report on various possible solutions; Meeting’ report

Result 2 National capacities strengthened

National staff knowledge and techniques are improved and updated; Technicians have specialized locust information at their disposal; New specialists are available in CCA; Applied research is developed

Results of end-of-training assessment; Final report of the programme

Activity 2.1.

2.1. Make available and accessible background documentation and literature on the three locust pests, through preparation of specific guidelines on the Italian Locust (CIT), the Moroccan Locust (DMA) (Resp. FAO)

Guidelines on the three pests are produced and translated

Guidelines Availability of experts for preparation of guidelines

Activity 2.2.

2.3. Allow internships (Resp. FAO) Seven locust officers make a one-month internship abroad

Reports

Less than eight/ten officers available

15

Result 3 Locust issues and disasters better anticipated and

mitigated

Shorter duration and smaller geographical extension of locust outbreaks

Programme final report

Activity 3.1.

3.1. Improve survey operations for better field locust monitoring 3.1.1. Strengthen human capacities through technical advice on survey techniques and information management (Resp. FAO) 3.1.2. Strengthen related operational capacities through provision of upgraded positioning, communication & survey equipment/tools, office material and transportation means (Resp. FAO)

3.1.1. Regular assistance provided by FAO experts; at least three countries receive technical visits; national surveys regularly undertaken by well-trained officers are accurately documented 3.1.2. Relevant positioning, communication, survey, office equipment/tools and transportation means (motorcycles) delivered

3.1.1. Exchanges with FAO experts; Missions’ reports 3.1.2. Progress and final reports

Not enough locust information specialists for surveys and data management

Activity 3.2.

3.2. Organize regular joint cross-border surveys (Resp. Countries with FAO assistance)

At least ten joint cross-border surveys are carried out

Joint cross-border reports

Teams’ availability (no in-country emergency; sufficient human resources); Agreement on preliminary steps (workplan, etc.)

Activity 3.3.

3.3. Develop monitoring and analyzing systems 3.3.1. Extend use of Geographical Information System (GIS) and remote sensing through (a) study of existing GIS and remote sensing data at national level, (b) identification of regional compatible GIS, (c) design and (d) installation in two pilot countries (Resp. FAO) 3.3.2. Improve forecasting, including through appropriate operational use of the newly developed tools (Resp. FAO)

3.3.1. (a) Analysis on existing national GIS as well as information on nature and availability of national remote sensing and weather data are available (b) Main features of regionally compatible GIS system are identified during ad hoc workshop (c) GIS system is subsequently designed/ adapted (d) It is installed in at least two pilot countries 3.3.2. Regional workshop is organized, resulting in improved knowledge and analysis and better forecasting

3.3.1. (a) Reports of the GIS specialist and ten remote sensing experts (b, c & d) Minutes of regional workshop; mission reports of national and international consultants 3.3.2. Minutes of the regional workshop; National monthly bulletins

Availability of GIS specialist and sufficient number of remote sensing experts. Incompatibility of existing national GIS, well-know and currently used by some information officers

16

Activity 3.4.

3.4. Enhance preparedness for risk reduction through harmonized national contingency plans (Resp. FAO & pilot countries)

3.4. (a) A common contingency plan strategy/canvass is formulated; (b) It is proposed to countries, discussed and agreed on during a regional workshop; (c) National plans are prepared in four pilot countries, on the basis of the agreed canvass; (d) Lessons drawn are shared with all CCA countries

Minutes of the workshop on contingency plans; Minutes of the annual technical workshops; Consultant’ report

Availability of contingency planning/risk management specialist(s)

Result 4 Improved response mechanisms to locust

outbreaks

Reduced damage due to locust outbreaks and use of less harmful pesticides and alternatives to conventional pesticides

Programme final report

Activity 4.1.

4.1. Allow early reaction and appropriate control operations 4.1.1. Strengthen human capacities through policy advice and technical assistance on spraying operations and control campaign in the respect of human health and the environment (Resp. FAO) 4.1.2. Strengthen operational capacities through provision of up-to-date control equipment (Resp.

FAO 4.1.3. Enhance public-private partnership for early reaction, implementation of adequate control operations in the respect of good agricultural practices, and appropriate reporting (Resp.

countries, with FAO assistance)

4.1.1. Regular exchanges with FAO experts; At least four countries receive technical visits; Spraying in the respect of human health and the environment is documented 4.1.2. Relevant control equipment is delivered to countries, incl. Ultra-Low Volume (ULV) spraying material and protective clothing 4.1.3. Round tables organized with all partners in at least three countries. Guidelines and incentives provided to private sector for respect of good practices

4.1.1. Exchanges with FAO experts; Workshop reports; Missions’ reports 4.1.2. Progress and final reports 4.1.3. Reports; media articles/shots on successful control; public tenders

Availability of locust control/ spraying specialists

Activity 4.2.

4.2. Promote less harmful pesticides and alternatives to conventional pesticides 4.2.1. Encourage use of ULV formulations and related techniques (Resp. FAO)

4.2.2. Propose alternatives to conventional pesticides (Resp. FAO)

4.2.3. Encourage registration of more pesticides (Resp. countries, with FAO assistance)

4.2.1. All countries have been informed and trained on ULV technology; a video on ULV spraying is available 4.2.2. All countries have been informed on alternatives to conventional pesticides; A demonstration is organized in CCA, duly documented and results are communicated to all CCA countries; less environmentally hazardous pesticides (e.g. Insect

4.2.1. Exchanges with FAO experts; ToT and workshop reports; Missions’ reports; Progress/final reports; Video on ULV spraying 4.2.2. Workshop reports; Missions’

Availability of locust spraying specialists No locust populations suitable for demonstration Complex and long national registration process

17

Growth Regulators - IGRs) are delivered and used in case of outbreak 4.2.3. Minimum list of pesticides for locust control, including less environmentally harmful compounds and formulations, is defined for national registration in CCA. Process for registration of more pesticides is launched at national level

reports; Progress and final reports 4.2.3. Workshop reports; Exchanges with FAO experts and information from countries

Result 5 Impact on human health and the environment

mitigated and monitored

No health or environmental issues result from monitored control operations

Programme final report

Activity 5.1.

5.1. Mitigate impact of locust control operations on human health and the environment (Resp. FAO)

Field staff well informed and trained, including during ToT; At least four countries have received ad hoc technical assistance on human health and the environment; Protective clothing delivered and used by field staff

Missions’ reports; National bulletins;

Availability of human health and environment specialists

Activity 5.2.

5.2. Monitor impact of locust control operations on human health and the environment through (a) impact assessments and (b) analysis of collected material (Resp. Countries and FAO)

a) Impact assessment conducted by well-equipped national teams, in four countries b) Analysis of collected material and insect identification carried out in relevant laboratory and research centre

Missions’ reports; Assessments’ results; Analysis results

Appropriate well-trained staff identified and available

18

ANNEX B. LOCUSTS IN CCA - BUDGET : BREAKDOWN BY RESULT AND YEAR

Results Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

RESULT 1 Regional cooperation 566,000

1.1. Facilitate regional exchanges to manage locust situations 516,000

1.1.1 National and regional monthly bulletins (issued every year from March to October) 156,000 58,900 18,900 26,100 26,100 26,000

1.1.2 Annual workshops 360,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000

1.2. Develop coordination, including through transboundary policy 0

1.2.1. Promote coordination for implementation of national survey and control plans 0 (no additional costs)

1.2.2. Facilitate cross-border activities and intra-regional assistance 0 (no additional costs)

1.3. Identify the best long-tem solution for sustainable regional cooperation (workshop) 50,000 50,000

RESULT 2 National capacities strengthened 114,000

2.2. Make available background documentation and literature on the three locust pests Prepare guidelines on the three locust pests

51,000 17,000 17,000 17,000

2.3. Internships (7 locust specialists) 63,000 9,000 18,000 18,000 18,000

RESULT 3 Locust issues and disasters better anticipated and mitigated 431,000

3.1. Improve survey operations for better field locust monitoring 104,000

3.1.1. Strengthen human capacities (techn. consultations on survey in 3 countries) 60,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

3.1.2. Strengthen operational capacities with survey equipment: GPS, Entomo kits, SatPhone

44,000 44,000

3.2. Organize 10 cross-border surveys 67,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500 13,500

3.3. Develop monitoring and analyzing systems 183,500

3.3.1. Extend use of Geographical Information System and remote sensing

119,000

(a) Investigation on GIS and Remote sensing 55,000

(b) Regional workshop on GIS (4d) 47,000

(c) Design/Adapt GIS compatible at regional level 10,000

(d) Installation of newly defined GIS in 2 pilot countries 7,000

3.3.2 Improve forecasting 64,500 64,500

3.4. Enhance preparedness for risk reduction through harmonized national contingency plans

76,000

76,000

19

RESULT 4 Improved response mechanisms to locust outbreaks 182,000

4.1. Allow early reaction and appropriate control operations 99,000

4.1.1 Strengthen human capacities (techn. consultations on control in 4 countries) 42,000 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500

4.1.2. Strengthen operational capacities with control equipment: control kits, sprayers, PPE

57,000 57,000

4.1.3. Enhance public-private partnership 0 (no additional costs)

4.2. Promote less harmful pesticides and alternatives to conventional pesticides 83,000

4.2.1. Develop ULV formulations and related techniques 6,000 6,000

4.2.2. Propose alternatives to conventional pesticides (demonstration) 77,000 77,000

4.2.3. Encourage registration of more pesticides 0 (no additional costs)

RESULT 5 Impact on Human Health and the Environment mitigated and monitored 133,000

5.1. Mitigate impact of locust control operations on human health and the environment 65,000 16,200 16,200 16,300 16,300

5.2. Monitor impact of locust control operations on human health and the environment 68,000 31,000 9,250 9,250 9,250 9,250

SUB-TOTAL 1 1,426,000

Technical Support Services and Reporting 96,037 22,000 16,000 23,000 14,000 21,037

Evaluation (standard provision) 15,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

SUB-TOTAL 2 1,537,037 362,400 252,350 288,550 303,650 330,087

FAO Support Costs (8%) 122,963 28,992 20,188 23,084 24,292 26,407

TOTAL 1,660,000 391,392 272,538 311,634 327,942 356,494

* Results 2 and 5 are cross-cutting issues; as a matter of fact, they are also included in the other results.

20

ANNEX C. LOCUSTS IN CCA - BUDGET : BREAKDOWN BY BUDGET LINE AND YEAR

Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total (USD)

Consultants 61,900 38,100 44,000 54,000 61,850 259,850

Contracts 0 8,000 8,000 8,000 6000 30,000

Travel 28,500 35,400 49,700 24,800 95,000 233,400

Training 72,000 138,200 136,700 136,800 140,200 623,900

Expendable Equipment

24,000 0 0 35,000 0 59,000

Non Expendable Equipment

148,000 0 0 0 0 148,000

Technical Support Services

25,000 19,000 26,000 17,000 24,037 111,037

General Operating Expenses

3,000 13,650 24,150 28,050 3,000 71,850

Sub-total 362,400 252,350 288,550 303,650 330,087 1,537,037

Support Cost (8%) 28,992 20,188 23,084 24,292 26,407 122,963

Total 391,392 272,538 311,634 327,942 356,494 1,660,000

21

ANNEX D. GLOBAL BUDGET FOR THE FOUR COMPONENTS

Component 1 – Locusts in CCA: USD 1,660,000 Component 2 - Desert Locust (EMPRES/Phase II) in the Western Region: USD 490,000 Component 3 - Desert Locust in the Central Region, Horn of Africa: USD 380,000 Component 4 – Sound management and use of pesticides in locust control: USD 470,000

Description Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total (USD)

Consultants 71,900 83,100 54,000 64,000 61,850 334,850

Contracts 25,000 33,000 113,000 28,000 26,000 225,000

Travel 57,500 57,400 60,700 34,800 95,000 305,400

Training 141,500 220,700 243,200 191,300 179,700 976,400

Expendable Equipment

49,000 105,000 20,000 55,000 0 229,000

Non Expendable Equipment

203,000 9,000 55,000 8,000 0 275,000

Technical Support Services

55,248 42,298 49,950 30,183 32,599 210,278

General Operating Expenses

45,000 97,650 29,150 47,050 3,000 221,850

Sub-total 648,148 648,148 625,000 458,333 398,149 2,777,778

Support Cost (8%) 51,852 51,852 50,000 36,667 31,852 222,222

Total 700,000 700,000 675,000 495,000 430,000 3,000,000