Army worm crisis in Africa.

1. Tackling the Fall Armyworm Crisis in Africa
through Accelerated Deployment of Proven
IPM Technologies

2.  FAW first reported in September
2016 in West Africa
 Later reported in Central, Southern
and East African regions; (23 of
the 54 countries in Africa)
 Maize most affected in all invaded
countries. FAW affects >80 hosts
incl sorghum, rice, wheat etc
 High economic & environmental
cost to governments & farmers
using cocktail of pesticides (mostly
class 1 & class 2)
Invasion of FAW into Africa

3. Rapid Spread of Fall Armyworm in Africa
December 2017

4. FAW extent vs Host crop Extent

5. Estimated value of annual maize yield loss

6. Historical attempts at FAW management
FAW native for several decades in
North and S. America and
reasonably managed
Ecological & economic contexts
quite different but lessons to be
learnt
Sustainable management of FAW
needs a multi-stakeholder
approach
Farmers need immediate advice,
tools, resources, risk management
& conducive environment to
sustainably manage FAW.

7. Proposed IPM options for FAW in Africa
Low-cost agronomic practices and habitat management
for sustainable cropping intensification (including
cereal-legume intercropping, push-pull strategy);
Effective crop monitoring and scouting of the fields for
timely detection and effective interventions;
Biorational pesticides (including botanical pesticides
such as Neem, Melia), and biopesticides (e.g., Bt and
baculoviruses).
Biological control agents (egg/larval/pupal parasitoids
and predators); native trait-based conventional FAW
resistant maize cultivars in Africa-adapted genetic
germplasm; and other biopesticides within 1-2 years

8. Objective 1: Creating an enabling environment to effectively
access and scale-up proven technologies / practices for IPM-
based sustainable management of FAW
1.1: Identify country-specific strengths/constraints for
effective access to proven FAW management
technologies / practices, and potential for rapid scaling-
up and deployment
1.2: Engage policy makers and development partners to
address country-specific technical/policy constraints to
access and scale-up relevant environmentally-safer
technologies/practices, and discourage use of highly
hazardous synthetic pesticides

9. Objective 2: Disseminating FAW monitoring, scouting and
surveillance tools at the community and farmer levels
2.1: Effectively use mobile-based communication tools in
local languages for FAW monitoring, scouting,
surveillance and rapid response, including exchange of
geo-referenced data in real-time, in conjunction with the
use of pheromone traps
2.2: Establish functional community-based FAW
monitoring and surveillance system in each of the target
countries in partnership with public and private sector
partners

10. Objective 3: Scaling-up and deployment of proven IPM-based
FAW management technologies / practices, through public-
private partnerships
3.1: Registration, scaling-up and deployment of Bt- and
Baculovirus-based biopesticides through PPPs
3.2: Establish/strengthen local capacities for scaling-up
and adoption of biorationals
3.3: Develop and implement appropriate Quality
Assessment/Quality Control (QA/QC) standards for
biopesticides and biorationals
3.4: Large-scale area-wide demonstrations of FAW
management technologies/practices as an IPM package

11. Objective 4: Strengthening communication and capacities of
local and regional partners, for effective and sustainable
scale-up and adoption of IPM-based FAW management
technologies / practices
4.1: Develop and disseminate country-specific FAW
management decision guides & communication materials
4.2: Organize Country-level Training of Trainers
Workshops
4.3: Establish a “FAW Information Portal” for sharing of
up-to-date information on FAW in Africa
4.4: Organize Regional Workshops annually for exchange
of relevant information on FAW management strategies

12. Target Countries/Beneficiaries
Sub-
Region
Country Area under
maize
production
(in '000 ha)
Target area
for FAW
intervention
(in ha)
Average area
(in ha) under
maize per
household
(HH)
Number of
HH
benefitted
Average HH
size
Number of
target
beneficiaries
WCA
Nigeria 5,788 868,000 0.50
1,736,000 11 19,096,000
Ghana 1,028 154,000 0.50
308,000 11 3,388,000
Cameroon 1,169 175,000 0.50
350,000 11 3,850,000
ESA
Kenya 2,133 320,000 0.80 400,000 6.7 2,680,000
Uganda 1,126 169,000 1.73 97,688 7.3 713,121
Zambia 1,092 164,000 1.30 126,154 6.4 807,385
Malawi 1,675 251,000 0.60
418,333 5.2 2,175,333
Tanzania 4,900 735,000 2.50 294,000 4.8 1,411,200
Total 2,836,000
3,730,175 34,121,039

13. Expected Outcomes
FAW monitoring and scouting protocols in the target
countries disseminated
At least 50% of the farmers in the target countries are
made aware of the best practices for FAW control.
Country-specific FAW pest management decision guides
and communication materials developed and
disseminated
Country-based IPM-based packages implemented with
at least 40% reduction in crop loss due to FAW
Biorationals and biopesticides effective against FAW
registered, scaled-up, and deployed in target countries
through public-private partnerships

14. Expected Outcomes
Appropriate QA/QC standards developed and
implemented for biopesticides and biorationals in the
target countries
Large-scale area-wide demonstrations of FAW
management technologies/practices as an IPM package
developed
Local capacities strengthened through organization of
annual country-level training of trainers workshops
A functional “FAW Information Portal” established for
sharing of up-to-date information on FAW incidence and
management

15. Vision of Success
Deployment of IPM technologies
for FAW control in at least 2 M ha
in seven selected countries in
sub-Saharan Africa
Benefit at least 3.4 M
smallholder farm families
(approx. 34 M beneficiaries).
Reduce maize yield losses due
to FAW in the farms adopting the
IPM package by at least 40%,
thereby protecting the income
and livelihoods of the farming
communities.

16. Collaborations
Sub-Region Country Lead CG Center &
Partner Center(s)
NARES Private Sector SROs NGOs /
CBOs
WCA Nigeria IITA; CABI MoA; NPPO;
NCRI
TBD ECOWAS TBD
Cameroon IITA; CABI MoA; NPPO;
IRAD
TBD ECOWAS TBD
Ghana CABI; IITA MoA; NPPO; SARI TBD ECOWAS TBD
ESA Kenya ICIPE; CIMMYT;
CABI
MoA; KEPHIS;
KALRO
RealIPM;
Kenya Biologics;
Russell IPM;
Koppert, etc.
ASARECA CRS; OAF
Uganda CABI; CIMMYT;
ICIPE
MAAIF; NPPO;
NARO
RealIPM -
Uganda;
Kenya Biologics-
Uganda;
ASARECA TBD
Malawi CIMMYT; CABI;
ICIPE
MoAIWD/
DARES; ZARI
TBD CCARDESA TBD
Zambia CIMMYT; CABI;
ICIPE
MoA; NPPO; ZARI Agrifocus, etc. CCARDESA NSHFA;
NaSHFAM
Tanzania IITA; CIMMYT;
CABI; ICIPE
MoA, NPPO, ARI,
TPRI
TBD ASARECA /
CCARDESA
NAFAKA;
CRS

17. Budget
4.2M 7.5M 14.7M
2 Countries:
Nigeria (WCA)
Malawi (ESA)
4 Countries:
Nigeria, Cameroon (WCA)
Malawi & Kenya (ESA)
8 Countries:
Nigeria,
Cameroon , Ghana (WCA)
Malawi, Kenya, Uganda,
Tanzania (ESA)

18. Budget

19. Thank you