Fall Armyworm is affecting maize crops in Ethiopia, causing losses estimated at 100,000-150,000 hectares nationally. This threatens food security, as the Government and WFP only have enough food aid until June 2017 due to funding shortfalls. Nuru Ethiopia is considering courses of action to support farmers in response to this threat. These include continuing pesticide application and monitoring (already in progress), conducting a food security assessment to identify impacted farmers, engaging farmers' cooperatives to support their members, or developing a cash/voucher for work program. Planning for the 2018 season will focus on integrating fall armyworm prevention and control into agricultural training programs.

1. Fall Armyworm (FAW)
Building a Nuru Ethiopia Action Plan
July 7, 2017

2. Table of Contents
1. The Fall Armyworm Overview
1. FAW International Best Management Practices (U.S. and Brazil)
1. Coordinated Action for FAW Outbreak in S.S. Africa
1. Response to FAW Damage in Ethiopia: Food Security Impacts
1. Nuru Ethiopia Response and Courses of Action (PSA recommendations)

3. The Fall Armyworm Overview

5. Key International and Regional Context
• In Brazil (similar agro-ecology) - annually causes yield losses of 3-5%. In extreme cases can cause losses of 30-
40%.
• The Government of Brazil spends 400-600 million USD annually to mitigate yield losses and control FAW
damage
• First confirmed in S.S. Africa in January 2016 (Nigeria); the Region was not prepared for this pest
• Now confirmed in over 20 countries in S.S. Africa
• CGIAR-CIMMYT, conservative estimates indicate 13.5 million tons of maize valued at $3 billion are at risk in 2017-
2018 in S.S. Africa
• Fall Armyworm is expected to out-compete other endemic Armyworm species in Africa (it is cannibalistic)

6. FAO - Confirmed FAW in Green
FAW Life Cycle (1-2 months)

7. Important Notes on FAW in S.S. Africa
• Severe outbreaks usually coincide with the onset of the wet season, especially when the new cropping season
follows a long period of drought.
• The primary natural defense in United States is winter; the cold weather controls the population
• How the FAW will evolve in S.S. Africa is still completely unknown!
• FAW has several generations per year and the moth can fly up to 100 km per night
• The FAW builds resistance to pesticide varieties very rapidly (1-3 seasons of spraying)
• FAW affects mainly maize crops, but also rice and sorghum as well as cotton and some vegetables

8. FAW International Best Management Practices
(U.S. and Brazil)

9. International BMPs for Long-Term FAW Control
(Next Season)
• In the Americas pesticides and genetically modified (GM) crops are the main methods of control, although FAW has
developed some resistance to both.
• These are expensive control methods. GM varieties of maize resistance to FAW will not be available in S.S.
Africa for at least 2 more years.
• Pesticide will be primary control next season, but the FAW will build resistance to continued spraying of the
same chemical every year
• (Bio)Pesticides including Bacillus thuringiensis are an option in Africa
• Not always affordable to many small-scale farmers
• Subsidy or government-funded implementation is therefore being used in some countries
• Lower-cost mechanical and cultural control methods have yet to be proven, but could be adopted in the meantime
• For example, mixing ash/lime with soil and hand applying to the maize whorls
• Tool allowing laborers to pluck pests out of plants
• Potential control for NE next season

10. International BMPs for Long-Term FAW Control
(Next Season)
• Mass rearing of parasitoids is used as an alternative in the Americas but currently costs may be prohibitive without
subsidy in Africa.
• Monitor: if GoE will explore testing and rearing
• Companion/Decoy Plants can attract FAW and offset some maize damage
• Monitor: GoE actions, farmers in Woredas, EARI and ATA for options
• Potential control for NE next season
• In-field Monitoring (Damage Assessment) early in plant growth cycle
• Con’t control for NE next season
• Land Preparation Prevention
• Plough deeply to expose young pupae to the surface of the soil; Sow early to avoid peak immigration of
adults; Cut weeds and destroy all crop residues because they
provide shelter and food to the caterpillar

11. Coordinated Action for FAW Outbreak
in S.S. Africa

12. International and Regional Coordination
• FAO is leading in coordination and action for responding to FAW
• mona.chaya@fao.org & allan.hruska@fao.org are the FAO FAW Response team; NI has reached out for
more information and to open communication
• NI will continue to monitor the FAO Coordination Process and bring all relevant information and materials to
NK and NE.
• Next Regional Workshop in Accra, Ghana July 21-25 with these objectives:
• Develop a training curricula for FAW integrated pest management for use by trained facilitators in ongoing
FFS across Africa
• Build capacity of participating senior FFS trainers on FAW
• Develop a strategy plan for roll-out of the FAW management response in Africa through FFS and training of
extension workers

13. International and Regional Coordination (con’t)
• FAO has prepared a project “Establishing an emergency community-based Fall Armyworm monitoring, forecasting,
early warning and management system in eastern Africa”
• In collaboration with the Desert Locust Control Organization for Eastern Africa (DLCO-EA), CABI, ICIPE, and
Ministries of Agriculture of Eastern African countries.
• The project has been submitted to USAID/OFDA and a decision on funding is awaited.
• FAO will be developing a Farmer Field School FAW Curriculum

14. International and Regional Coordination (con’t)
1) Summary of Recommended Short-Term Response (this season)*
1) Regular monitoring, pesticide application, and hand picking of FAW larvae (NE is implementing)
1) FAW Damage Assessment, Chlorpyrifos application, and continued farmer support through FMs,
FOs, and CDEFs
2) Build a strong communications network about the pest and to report outbreaks (NE is implementing)
3) Identification of predatory insects & Pheromone traps to lure moths to target and destroy eggs and larvae
4) Tool allowing laborers to pluck pests out of plants
NE has followed the most current Control Recommendations by the GoE and International Community.
There is still no medium or long term plan for control and impact mitigation.

15. Ethiopian Impact and National Action
• Ethiopia in particular has been severely affected by the FAW pest.
• As of early June, FAW had been confirmed in six major maize producing regions
• Reported to be affecting between 100,000 & 150,000 hectares of land nationally (depending on source).
• The Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples’ State (SNNPS) is the most affected by livelihoods loss, with
about 100,000 people (or 20,000 households) affected.
• Already the Government of Ethiopia has allocated nearly USD $2 million for prevention and control measures. The
mobilization of those resources only managed to cover only 44% of the total maize area confirmed with FAW
infestation.

16. Ethiopian Impact and National Action (con’t)
• There is no publically available action plan on the Government of Ethiopia’s websites, the FAO website, CGIAR
system or any other relevant online data source.
• However, the FAO does make reference to an Ethiopian “ action plan on FAW prevention and control” in its
most recent public briefing note, June 30th 2017.
• The GoE Ministry of Agriculture webpage does provide some limited information on the actions underway to control
Fall Armyworm.
• Actions Nuru Ethiopia is already participating in implementing.
• Further exploration with the MofAg and ATA regional offices in Hawassa may yield greater detail on providing safety
net programmes for farmers severely impacted by FAW damage to crops.

17. Response to FAW Damage in Ethiopia:
Food Security Impacts

18. Ethiopia & Drought 2017: Nuru Ethiopia Operating Area

19. International Response to FAW Damage
• World Food Programme - acknowledges the risk FAW damage entails, but has no current plans to alter current Food
Aid provisions for those impacted by FAW
• 2.18 million people affected by drought in Amhara, Oromia and SNNPR
• In the second round of food distributions for 2017, WFP assisted 1.96 million people displaced by the drought,
with in-kind transfers under the relief programme
• As a result of funding shortfalls, WFP and the Government of Ethiopia had enough food stocks only for the
end of June.

20. International Response to FAW Damage (con’t)
• ACAPS - ETHIOPIA: FALL ARMYWORMS INFESTATION IN SIDAMA ZONE, SNNPR (link)
• Livelihoods: at least 145,000 hectares of land have already been affected throughout Ethiopia.
• Food security: Food prices are expected to increase due to decreased yields from harvest.
• Limitations of FAW Impact Assessment:
• Lack of information on how the Sidama zone is affected compared to other
Areas.
• Extent of impact of armyworms on food security remains unclear.
• Unclear how the berg or the meher crop seasons will be affected.
• ACAPS ratings for Sidama Zone:

21. Nuru Ethiopia Response and Courses of Action
(recommendations)

22. Summary: knowns and unknowns for NE
• The combination of 2017 Drought Conditions (belg) and FAW damage (belg/meher) could lead to a “Food Security
Crisis” in Boreda and Kucha
• The risk of food insecurity in Boreda and Kucha for 2017-18 is high, but unconfirmed
• We do not know the severity or timing
• The WFP and Ethiopian Government are already distributing Food Aid and Cash Transfers in SNNPR for 2017
• Funding and Food Aid stocks are limited
• Nuru Farmer surplus maize and bean production will be negatively affected in 2017
• How negative still unknown
• Primary Hunger Season is March to June (SNNPR); it has passed. What will coping strategies be in 2018?
• The Food Security question remains unknown

23. Immediate Action: what NE is already doing for FAW
1. Implemented FAW pesticide response plan (in-action)
a. Control
2. Developed and implementing FAW Damage Assessment and Data Collection (in-action)
a. Damage Monitoring: this will allow NE to objectively identify “the Nuru Farmers” and kebeles with (high,
medium, low) FAW damage to their fields on average
3. On-going extensions to affected farmers; NE should encourage farmers to continue to hand-pick the worms on maize
at or past flowering stage (in-action)
The Question: how does NE verify if a Nuru Farmer will need “food security
assistance” due to FAW damage, or drought impact?

24. Immediate Action: Verification of Food Security
Situation (optional; PSA recommends we implement)
• This is a “Slow-onset Crisis” as defined by the WFP
• NE has an opportunity to conduct a “Food Security Assessment” (FSA)
• The FSA can be quickly adapted/simplified from the WFPs Emergency Food Security Assessment Handbook:
Consumption, Access, Market and Coping Indicators
• Similar “Level of Loss” survey conducted for 2015 drought season; NE can replicate process
• Data Collection can be adapted to meet NE operational constraints: cooperatives, HH survey, focus groups, key
informants, or a combination
• The FAW Damage Assessment will be used to triangulate the geographic scope of the FSA
• i.e. a village/kebele with High FAW Damage on average would need an FSA
• Final Thresholds, if COA with financial payout is chosen:
• High: Fall Armyworm Damage Severity; plus
• High: FSA or “Level of Loss”
• FSA or “Level of Loss” survey would be conducted at harvest for maize in Boreda and Kucha (August/September)

25. Short-term Action: COA 1 “Do No More”
Pros
• No additional cost to NI/NE
• PCs and government forced to provide some
support if crop loss is high
• May lessen dependence on Nuru in crisis
• Low negative impact on planned activities
Cons
• NE is pressured by PCs or the GoE to act
regardless
• Farmers may suffer from food shortages or asset
sales
• 2018 farmer registration weakened
Overview
NE is already put forward great effort to combat FAW in Boreda and Kucha. Meeting all international recommended actions,
while also closely coordinating with the GoE. These efforts will continue in 2017 and as a result the most severe scenario
has been avoided, even if it is unknown. The AERL team will continue to provide pesticide training, spraying, and
management actions, along with farmer-to-farmer extension on hand-picking FAWs as maize matures. It is up to the farmer
to accept this recommendation. No FSA or “Level of Loss” needed.
We don’t know the Yield Losses caused by FAW; FAW Damage Assessment can inform yield loss estimations. If FAW
Damage is High Severity and leaf damage is ≥ 75%, yield losses will be above 30% at the least.

26. Short-term Action: COA 2 “Engage PCs: Sink or Swim”
Pros
• Re-establishes NE as knowledge partner and
provider of Impact programming
• Low financial burden for NI/NE
• PCs are forced to step-up
• Would provide more flexibility to align with the
level of crisis as it materializes.
Cons
• Some PCs may fail financially; farmers suffer
• NE is pressured by PCs or the GoE to act
regardless
• May negatively affect GoE perception of Nuru
training Coops
• GoE is often slow and ineffective
Overview
NE injected “Risk Reserve” capital in 2015. Each year the PCs are required to put 30% of their profits into the risk reserve.
PCs will need to identify strategies to raise their Risk Reserve levels to support their farmers; NE only provides knowledge
and information support to PCs, NOT financial injections. If they cannot, they appeal to the GoE or risk bankruptcy/default on
social responsibility. NE will need to communicate with PCs and GoE that they will not be providing a financial safety net,
regardless of the food security and yield loss situation for the 2017 season. This COA does not require a FSA or “Level of
Loss” be implemented, but it remains recommended to help guide NE, PCs, and Government.

27. Short-term Action: COA 3 “Another Emergency Cash Transfer”
Pros
• Ease the loan burden of farmers who
have significant crop loss
• NE seen as taking action
Cons
• Farmers in non-affected areas will delay repaying loans
• Farmers use money for what they want
• Financial burdensome to NI/NE
• Behavior change will be effected
• Might create sense of dependence
• More opportunity for PC Financial Mismanagement and
Corruption
Overview
This COA is representative of the 2015 Risk Reserve Capital Injection. It will require an FSA or “Level of Loss” survey be
implemented to establish High Severity and leaf damage is ≥ 75% on the FAW Damage Assessment and High on FSA or
“Level of Loss” surveys. So, NE, GoE, and PCs can identify Farmers qualifying for assistance. Very important for NE to
engage in formal partnership with other organizations such as WFP/CARE, that have the experience and resources to
ensure effective cash transfers at the farmer level. Policies, especially those for cooperatives, need to be consistent across
all groups. Creating a cash transfer system for one cooperative without properly communicating this decision across all
cooperatives can lead to perceptions of unfairness. Nuru should expect that without specific guidelines for how to spend the
cash, farmers will use it to first pay off their loans; therefore strict guidelines needed. Option for a hybrid Food Voucher or
2018 Input Voucher systems should be considered.

28. Short-term Action: COA 4 “FAW Hybrid Cash/voucher-for-Work Scheme”
Pros
• Limits the desire for “free-riding”
• Likely that only the most affected farmers will participate
• Rehabilitation of community assets
• Can absorb large numbers of affected farmers if needed
(severity)
• NE seen as taking action
• Potential for more PC leadership development
Cons
• Oversight burden to NE, unless agreement with
GoE is created
• Communication burden for NE and GoE
• Financial burden to NI/NE
• More opportunity for PC Financial
Mismanagement and Corruption
Overview
Traditionally used in post-conflict areas or for returning IDPs/refugees, NE could develop a scheme
through the PCs that allows (qualifying) farmers with High Severity and leaf damage is ≥ 75% on the FAW
Damage Assessment and High on FSA or “Level of Loss” surveys to participate in “public works projects”
identified by their PCs with NE and GoE assistance. The participating farmers either receive cash for use
to cope with shock, or a voucher for use in purchasing inputs from the PC at discount in 2018. The
program will need to be communicated across all PCs to ensure full understanding of the scheme, and
limit misunderstandings.

29. 2018 Actions: Planning for the next season and
FAW
• If NE continues to promote current Ag Loan (maize) in 2018, BMP trainings and loan package must incorporate FAW
controls
• Pesticide
• FAW monitoring and management training
• Cultural controls (hand-picking and decoy planting)
• FAW Damage Assessment for HH
• Proper Pesticide Application and Health/Safety
• Amend Land Preparation Training
• Timing will be most important for proper control
• Most of these elements are already underway thanks to the NE/FTE team, but 2018 will require prevention
and action through a formal curriculum