E1363 Afghanistan: Emergency Horticulture and Livestock Productivity Project v 2 PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN PART 1: BACKGROUND 1A. Agriculture in Afghanistan Agriculture is central to the Afghan economy: the sector contributes an estimated 53% to the GDP and agriculture provides employment for 67% of the labor force. Nearly 80% of the Afghan population lives in rural areas which also harbor the highest incidence of poverty. Agricultural performance is therefore pivotal for overall economic growth and poverty reduction and offers the only significant prospect for raising farmer incomes, contributing to food security, providing rural employment and reducing the vulnerability of resource poor rural people. Development of the agriculture sector is a central pillar of the Government's strategy for economic growth and poverty reduction. However, Afghanistan's agriculture has suffered badly from nearly a quarter century of prolonged conflict and unrest. The main drivers of agricultural growth and rural poverty reduction ­ roads and irrigation, technology, information and education, and markets ­ have all deteriorated due to social conflict, lack of maintenance for infrastructure and collapse of technical information and market systems. This situation has been exacerbated by frequent droughts. Between 1979 and 2004 agricultural production grew at 0.85% per annum, compared to 1.1% per annum in the pre-conflict period of 1964 - 1978. To enable faster overall economic growth and also to significantly reduce rural poverty, agriculture needs to grow at a minimum rate of 5% per annum over the next decade. 1B. The Emergency Horticulture and Livestock Project (HLP) The Emergency Horticulture and Livestock Project (HLP) is part of a longer term program for agricultural development in Afghanistan. The main objective of the HLP is to stimulate perennial horticulture and livestock marketable output in focus areas by improving the incentives framework for private investments and strengthening institutional capacity in agriculture. The project is articulated into three components: 1) Increasing marketable perennial horticulture output (US$25.9 million) comprising works, goods, services and grants for: (i) rehabilitating existing orchards and establishing perennial tree crop cultivations through TA and grants; (ii) establishing a Horticulture Development Council of Afghanistan (HDCA) and developing MAAHF capacity for policy planning and supporting horticulture producers; and (iii) supporting pilot activities on the private sector green raisin and pomegranate export clusters; 2) Increasing Livestock Output and Productivity (US $22.8 million) comprising works, goods, services and grants for strengthening institutions in livestock-related services in areas not already covered by 1 other projects. This includes: supporting the reorganizing the General Directorate for Livestock Protection and Development (GDLPD); promoting livestock production and marketing initiatives in order to permit import substitution and stimulate exports of animal products; studies with pastoral communities to improve rangelands management; and establishing a public/private partnership in veterinary medicine to ensure a stronger regulatory government role and better profitability and sustainability of privatized field veterinary services; 3) Capacity Building, Implementation and Monitoring & Evaluation Support (US$6.4 million) comprising goods, services and incremental operating costs for developing human and physical capacity in policy formulation, programming development, financial management and procurement, supervising and monitoring and evaluating impact. This will enable MAAHF to ensure efficient implementation of the HLP and other projects. 1C. Pest Problems Based on market research and data on current production value, the HLP will focus on three main horticulture varieties: almond, grape and pomegranate. The project will also support the establishment of pistachio, apricot, walnuts, plums, figs and cherries (see table 1; column 2). Common pest problems in the horticulture sector are highlighted in Table 1; column 3. Table 1: Proposed plantation size of HLP Crop Proposed plantation Common pests size (ha) Almond 2100 Malacosoma indica Eriogaster amygdaly Hyponomeuta malinellus Anarsia lineatella Grapholita funebrana Rhodococcus turanicus Grape ­ trellises 1250 Pseudococcus maritimus Cicada Pomegranate 500 Walnut 200 Apricot 100 Peach/Nectarine 100 Pistachio 50 Apple 5 Cydia pomonella Eriosoma lanigerum Quadraspidiotus perniciosus Other 695 Total 5000 2 1D. Current pest management practices and capacity in Afghanistan The handling, application, storage and transport of pesticides poses a significant challenge to environmental management and health in Afghanistan. Chemicals such as parathion and metamiphos, trade in which is subject to the Rotterdam Convention, are freely imported from neighbouring countries and sold in the bazaars by traders with no knowledge of their properties. Such products are a hazard to those who use them, aggravate pest problems by killing natural enemies and reduce the value of export products which may be contaminated by them. Pesticide misuse may have consequences that directly impact farmers. For example misuse may kill some natural enemies of pests, creating further pest problems. The government institution concerned with IPM and all other plant protection matters is the Plant Protection and Quarantine Department (PPQD) of the MAAHF. The HQ and laboratories of PPQD are in the ministry compound in Kabul and it is represented in the provincial Presidencies of Agriculture with one pest officer. The current national Head of PPQD is an experienced plant protection professional, who worked for the ministry before the conflict. Since then, he has worked for international agencies, including FAO and his salary is being paid by FAO temporally until MAAHF completes its civil service reform. Under the RAMP funded FAO emergency projects for the control of locusts and Sunn pest, laboratories at the Kabul HQ have been rehabilitated and re-equipped at a modest level. Provincial offices and stores in some northern provinces have also been rehabilitated, but there are no laboratory facilities. PPQD needs to redefine formally its role, to shed functions, such as the distribution of free inputs that are inappropriate in a market economy. It needs a clearly defined regulatory role, supported by legislation. A main challenge is the development of staff technical capacity. Some in-country training has been provided under the RAMP projects and staffs have benefited from participation in project activities, but these have been confined to the north. A workshop for all provincial heads of plant protection held in Kabul in December 2005 revealed a wide range of technical ability, but many having not expertise in the sector. Many provincial appointments were made by local authorities during the conflict period and the status of these is uncertain. There is no capacity for pesticide residue analysis and there is no record of specific health or environmental issues associated with pesticide use in the country. As a consequence, it is not possible to measure the impact of pesticides use. PART 2. COMPONENTS OF THE PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2A. Objectives 3 The main objective of the Pest Management Plan (PMP) is to provide a framework for sound application of integrated pest management (IPM) practices in the HLP sub- projects. IPM refers to a mix of farmer-driven, ecologically based pest control practices that seek to reduce reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides. It involves (a) managing pests (keeping them below economically damaging levels) rather than seeking to eradicate them; (b) relying, to the extent possible, on non-chemical measures to keep pest populations low; and (c) selecting and applying pesticides, when they have to be used, in a way that minimizes adverse effects on beneficial organisms, humans, and the environment. Afghanistan faces extraordinary institutional challenges and any pest management plan at this point should focus on establishing capacity more than on designing a sophisticated system for information gathering and management. A useful beginning can be made with relatively limited specialized information or management input. Once a critical mass of institutional, regulatory and monitoring capacity has been created, additional information, technologies, and mechanisms can be developed to enhance the effectiveness of the system. Specific objectives of this PMP include: · Assist Afghani farmers in project sites to plan and design best cropping systems with an introduction to IPM · Promote experience exchange and cross-training between Afghani farmers · Establish the ground for building a national IPM strategy 2B. Proposed pesticide use under the HLP The HLP will not procure pesticides for horticulture, but the project will support farmers to control pests and diseases using mechanical and biological methods when applicable. The project will advise producers on the best appropriate pesticides for identified pest problems that can be procured on the market. In addition, the project will also support the development of clear regulations and policies concerning the use of crop protection chemicals to protect the interest of the consumers and farmers and set the necessary regulatory background for export certification. The project will create a database of pesticides currently in use in Afghanistan or likely to be imported in future, containing information on efficacy, toxicity and environmental impact, to provide the basis for decision making by the registration committee. Chemicals used in the project will be verified for conformity with FAO Code of Practice for Pesticide Trade. A list of recommended pesticides for use in Afghanistan in an official gazetteer will be published. 2C. Activities As a result of more than two decades of conflict, exodus of trained personnel, low salaries, and the lack of exposure to new approaches, the Borrower's institutional capacity is generally weak, especially in such specialized areas as safeguard policies. To 4 address this issue, activities under this PMP are built on two main pillars: (1) on the job capacity building for MAAHF staff and (2) on the ground training to farmers. IPM is based upon three main principles: 1. Grow a healthy crop. The focus is on cultural practices aimed at keeping the crop healthy. Selection of varieties that are resistant or tolerant to pests is an important aspect. Attention to soil, nutrient and water management is part of growing a healthy crop. 2. Manage the agro-ecosystem in such a way that pests remain below economic damaging levels, rather than attempt to eradicate the pest. Non-chemical practices are used to make the field and the crop inhospitable to the insect pest species and hospitable to their natural enemies, and to prevent conditions favorable to the build up of weeds and diseases. 3. Decisions to apply external inputs as supplementary controls are made locally, are based on monitoring of pest incidence and are site-specific. External inputs may include predators or parasites (bio-control), labor to remove the pest manually, pest attracting lures, pest traps, or pesticides. Selection of products and application techniques should aim to minimize adverse effects on non-target species, people and the environment. The IPM program under HLP adopts a holistic approach and considers a wide range of agro-ecological parameters related to crop production. Hence, a major component of the program is to define the most appropriate orchard system so as to minimize the use of external inputs to control pests. Knowledge about best orchard systems will be transmitted to farmers through a Field Farmers' Schools approach. The HLP will also devote resources in building capacity at the institutional level by encouraging government staff to participate in training and orchard management events and by identifying appropriate measures to improve the regulatory framework. Specific activities envisaged under this PMP are outlined below. Definition of best orchard system Selection of varieties that are resistant or tolerant to pests is an important aspect of IPM. Attention to soil, nutrient and water management is part of growing a healthy crop and helps minimize the need for pesticides. The horticulture component of HLP contemplates the preparation of an optimal orchard system study as a basis for developing a modern and competitive horticulture industry. The study will consider best practices/crop recommendations for similar climatic areas in lead countries and economic/social realities in Afghanistan. The study team will include Afghan almond, grapes and pomegranates growers. This study will identify typical pest problems in the three main cultures and select crop systems that are best suited to minimize the pest impacts. The following strategies should be considered: variety resistance, efficient land preparation, proper irrigation and drainage, efficient on-farm water management, efficient agronomic practices, involvement of natural enemies to 5 reduce pest population to acceptable levels. Notice that in an effective IPM strategy, the complete elimination of the pest is not desirable since it allows the natural enemy to have a continuous source of food and keep its population at efficient levels. Farmer to farmer training The HLP includes a Farmer Field School (FFS) component. The concept of FFS comprises usually a season-long group training exercise for a group of farmers in an on- site location. Emphasis is put on agro ecosystem analysis as a way to acquire environmental management knowledge in learning by doing approach. The approach starts with training of extensionsists at each regional centre with classroom and field facilities (within the MAAHF premises and local farmer's fields). The messages are at first simple and as capacity is built in the course of the project, the training material will gain in content and complexity. The project would establish schemes in the Central and North regions. Each regional scheme will be staffed by two graduate plant protection specialists and have an office and a small laboratory, with basic collecting and rearing equipment and microscopes. Trained staff would also be responsible for supervising the activities of the extension network. In each of the two regional centers the project will select and train an estimated 100 extensionists (200 in total). The selection process will involve interviews and oral/written tests of MAAHF extensionists. The MAAHF network will be extended with extensionists hired from other sources. Extensionists will work in teams of two. Each extensionist team will have a number of 10-15 of contact farmers' groups/CDCs in number of villages, typically around 15 and deliver field trainings. Once every two months, groups of approximately 15 extensionists will meet in the regional centers and get theoretical and practical training on specific topics prepared according to seasonal farm activities and identified problems (IPM, orchards management). The groups will prepare the modules, which will be taught in farmers' field schools. Given that 100 extensionist teams will each have 15 villages' clusters/farmers groups, it is anticipated that 1,500 farmer's groups will be visited 6 times a year during the 3 years of the program. Contribution to IPM regulatory framework Clear regulations concerning the use of crop protection chemicals must be set to protect the interest of the consumers and farmers. Also, domestic producers need to be protected against the importation of infected produce and planting material. Equally, export markets must have confidence that produce from Afghanistan is free from infestation. More important is to understand the role of the government in establishing an appropriate incentive framework that avoids common pitfalls and reduces biases towards the use of chemical pest control (Annex 2 offers a set of "DO" and "DO NOT DO" policy actions for a sound policy framework). 6 MAAHF staff will participate in the training activities held with extensionists shifting their role from trainees to trainers. By the end of the project, a national level study will be conducted to analyze the status and make recommendations for improving IPM policy for Afghanistan. Table 2 outlines the matrix of activities, expected results and performance indicators of the PMP. Table 2. Activities, results and performance indicators of the PMP Activity Expected results Indicators Risks Definition of best Minimize the need for # background studies Social, economic and orchard systems. The pesticide use by on orchard system political situation activity will include a adopting crop undertaken remains stable study on orchard practices that are more systems based on suitable to the # field visits by study international Afghani environment authors experience. A consolidated technical report with study results Pamphlets and technical leaflets produced in Pashtu and Dari Training ­ Field Develop capacity for Training material Social, economic and Farmers' Schools IPM delivery and produced in Pashtu political situation format implementation. and Dari remains stable Induce farmers to Office and laboratory Critical mass of adopt IPM practices. established in each farmers trained region (staff: 2 remains within the gradate plant area targeted. protection specialists) Farmers continue 100 extensionists using recommended trained on IPM in practices vis a vis each region (6 forbidden pesticides. trainings per year) 1500 farmers' group reached by field trainings held by extensionists (6 trainings per year) Engage MAAHF IPM Gradually build IPM Study on IPM Stability in unit into the training capacity in MAAHF regulatory framework organizational 7 process prepared structure of MAAHF New IPM regulatory Preparation of a study framework # Analysis of Proactive participation for improving national groundwater and soil of ministries of health, IPM regulator residues commerce and justice. framework Survey of agrochemical market conducted. PART 3. IMPLEMENTATION 3A. Institutional arrangements Sound design will if not eliminate, at least diminish to the extent possible, most of the potential adverse impacts of project activities. The overall responsibility of project implementation rests with the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry and Food (MAAHF). The MAAHF will act through an Implementation and Management Support Team (IMST) which will be headed by a Manager who will be responsible fro the minister MAAHF for overall Project Implementation. The IMST will have safeguard responsibilities. An independent Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) unit with, inter alia, environmental and social specialists' inputs has been proposed within the MAAHF. One of the M&E specialists under HLP will also be assigned as Safeguards Focal Officer and will be responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Environmental and Social Safeguards Framework. Safeguard monitoring capacity will be gradually transferred to relevant MAAHF staff to ensure continuity in safeguard application after project completion. During the operation stage, the M&E Unit will carry out the monitoring of the operations also. It will confirm (from anecdotal evidence and, if required, laboratory testing) that the water quality in the project area is not adversely impacted due to agrochemicals, soil conditions are conducive for growth of crops normally grown in the region, and pathogens and vectors are under control. In case of incidence of water related or water-transmitted disease, it will co-ordinate with the local health department to ensure that the situation be brought under control in the shortest possible time. 3B. Monitoring and Evaluation During the operation stage, the M&E Unit within the Policy, Economic Analysis and Planning Department at MAAHF will carry out the monitoring of water quality in selected areas. It will confirm (from anecdotal evidence and, if required, laboratory testing) that the water quality in the project area is not adversely impacted due to agrochemicals, soil conditions are conducive for growth of crops normally grown in the region, and pathogens and vectors are under control, it will co-ordinate with the local health department to ensure that the situation be brought under control in the shortest possible time. 8 Specific responsibilities under the project will be as follows: MAAHF / Department of Policy, Economic Analysis and Planning (national level): overall project implementation; participate in capacity building activities; participate in developing the IPM regulatory framework. M&E unit within IMST: M&E of pest management plan; conduct periodic monitoring of water quality; inform local health authority in case of incidence of water related or water- transmitted disease; overall safeguard responsibilities; conduct the orchard systems study; write summary report FAO (national level): provide backstopping and international expertise to IPM team in the Regional Centres; develop with regional centers IPM strategies for selected fruit crops, participate in FFS extensionists training and develop training material; Provide support to MAAHF in developing and implementing the pesticide and quarantine regulatory framework. Regional Centres: deliver capacity building activities on IPM; prepare training modules with FAO,IMST lead horticulturist and MAAHF provincial offices;conduct FFS training and field observations:contribute to the development of IPM strategies for selected fruit crops MAAHF / Department of Policy, Economic Analysis and Planning (provincial level): participate in capacity building activities; gradually take over FFS coordination rensponsibilities of Regional Centres. Extensionists: prepare and facilitate training modules in Farmers' schools; each extensionist will train 10-15 farmer groups 6 times every year; interact with regional centres and MAAHF provincial offices. 9 3C. Budget 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ 1,000$ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total 1 International TA Personnel Plant Protection Expert (FAO) 120 120 120 360 Pesticide Regulation Expert (FAO) 30 30 20 80 Plant Pathology Expert (FAO) 30 20 20 70 IPM Consultants (Kabul and Mazar, IP/NGOs)) 240 240 240 720 Orchard Systems Specialist (Lead IP) 90 45 0 135 Subtotal International TA Personnel 510 455 400 1365 2 National Personnel Plant Protection Experts (FAO & IP/NGOs) 33.6 33.6 33.6 100.8 Provincial IPM Coordinators (IP/NGOs) 67.2 67.2 67.2 201.6 Trainers (IP/NGOs) 33.6 33.6 33.6 100.8 Orchard System/Horticulturalist (Lead IP) 8.4 8.4 0 16.8 Horticulturalist Researchers (Trial Orchards, IP/NGOs) 33.6 33.6 33.6 100.8 Extension Agents (IP/NGOs) 25 25 25 75 Allowance Extension Agents (IP/NGOs) 0.125 0.25 0.25 0.625 Subtotal National Personnel 202 202 193 596 3 Travel Costs (FAO, Lead IP & IP/NGOs) National 12 12 12 36 Extensionists 75 150 150 375 Subtotal Travel Costs (FAO, Lead IP & IP/NGOs) 87 162 162 411 4 Technical Services & Studies Cleaning Plant Material from Viruses (Lead IP & IP/NGOs) 50 50 0 100 Survey of Agrochemical Markets (FAO) 100 0 0 100 Groundwater and Soil Residue Analysis (Lead IP) 100 0 0 100 Demonstration Orchards (IP/NGOs) 21 21 3 45 Demonstration Orchards (IP/NGOs) 36 36 3 75 IPM HQ Back-stopping (FAO) 150 150 150 450 Subtotal Technical Services & Studies 457 257 156 870 5 Equipment Field Equipment (FAO & IP/NGOs) 9 9 9 27 Labels for Chemical Package (FAO) 5 5 5 15 Lab Consumables (FAO) 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5 Materials for IPM field interventions (IP/NGOs) 40 40 40 120 Equipment for Regional Labs (FAO) 15 0 0 15 Subtotal Equipment 71 56 56 182 6 Buildings Plant Protection Office Rehab. (Mazar, Jalalabad & Kabul, FAO) 0 60 0 60 Subtotal Buildings 0 60 0 60 7 Materials Training Materials (10000 copies, Lead IP)) 20 30 0 50 Horticultural and Extension Books (Lead IP) 7 5 0 12 Subtotal Materials 27 35 0 62 8 Training 10 Bachelor Degree Fellowship (FAO & Lead IP) 120 120 120 360 Study Tours (FAO & Lead IP) 0 40 20 60 Technical Training (field visits, etc., FAO & IP/NGOs)) 25 25 25 75 Workshop Pesticide Regulation (FAO) 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.5 Radio Progs (IP/NGOs) 5 5 5 15 Training Extension Agents (IP/NGOs) 7 7 7 21 Subtotal Training 160 200 180 539 Total 1513 1426 1146 4084 11 Annex 1. Examples of available tools in the IPM toolbox There is a wide variety of techniques that can be applied under IPM approaches. Applicability of individual techniques depends on various factors, including: the crop, the cropping system, the pest problems, the climate, the agro-ecological conditions, etc. Generally, IPM involves a combination of techniques. Some examples of such techniques: Cultural practices that can help prevent build up of pests · Crop rotation · Inter-cropping, · Field sanitation and seed bed sanitation, · Use of pest-resistant crop varieties, · Managing sowing, planting or harvesting dates · Water/irrigation management, · Soil and nutrient management (including mulching, zero/low tillage, fertilizer management) · Practices to enhance the build up of naturally existing predator populations · Hand-picking of pests or hand-weeding · Use of traps or trap crops · Post harvest loss prevention Biological inputs · Biological control through release of predators, parasites or pathogens · Biological control through fish, ducks, geese, goats, etc. · Release of sterile male insects · Bio-pesticides · Biological preparations (e.g. name extract) Chemical inputs · Chemicals that disrupt insect behavior (e.g.: pheromones) · Growth-regulators · Conventional pesticides 12 Annex 2. The "DO" and "DO NOT DO" of IPM policy DO NOT DO ­ Examples of elements that may contribute to a policy environment that encourages reliance on pesticides · Pesticide use is directly or indirectly subsidized · Inadequate pesticide legislation or weak enforcement of legislation to control import, distribution and use of pesticides · Requesting/accepting donor support in the form of pesticide donations, (i) without adequate assessment of actual requirements, (ii) without paying adequate attention to non-chemical alternatives, (iii) without appropriate pricing of these pesticides to avoid unnecessary use induced by availability at below-cost prices · Government agricultural programs and associated budget allocations emphasize input supply more than farmer training in IPM · Absence of IPM extension, as a result of which farmers have little or no access to information about alternative approaches that reduce reliance on chemical control · Extension schemes/programs/messages are oriented towards chemical control · Agricultural advisory services for extension staff and/or farmers have a financial interest in selling pesticides (e.g.: extension advice is provided by private sector entities that sell pesticides; extension staff receive commissions on pesticide sales) DO - Examples of policy elements that reduce biases towards chemical control · Social and environmental costs internalized in prices through polluter pays tax · Enforcement of pesticide legislation · Enforcement of food safety legislation regarding pesticide residues · Enforcement of environmental protection legislation · Emphasis on development of agro-ecosystem management skills and knowledge · Establishment of formal policies on IPM covering inter-agency coordination and common agenda's, incentive systems, regulatory and information systems for sustainable agriculture, generation and dissemination of appropriate approaches and technologies · Encouraging research on the economics and the environmental and health impact of different plant protection approaches and make this information · Development of an effective regulatory framework to enhance food safety and to reduce risks related to the distribution and use of pesticides · Orienting agricultural research in general to be more demand driven and with greater beneficiary participation. 13