1

Report on Stakeholders Consultation Meeting on: Fall Armyworm in

Africa: Status and Strategy for Effective Management

Meeting held in Nairobi, Kenya on 27th and 28th April 2017

Report prepared by

Rose Njeru, PhD

 2

Table of contents

List of acronyms......................................................................................................................................... 4

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... 5

Executive summary .................................................................................................................................... 6

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 9

1.2 Objectives, deliverables and participants .......................................................................................... 10

2. Meeting process and opening session .................................................................................................... 11

2.1 Pre- meeting and meeting process ................................................................................................... 11

3.0 Presentations, group discussions and plenary sessions ..................................................................... 11

3.2 Session II: Brief overview of Fall Armyworm incidence, impacts and control measures adopted so far:
Chair: Dr Joyce MulilaMitti, FAO .......................................................................................................... 13

3.2.1 Summary of country presentations.................................................................................................... 14

3.2.2 The status of Fall Armyworm in West Africa........................................................................................ 17

3.3 Session III: Fall Armyworm -- what do we know so far, and what must be done? .................................. 18

Chair: Dr B. M. Prassana .................................................................................................................. 18

3.3.1 Fall Armyworm in Africa: Status and Strategy for Effective Management ............................................. 18

3.3.2 Transgenic options for control of Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Africa................................. 19

3.3.3 The jurys out: FAW evidence and gaps ........................................................................................... 20

3.3.4 Ecology of Armyworms in Africa a comparison of a new and an established species ......................... 21

3.3.5 Update on Consultation Meetings organized by FAO on FAW ............................................................ 23

3.3.6 The resistance of Spodoptera frugiperda to Bt: Lessons and implications for Fall Armyworm management
in Africa................................................................................................................................................... 24

3.3.7 Harnessing Google Earth Engine for large-scale crop monitoring........................................................ 24

3.4 Session IV: Are there solutions for controlling FAW incidence? Chair: Dr Felister Makini, Kenya
Agriculture and Livestock Research Organization.................................................................................... 24

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 34

5.0 Annexes ............................................................................................................................................ 37

 3

Annex 1: List of participants ...................................................................................................................... 38

Annex 2: Meeting program ................................................................................................................... 43

Annex 3: Group Discussions ................................................................................................................ 46

 4

List of acronyms
AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa

Bt Bacillus Thurigiensis

CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

DLCO-EA Desert Locust Control Organization for Eastern Africa

DMU Disaster Management Unit

EWS Early Warning Systems

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FAW Fall Armyworm

ICIPE International Centre for insect Physiology

ICT Information Communication Technology

IITA International Institute for Tropical Agriculture

IPM Integrated Pest Management

IRLCO-CSA International Red Locust Control Organization for Central and Southern Africa

NPPO National Plant Protection Office

RECs Regional Economic Communities

SFS-REOSA Sub-regional Office for Southern Africa Resilience Hub for southern Africa

SADC Southern African Development Community

SfMNPV Spodoptera frugiperda multiple nucleopolyhedrovirus

SFS Sub- regional Office for Southern Africa

SOPs Standard Operating Procedures

SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary

SRC Sub-regional Coordinator

UN United Nations

USAID United States Agency for International Development

 5

Acknowledgements

The Stakeholders Consultation Meeting on Fall Armyworm (FAW) in Africa: Status and Strategy for Effective
Management in Africa brought together a range of actors with experience and expertise in the management of
the pest. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Alliance for a Green Revolution in
Africa (AGRA) and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) would like to thank
governments in the Eastern, Southern, Central and Western Africa as well as all other organizations and
institutions who contributed to this noble cause. The financial support accorded by FAO, AGRA and CIMMYT
made it possible to convene the meeting and is acknowledged. The active participation and contributions by
participants and the resource persons ensured that the meeting was productive and went on smoothly and this
did not go unnoticed. Finally, the hospitality accorded by the Government of Kenya in hosting the meeting,
logistical support by organizing committee and the training venue provided by Villa Rosa Kempiniski, Nairobi is
appreciated.
 6

Executive summary
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations in partnership with the Alliance for a Green
Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) organized a
stakeholders consultation meeting on the Status and Strategy for Effective Management of Fall Armyworm
(FAW) in Africa in Nairobi, Kenya. It was attended by key government ministries and departments namely the,
National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPO), Plant Protection Research and Extension. Also in attendance
were; specialist regional and international organizations, independent research specialists working on FAW,
other research and development institutions, universities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), FAO global
experts on FAW, development partners, inter-governmental organizations, private sector, media and other major
stakeholders. Over 160 persons drawn from 23 countries in Eastern, Western, Central and Southern Africa and
other experts from United Kingdom, United States of America, Switzerland, Spain and Italy attended the meeting.
The meeting objectives were to; Review the status of FAW incidence and impacts in Africa, discuss available
technological options for minimizing the damage caused by this invasive insect-pest, provide concrete
recommendations on the strategy for effective management of FAW and identify appropriate partnerships to
develop and deploy short-term, medium-term and long-term solutions to the farming communities.

The key issues highlighted during the meeting include;

1. Presentations by national experts from Eastern, Southern, West and Central Africa on the status of FAW in
their respective countries revealed that the pest is widely distributed and still spreading in at least 23
countries in the continent. The pest has been reported on sorghum, sweet corn, millet, sugarcane, pepper,
okra, cocoa, cowpea and weedy plants but the most commonly affected crop is maize.
2. Pest identification was mainly based on its morphology, damage on host and some countries also employed
molecular tools. Both the Corn and Rice Strains were reported but majority of the African countries are yet to
characterize the pest to strain level and this has management implications.
3. The affected African countries are yet to determine the full extent of damage including yield loss due to FAW
but the impact of the pest in Africa include; intensive pesticide use including aerial sprays, increased maize
production cost, some smallholder farmers have abandoned heavily infested fields, replanting of maize fields
has been reported and overall the invasion is likely to contribute to food insecurity. It is recommended that to
build on the already gathered data and information; harmonized impact assessment tools for FAW outbreak
be developed for systematic assessment of the present and potential social and economic impacts in
addition to developing forecasting models and tools for estimating the potential losses due to FAW
infestation.
4. It was established that African countries represented have contingency plans in place but some; require
updating or anchoring to national policy, their operationalization is constrained by the relatively weak
surveillance systems and inadequate; support by policy makers, local knowledge about FAW, financial and
technical capacity and some lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities. Further the lack of region specific as
 7

well as a continental contingency plan to effectively guide management of FAW and other transboundary
pests is another challenge. It is recommended that countries; harmonize their contingency plans and align
them to national policy and regulations, allocate sufficient resources to aid implementation, support regular
surveillance, policy makers and regulatory authorities be sensitized to support fast-tracking the process of
testing, validating and registering FAW control options that are not available in the local market to support
rapid response. Further, countries should adhere to reporting obligations to the International Plant Protection
Convention (IPPC) Secretariat to facilitate information sharing.
5. Most African countries have developed strategies for FAW monitoring but an early warning system is absent
in most due to limited; diagnostic capacity and lack of information on country specific FAW strains, access to
pheromone traps, regular surveillance and adoption of modern information communication technology (ICT)
for surveillance systems. It is recommended that harmonized standard operating procedures and action
plans on early warning and regular surveillance be developed, characterisation of FAW to strain level be
conducted and optimization of the best pheromone blend for both the Rice and Corn strains of FAW be
supported to aid the development of an effective early warning tool against FAW. Further, countries need to
report FAW outbreaks to the IPPC secretariat to alert trading partners and other countries of imminent
danger of FAW moving to North Africa, Middle-East, Europe and Asia through pest migration or/and trade.
6. Presently, FAW management entails isolated use of botanicals and cultural methods in addition to the
widespread use of synthetic pesticides whose use has preceded local efficacy trials and their registration for
FAW control in most countries. South Africa is the only African country where transgenic maize (containing
genes encoding delta endotoxins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)) which has an effective single mode of
action for Fall Armyworm and dual mode of action for Stem Borers is under commercial production.
7. Available technological options for minimizing the damage caused by FAW were discussed and include;
Synthetic pesticides preferably those within the lower levels of hazard category but must be; used
correctly, different types rotated to reduce risk of resistance development and sprayed at an appropriate
time on young larvae.
Botanicals including neem which is commercially available and Tephorosia which is being used by
farmers but may require further validating.
Cultural control measures including, intercropping, weed control, destruction of crop residues, crop
rotation, ploughing to expose larvae and pupae, handpicking egg masses and larvae. The measure is
unlikely to provide adequate control in the absence of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) measure.
Host plant resistance
o Genetically Modified crops containing Bt genes are available. Example, transgenic maize
which is widely grown in the Americas but its use is constrained by; reports of resistance with
single gene Bt-maize, the need to integrate non-Bt-maize refuges to delay buildup of
resistance and few African countries have authorized the use of transgenics.
 8

o FAW resistant sources have been identified in conventionally derived maize from the
Caribbean maize germplasm by CIMMYT but the resistance must be transferred into
appropriate Africa-adopted maize.
Possibility of using bio-control organisms by rearing and releasing parasitoids or introduction of natural
enemies but there are possibilities that the control agents may not establish or may not be effective.
8. To minimize the damage caused by FAW through adoption of appropriate technological options, it is
recommended that;
Policymakers and regulatory organizations in African countries be sensitized to support fast-trucked
testing, registration and quality management of FAW management options including pheromones,
synthetic and bio-pesticides, botanicals, natural enemies and FAW resistant germplasm to improve
access and guide FAW management.
Knowledge gaps be addressed by supporting immediate research/priority areas in; a) FAW host range
and migration patterns, benefit-cost analysis and economic injury levels as a basis for guiding FAW
management, b) targeted packaging of available information on the efficacy of different FAW
management options and c) creating awareness among key stakeholders to support FAW
management.
Support be accorded for medium-term measures on; developing appropriate formulations, dosage
levels and application strategies for pesticides and botanicals, investigating effect of early planting and
climate smart agriculture practices on FAW, determining the efficacy of natural enemies on FAW,
testing classical biological control approaches through using natural enemies from outside Africa,
determine effects of FAW management options on conservation agriculture in African cropping systems
and on-going integrated pest management initiatives.
Support be accorded for long-term measures to determine the environmental impact of the ongoing
extensive application of synthetic pesticides, develop and implement an appropriate insect resistance
monitoring and management strategy and tools for insecticides and transgenic control options, testing
and introgression of conventionally-derived FAW resistance into Africa-adapted maize germplasm and
testing and publishing the efficacy of relevant Bt transgenic events against FAW and where appropriate;
release of FAW-resistant transgenic maize germplasm in countries outside South Africa after necessary
regulatory approvals and consultations.

9. Most African countries have been responding to FAW at national level with minimal coordination at Regional
and Continental levels. Coordination is constrained by limited; capacity within national institutions and the
Regional Economic Communities (RECs), sharing of information on transboundary pests that may affect trade,
targeted messages for different stakeholders and information and communication flow among stakeholders.
Further, roles and responsibilities are not very clear. Participants at the meeting resolved that;
 9

Coordination of FAW initiatives at continental level including resource mobilization and management
initiatives be spearheaded by FAO while RECs play a prominent role in coordinating policy, communication
and strategies at the sub-regional level. At national level, regulatory bodies and designated focal persons to
collate the available key information on FAW and share same with governments and other relevant
stakeholders. Further, countries increase support for plant health national technical committees, regular
regional technical committee forums and strengthen linkages with the Inter-Africa Phytosanitary Council.
FAW should be added to the mandate of the Desert Locust Control Organization for Eastern Africa (DLCO-
EA) and International Red Locust Control Organization in Central and Southern Africa (IRLCO-CSA) which
have the structural capacities for quick detection and emergency response.
Modern information technology be adopted so as to facilitate information sharing and a FAW information
Portal be setup as a one-stop window for understanding the status and other key issues.
10. Existing opportunities which can be exploited to enhance FAW management include; the established
partnerships in most countries, some reasonable knowledge and awareness about FAW, existing FAW working
groups, field monitoring is ongoing and some knowledge generation initiatives are ongoing.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background Rationale

In the whole of Africa, food security is under threat from Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) which is native
to and largely confined to the Americas. The pest has spread rapidly within the African continent thus, raising
anxiety and panic over the damage and expected losses on the maize crop. Within the African Continent, Fall
Armyworm (FAW) was first reported in West and Central Africa in 2016 (Goergen et al., 2016) and less than one
year later it had also invaded Southern Africa. By Mid April 2017, the pest had been reported in all mainland
countries in Southern Africa except Lesotho and in multiple countries in Eastern Africa. Initially, misdiagnosis of
FAW was reported in several African countries and as a result, control measures were in several cases targeting
the wrong pest. Fall Armyworm is the major pest of maize in Brazil, it is difficult to control and the country spends
over US$ 600 million in its management annually.

The pest has a wide host range and has been reported in over 80 plant species belonging to 27 families. This
polyphagous characteristic is an additional challenge to the intercropping system which is common among
smallholder farmers in Sub-Sahara Africa. In addition, FAW has high migratory capacity and reproduces quickly
under favorable tropical environments. Further, the use of organic pesticides in FAW control is common but the
pest develops pesticide resistance at a fast ratein addition to the potential negative impact of the chemicals on
human and animal health, food safety and the environment. In the Americas, the use of Maize hybrids carrying
Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) gene for the management of FAW is common but field resistance to transgenic plants
 10

has been reported. Generally, the impact of this exotic invasive pest on food security, livelihoods and the
environment in Africa is largely unknown and it is important for Africa to learn from experiences in the Americas
where the pest is endemic and Brazil which has environments similar to that of Africa. Also, gaps in FAW biology,
epidemiology and appropriate management measures under African conditions exist. With the aforementioned
background, the need for a well-coordinated, multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional initiative based on an
Integrated Pest Management strategy is required for FAW control.

It is against the above background that Africa sort to improve her knowledge about FAW, including its biology,
infestations, migratory behavior, control and management options. To achieve this, FAO in partnership with
AGRA and CIMMTY organized the All Africa Stakeholders Consultation Meeting on Fall Armyworm in Africa:
Status and Strategy for Effective Management; in Nairobi, Kenya. The meeting was organized to coincide with
the Southern Africa Fall Armyworm Technical Meeting so that experts who have made reasonable progress in
addressing FAW in Southern Region of Africa could contribute to the continental strategy for management of the
pest. The meeting ran from the 27th to 28th April 2017 and the specific objectives are stipulated in 1.2.

1.2 Objectives, deliverables and participants

The specific objectives of the meeting were to;

1. Review the status of FAW incidence and impacts in Africa.

2. Discuss available technological options for minimizing the damage caused by this invasive insect-
pest.
3. Provide concrete recommendations on the strategy for effective management of FAW.
4. Identify appropriate partnerships to develop and deploy short-term, medium-term and long-term
solutions to the farming communities.

Deliverables

The key deliverables are this report highlighting main outcomes and recommendations raised at the meeting
(objectives 1-3) and a short policy brief for publication and use at high profile meetings by policy makers and
donors.

Participants

The meeting brought together over 160 participants from Italy, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United
States of America and 23 African countries. The African countries in Eastern, West, Central and Southern Africa
were represented by; Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Burundi, Burkina Fuso, Nigeria, Sao Tome Principle,
Cameroon, Ghana, Tanzania, Lesotho, Botswana, Democratic Republic of Congo, Swaziland, Malawi, Namibia,
Zimbabwe, Zambia, Swaziland, Somalia, South Sudan and South Africa. Participants were drawn from National
Government representatives departments namely; National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPO), Plant
 11

Protection Research and Extension. Also in attendance were; specialist regional and international organizations,
independent research specialists working on FAW, other research and development institutions, universities,
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), FAO global experts on FAW, development partners, inter-
governmental organizations, RECs, Private sector, media and other major stakeholders. Thus, the meeting was
attended by multiple stakeholders and the unique expertise and experiences of the participants enriched the
deliberations. Details of the participants and individual organizations represented are provided in Annex 1.

2. Meeting process and opening session

2.1 Pre- meeting and meeting process

The meeting was held at Villa Rosa Kempinski hotel in Nairobi, Kenya. The process employed a range of
approaches including; screening a documentary on FAW, moderated panel discussions and plenary, power point
presentations and discussions, group work and plenary, question and answer sessions. (See program details in
Annex 2). Highlights of the meeting deliberations/presentations are provided in section 3.0.

2.2 Welcome, introduction of participants and curtain raiser video on FAW in Africa

The meeting facilitator, an FAO international technical consultant Dr Rose Njeru, welcomed the participants to
Nairobi Kenya and to the FAW meeting. The facilitator emphasized that the pest is threatening livelihoods and
food security in Africa. She also introduced the participants. To ensure that all present were familiar with the
pest, the facilitator welcomed participants to watch a brief documentary about FAW with a focus on; its origin,
introduction and spread within the African continent and the impacts the pest has had on livelihoods and food
security so far.

3.0 Presentations, group discussions and plenary sessions

3.1 SESSION I: Moderated panel discussion followed by plenary

The session was moderated by Mr Wallace Kantai, a renowned journalist with Nation Media Group in Kenya. The
panelists were drawn from different organizations and they had an opportunity to make brief remarks on FAW
and these are highlighted below;

Dr. B.M. Prasanna, Director Global maize Program, CIMMYT: Overview of the meeting and the place of
partnerships and coordination in addressing the FAW scourge.

The speaker highlighted that FAW invaded the continent following the 2016 El Nino drought and it is affecting
farmers and other vulnerable communities who are still reeling from this effect. Further, Maize Lethal Necrotic
 12

Disease (MLND) also hit East Africa in the recent past and while this pest is being managed in a coordinated
manner, FAW has invaded the continent. The FAW is polyphagous, has high reproductive potential and there is
need to develop an integrated pest management strategy. The speaker also stressed that among other experts,
23 African countries, development partners, experts from areas where FAW is endemic and have vast
experience and knowledge on the pest were represented because strong partnerships are critical in managing
the pest. Also outlined were the objectives of the meeting.

Dr. Joe DeVries, Vice President, Program Development and Innovation, AGRA: Addressing the FAW
menace to sustain the agriculture transformation momentum.

The speaker was emphatic that FAW invasion could hold back the Green Revolution and there is need to get
help to the farmers as fast as possible and in a collaborative manner. He stressed that farmers are using
pesticides to manage FAW but appropriate precautionary measures are not necessarily adhered to. The need to
build on biopesticides was emphasized. Also pointed out is that collectively, partners can mount useful
interventions and build on previous efforts such as; AGRAs investment in capacitating agro-dealers who can
avail inputs, the existing skilled expertise, modern technology and governments' support in applied research.

Dr. Lewis Hove, Head of the FAO Resilience and Emergency office for Southern Africa (SFS-REOSA):
Extent of devastation across the continent, future scenarios and solutions that can work.

The speaker pointed out that FAW is a regional and not a national problem, thus being a transboundary pest it
must be tackled from a regional angle. He also emphasized that the pest is spreading fast and is likely to
increase in intensity even beyond the African continent. Also stressed is that the FAW is threatening maize, a
key staple in many countries in Africa and is increasing production cost particularly for the vulnerable
communities. The speaker stressed the need to strengthen pest diagnosis and surveillance to feed into an early
alert systems and rapid response in addition to guiding management. Also emphasised is that the fight against
FAW requires political good will.

Dr Candace Buzzard, Deputy Missions Director, USAID Kenya and East Africa, The need for a regional
coordinated initiative to effectively address FAW challenge.

The United States Agency for International Development has been working through Feed The Future program to
improve livelihoods particularly of the smallholder farmers. The FAW invasion is hitting key staples in the
continent and this has the potential to compromise livelihoods and food security. The FAW is a regional and not
national problem and the Regional Economic Communities should play a pivotal role in coordinating
management efforts. The intervention calls for Regional coordination and linking with global partners so as to
learn from other continents.
 13

Dr Mathews Matimelo, Principal Agriculture Research Officer, NPPO representative, Zambia: Impact of
FAW in Southern Africa and rapid response measures.

The speaker pointed out that the pest is widespread in all mainland countries in Southern Africa except Lesotho
where it has not been reported. Also pointed out is that there were initial cases of pest misdiagnosis in many
countries and all national governments in the region responded by investing in chemicals as a first line of
defense. The key impacts of the pest were report as; intensive pesticide use including aerial sprays, increased
maize production cost, some smallholder farmers have abandoned heavily infested fields, replanting of maize
fields. Also emphasized is that FAW is likely to impact food security in the region and the continent at large. The
need to identify different chemicals available and determine their efficacy and quickly communicated same to
farmers was singled out.

Dr. Richard Lesiyampe, Principal Secretary, State Department of Agriculture Kenya: Threat of FAW to
national food security and international trade: Government interventions so far and the role of partners
in finding solutions:

The PS was represented by the Assistant Director of Agriculture Mr Clement Munyesu. The speaker informed the
audience that FAW has been reported in 14 counties in Kenya and the government had taken necessary
measures including; issued alerts to inform farmers and the public about the threat, guided management by
availing possible pesticides for use as an immediate response and convened consultative meetings with key
stakeholders in an effort to chart the way forward. He also pointed out that the country has been struggling to
produce sufficient maize and FAW invasion is an additional challenge on an already dire situation. The speaker
expressed confidence that the meeting would guide FAW management by providing better understanding about
the pest and how to combat it. The Assistant Director was pleased that Kenya was well represented and
confident the outcomes of the meeting would help Kenya in managing the threat better. Also emphasised is that
the Kenyan government is ready to work with partners in the fight against FAW.

3.2 Session II: Brief overview of Fall Armyworm incidence, impacts and control measures adopted so
far: Chair: Dr Joyce MulilaMitti, FAO

National experts from; Southern, Eastern, Central and West Africa made presentations on the status of FAW in
their respective countries. In addition, the overall status of the pest in Western Africa was made by an expert
from the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. The key highlights of the session are captured below.
 14

3.2.1 Summary of country presentations

Presentations by national experts from Eastern, Southern, West and Central Africa on the status of FAW in their
respective countries revealed that the pest is widely distributed in at least 23 countries in the continent. The pest
has been reported on sorghum, sweet corn, millet, sugarcane, pepper, okra, cocoa, cowpea and weedy plants
but the most commonly affected crop is maize.

Pest identification was mainly based on its morphology, damage on host and some countries also employed
molecular tools. Both the corn and rice strains were reported but majority of the African countries are yet to
characterize the pest to strain level.

Control Measures: The use of cultural measures and botanicals was reported but synthetic pesticides are the
most common measure being employed in the management of FAW in all countries. The use of cocktails of
pesticide molecules with similar mode of action is a concern. Further pesticide use is; not based on local efficacy
trials except in Uganda and South Africa, most are not registered for FAW control in many countries and use of
protective clothing is limited. Other challenges encountered in FAW management include limited; access to
pesticides, information sharing, regular surveillance in most countries, diagnostic capacity and other resources.
South Africa is the only African country where Bt maize which has an effective single mode of action for Fall
Armyworm and dual mode of action for Stem Borers is under commercial production.

Impact of FAW: The affected African countries are yet to determine yield loss due to FAW but the impact of the
pest in Africa include; intensive pesticide use including aerial sprays, increased maize production cost, some
smallholder farmers have abandoned heavily infested fields, replanting of maize fields has been reported and
overall the invasion is likely to contribute to food insecurity. Example in Uganda FAW has affected 69 of the total
119 districts in main maize growing areas with speculated loss of income worth USD$ 192 Million and some
farmers losing the entire 2016/2017 crop. Malawi reported up to 100% yield loss in heavily infested fields and
recommended farmers to uproot the crop and over 8% of the total 1726347Ha planted with maize were affected
by FAW during the 2016/2017 summer crop. In addition there are reports of the pest infecting the current 2017
winter crop in Southern Africa.

Existing opportunities which can be exploited to enhance FAW management include; the partnerships which
are already in place in most countries, a significant number of stakeholders have reasonable knowledge about
FAW, working groups are in existence, field monitoring is ongoing, some knowledge generation initiatives are
also in place. Details of country presentations are provided in Table 1.
 15

Table 1: Fall Armyworm: Status, management options being used, challenges and opportunities in Southern,
Eastern, West and Central Africa.

Country Fall Armyworm Status Management measures challenges Opportunities

Taken

Scenario in Southern Africa

First FAW report was in Using cocktail of insecticides - Initiated resource

Rukwa Region in distributed by the mobilization
Tanzania
February 2017, currently government.
Present in Northern,
Coastal and Southern
Regions

South Africa Fall Armyworm initially FAW listed as quarantine Confusion in initial FAW management
detected in Limpopo & pest, registered 49 diagnosis, limited steering committee in
North West provinces in pesticides including 3 bio- finances & insufficient place, research
2016, currently in all pesticides with 11 different information to guide group and technical
provinces except two, modes of action and are IPM. experts groups are in
affecting maize, onion, used for control of other place, contingency
cabbage and sugarcane. Lepidoptera species, plan is in place,
Pest identified by ARC. active and regular
surveillance ongoing.
Developed
assessment tool.
Hoping to have
community based
warning system.

Mozambique First reported in January Pesticides being used for Most of the pesticides Working groups and
2017, present in 9 of the FAW management, severe in use are not yet stakeholder forums in
10 provinces, in late planted maize and registered in the place, Preparing
less on early planted, country, same as for awareness creation
African Armyworm. materials, monitoring
ongoing lobbying
policy makers for
funds, resource
mobilization ongoing
donors are being
 16

approached.

West and Central Africa

Ghana First reported in April Pesticides Budgetary constraints, -

2016 in Eastern Region, Need to train farmers,
Awareness creation in use
Mistaken as stalk borer, buy traps, purchase
By March 2017 pest had 2016 was reported on stock for control of
spread throughout the 43,220Ha and during off outbreaks.
country. season crop on 1248Ha only
in 2017, assessment said be
On cowpea, okra,
underestimate due to
pepper, millet, cocoa,
shortage of extension
sorghum and sugarcane.
officers.

DRC First FAW report was in Pesticides in use, Limited resources and Government and
January 2017 in Awareness creation. diagnostic capacity other stakeholders
Lubenga and Upper (skilled staff and currently doing
Katanga. Identified by equipment) survey
IITA

Reported on Maize and

rice.

Eastern Africa

Kenya First confirmed presence Pesticides, cultural control Financial constraints, In the process of
in January/February shortage of pheromone procuring
2017. Currently in 14 traps. pheromones to guide
counties in Western early warning,
region of the country, wavered pesticide
grain basket zone. efficacy trials to
15,000Ha of maize enable pesticide
destroyed as of April companies trade and
2017 translating into train farmers,
30bags/Ha@3000KSh
about Ksh 1.35Billion.,
loss of 40 million bags

Rwanda First reported in January Pesticides, hand picking, - Future awareness

2017 in marshland awareness creation. creation
bordering Burundi and
 17

DRC. Identification
confirmed by CABI in the
UK.

By early April 2017

present in 30 districts on
maize, sorghum and
sugarcane.

Uganda First report in April/May Currently in 69 of 119 Inappropriate pesticide Launched FAW
2017 in 4 districts, districts in major maize use control, Bioassays
initially suspected to be growing areas. and registered
stalk borer pesticides,
awareness creation, ,
research is on-going,
national taskforce in
place, FAW plan in
place

Ethiopia First report in Oromia is Pesticides Shortage of finances Developed proposal

Southern Region, to commence
identity based on resource
morphology, plan to mobilization.
send samples to CABI
for confirmation

3.2.2 The status of Fall Armyworm in West Africa

The above topic was covered by Dr Georg Goergen from the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA),
Cotonou, in Benin. The speaker highlighted that the pest is present in eight countries in West Africa namely;
Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Niger, Nigeria, Togo and So Tom and Prncipe. He also focused on
the distribution of FAW in Africa, currently reported in 23 countries as of April 2017. The speaker stressed that
in the affected countries, FAW is mainly attacking maize and sorghum and effects are most severe on young
maize. Although the pest has high rate of developing resistance to insecticides, pesticide use is still the most
common management option being employed by farmers.

The available options for the management of FAW were outlined as:

Genetically Modified Crops: Transgenic maize is widely used in the Americas but has several
challenges including; reports of resistance with single gene Bt-maize, need to integrate non-Bt-maize
 18

refuges to delay buildup of resistance and only few African countries have authorized the use of
transgenics.

Biopesticides such as Baculoviruses Spodoptera frugiperda multiple nucleopolyhedrovirus (SfMNPV)

which is; host specific, has long soil persistence, very low non-target risks, available as a commercial
product from AgBiTech and IITA is testing 4 strains.

Biopesticide being produced at smallholder level which is an alternative to enhance effect through
coating of NPV with neem oil.

Biological control is also feasible but the cropping conditions in Africa differ from the monoculture
system in Western Hemisphere. In the latter, FAW co-evolved with potential parasitoids and IITA is
currently testing the following; Telenomus remus Nixon, Chelonus insularis Cresson and Cotesia
marginiventris (Cresson).

3.3 Session III: Fall Armyworm -- what do we know so far, and what must be done?

Chair: Dr B. M. Prassana

3.3.1 Fall Armyworm in Africa: Status and Strategy for Effective Management

The topic was covered by Dr Rod Nagoshi from the Center for Medical, Agricultural and Veterinary Entomology,
USDA-ARS, Florida and he focused on FAW population genetics and migration in North America. The speaker
stressed that there are two FAW host strains namely, the Rice-strain which attacks pasture grasses, alfalfa,
millet, rice and the Corn-strain which mainly attacks corn, cotton and sorghum. In North America, there are
reports that the Corn and Rice strains mate and hybrids are present in the field. The two strains are
morphologically indistinguishable and can only be identified through genetic markers. The differences between
the two strains include, mating behavior, resistance traits, reproductive incompatibility and pheromones. FAW
does not survive winter and in North America FAW population annually migrates 3000 km from March-
September. Thus the pest infests most of the United States and southern Canada and then overwinters in
southern Florida, southern Texas and Mexico in areas under corn production. The migration follows wind
direction and pattern, thus in Wet Africa which has South West winds, the FAW population in Ghana influences
the Togo and Benin Populations. The FAW in Togo is predominantly the Corn strain and its source is likely to be
Florida and Trinidad. Important to note is that the Wind pattern in Africa is more complex than what exists in
North America. Molecular methods were employed to detect allele responsible for Bt resistance in FAW in Puerto
Rico population and the resistance allele is absent in the Togo FAW population.
 19

Some research questions

Why is FAW so widespread in Africa? Does it involve a single introduction followed by rapid migration or multiple
introductions and local dispersion? Was the introduction human-aided or through natural migration? It is
important to begin to address these questions by making genetic comparisons between geographically distant
populations in Africa and focus on; determination of species and strain, estimate likely Western Hemisphere
origin, Identify likely migration pathways, Identify Bt-resistance alleles and study control agents including;
Telenomus remus and Cotesia marginiventris colonies.

3.3.2 Transgenic options for control of Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Africa.
The topic was covered by Mark Edge the Director of Collaborations for developing countries in Monsanto. The
speaker started by emphasizing that transgenics is not a silver bullet but a tool and an integral component of IPM
tool box. He emphasized that Bacillus thuriengensis (Bt) is a soil inhabiting bacterium that produces crystal
proteins (Cry proteins) which are toxic to many species of insects and has been used as a biological insecticide
for over 50 years, including in the organic market. Bacillus thuriengensis vary; target insects and the degree of
efficacy differs. The Bt approach has proven safety for; good profile for environmental and health considerations,
as a foliar spray but its main weaknesses are production, delivery and durability. The speaker also covered the
following; mode of action of Bt, area under biotech crops globally, advantages of trait stacking, positive impact of
Bt maize in Brazil by improving yields through protection from insect damage. Also pointed out is the similarity
between Africa and Brazil especially with regard to; Lepidoptera being the key pests on maize in the two regions,
having favorable environment for FAW proliferation and market dynamics which create hurdles for refuge
implementation. Improper stewardship of Bt technologies has consequences and contribute to development of Bt
resistance. Thus the primary causal factors for Bt resistance were cited as; limited (or zero) refuge compliance,
less than high dose, single-Bt products and tropical environments which favors fast completion of life cycle. The
adoption of Bt maize in Africa was also covered namely; a) YieldGard VTPro (MON89034) which has an effective
single mode of action for Fall Armyworm and Dual mode of action for Stem Borers and is under commercial
production in South Africa, b) Water Efficient Maize for Africa which is transgenic drought-tolerance and insect-
resistant (Bt) targeting Stem Borers (MON810 Cry1Ab) and not targeting Fall Armyworm and is at various
stages of testing in East Africa. In Kenya, MON810 application is conditionally approved and pending conditions
for commercial release while in Uganda, Tanzania & Mozambique confined field trials are ongoing and
applications for commercial release of the same product is targeted for 2018. In Ethiopia the first confined field
trials are planned for 2018. In conclusion the speaker emphasized that stacking traits with high-dose and
different modes of action is the best long-term strategy and that regulatory and political barriers in Africa would
need to be addressed to make Bt Maize a viable tool in FAW management.
 20

3.3.3 The jurys out: FAW evidence and gaps

The topic was covered by Dr Roger Day of CABI and the presentation was based on a review on FAW which
was commissioned by DFID. The information was drawn from multiple sources including; literature, personal
communication, Plantwise program partners and Ghana FAW response workshop. In addition, the speaker
covered FAW distribution and biology, damage, impact and available practical control measures.

Speaker stressed that FAW Damage could be modelled using environmental suitability models namely,
Suitability for FAW based on climatic variables, location of susceptible crops and losses reported in literature.
Maize yield loss reported in literature vary; 15-73% in Nicaragua, 4% in Brazil and 17% in the USA. Using the
formula below, it is estimated that across all affected African countries FAW will cause maize loss valued at
$3,058 million in 2017/18. The 2017/18 maize yield loss estimate was a sum of the calculated loss in each
country using the formula;

$ Loss=% loss*crop value*weighting where: a) % loss for infested crops is based on reports in literature,
(30% for maize), b) crop value=production*price for the country based on FAOStat and weighting=estimated
proportion of area infested

Control options covered include the following;

Pesticides with different modes of action and levels of hazard (according to the WHO Classification) are available
for FAW management. The speaker stressed that pesticides are effective when; used correctly, different types
are rotated to reduce risk of resistance development, sprayed early or late in the day and on young larvae which
can be achieved if monitoring is in place. Monitoring can be done by using pheromone traps and different
versions of these are commercially available. The Russell IPM pheromone trap has been optimised in Zambia.
Light traps can be improvised (homemade version) using kerosene wick over water.

Bacillus thuringiensis based options:

Bt spray is an option and genetic modification has been used to improve its efficacy. Although
transgenics are available, resistance has been reported in Americas but the products have not been
tested in Africa.

Virus based bio-pesticide: Naturally occurring virus, SfMNPV has been used to develop a product and
AgBiTech has a factory in Texas thus, product is commercially available. The product is effective when
used correctly; it is host specific and has very low non-target risks. The company (AgBiTech) is
interested in conducting trials in Africa. However, the product only targets FAW, the registration of an
exotic insect pathogen takes a long time and it is not yet known whether the virus is present in Africa.

Botanicals are another option e.g Commercial products (e.g neem) and plants with insecticidal and/or
anti-feedant effect on FAW. Though effective they are short-lived and variable. Not clear how widely
 21

used, home-production is labour intensive and faces resource limitations. Has advantage of having no
residual effect.

Host plant resistance is sustainable and CIMMYT has lines that may offer partial resistance but
breeding is needed to introduce other traits. Also their performance is unknown under Africa conditions
and may not meet consumer preference.

Genetically Modified (GM) crops containing Bt genes are available but few countries have approved GM
crops so far and resistance has been reported in both Bt-maize and Bt-cotton. Other Challenges
include; Resistance to the Cry1F protein (group) in Bt Maize, some cross resistance to CryA and the
need for refuge crops as a measure to reduce risk of resistance development.

Rear release parasitoids: Example, mass rearing and release of parasitic wasps targeting FAW eggs
which requires through investigations including; What predators are attacking FAW in Africa and how
much mortality?

Classical biocontrol: Introduction of a natural enemy can be highly effective. Example,FAW egg
parasitoid Telenomus remus, was introduced to Caribbean countries and some success reported. IITA
plans to introduce T. remus and others but the agent may fail to establish or it may establish but have
little effect.

Cultural control using appropriate varieties, intercrop maize & beans, remove weeds, destruction of
crop residues, rotate with non-hosts though the pest has a wide host range, ploughing/cultivating to
expose larvae & pupae, handpicking egg masses and larvae, applying sand sawdust or soil in the whorl
(with ash/lime). However, it is unlikely that any option will provide adequate control alone.

3.3.4 Ecology of Armyworms in Africa a comparison of a new and an established species

The topic was covered by Professor Ken Wilson from Lancaster Environment Center in the United Kingdom. The
speaker pointed out that the Fall Armyworm is native to and largely confined to the Americas. Within the African
continent, the pest was first report in West Africa in 2016. Fall Armyworm is the major pest of maize in Brazil. The
Region continues to also battle with the African Armyworm. The Africa Armyworm builds its population on
pastures and remains visible on the plant surface while the Fall Armyworm oviposits (lays eggs) directly on the
main host (infested plant) leaf surface, larvae burrows into the plant where it continues to cause damage and
remains out of reach by commonly used contact pesticides. Further; Fall Armyworm has a wide host range and
has been reported in over 80 plant species belonging to 27 families, has high reproductive and dispersal
potential; completing 10-12 cycles within one year under the favorable warm tropical environment. The use of
organic pesticides in Fall Armyworm control is common but development of resistance has been reported. In
America, the use of Maize hybrids carrying Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt) gene for the management of Fall
 22

Armyworm is common but field resistance to Bt genes has been reported. The speaker also pointed out that
migration of the FAW is seasonal and currently, there seems to be northward movement from South Africa.
There are indications the Pest could even migrate into Europe.

Fall Armyworm Larvae (left) and damage on immature maize grains

 23

3.3.5 Update on Consultation Meetings organized by FAO on FAW

The update was provided by the Regional Agronomist FAO Resilience Hub for Southern Africa Mr Sina Luchen.
The speaker emphasized on the status of the Fall Armyworm in Southern Africa and pointed out that the pest
was; initially misdiagnosed as stem borer in some SADC member states, was causing serious damage on maize
across Southern Africa from December 2016 to the end of 2016/2017 production season and farmers were
reporting ineffectiveness of pesticides to the FAW when applied at rates recommended against other caterpillars.
By the end of April 2017, the pest had been reported in all SADC inland member states except Lesotho. The key
threat of FAW include; it is impacting on the harvest of vulnerable households who have low capacity to respond
to the pest and are still reeling from the impact of the El Nino, its impact on successive seasons including the off
season crops, implications on pesticide resistance, increasing cost of maize production and pesticide load in the
production ecology, food chain and human health. Owing to the above, FAO responded rapidly to FAW invasion
and the speaker summarised the early interventions as; a) FAO issued alerts to all FAO countries about the pest
threat and governments in Southern Africa region embarked on pest awareness campaigns, pesticide
procurements and distribution to farmers, b) FAO in partnership with SADC and IRLCO-CSA organized a
regional meeting in Zimbabwe, Harare, from 14-16 February 2017, so as to; galvanize partnerships for response,
ascertain the pest situation in the affected countries, share experiences on the pest and agree on the course of
action for containing and sustainably managing the pest in the region. Recommendations of the meeting
targeting immediate, medium and long-term interventions were arrived at. Some progress has been made in the
implementation of the recommendation and outcomes from the just concluded Southern Africa Technical
meeting include; pest damage assessment protocols have been developed, collaborative interventions between
the private sector and researchers in development of bio pesticides such as NPVs have been initiated, some
countries are setting up surveillance systems to enhance early warning and better preparedness, service
providers are carrying out trials on identifying effective pheromone lures, some countries are undertaking
pesticide efficacy studies and FAO is supporting assessments and setting up of surveillance systems.

Even with the above interventions, gaps still exist in that the pest is likely to be endemic to the region and
continue to cause damage throughout the year in most parts of the region. For instance; reports of FAW damage
on the 2017 irrigated crop are being received from some countries, there are inadequacies in taxonomic services
in most countries, inadequate localized knowledge base upon which to develop an IPM programme, inadequate
flow of information from some countries and financial limitations.
The speaker pointed out that to enhance FAW management there are opportunities which can be exploited and
these include; the existence of institutions and structures for pest containment and sustainable management,
strong interest on the subject by many stakeholders, useful observations made by farmers and others on the
pest weaknesses including; FAW vulnerability to heavy rains, low temperatures, effective chemical suppression
when applications are made on early larval instars and early indications of availability of natural enemies in the
local ecology.
 24

3.3.6 The resistance of Spodoptera frugiperda to Bt: Lessons and implications for Fall Armyworm
management in Africa
The topic was covered by Dr Fangneng Huang from the Lousiana State University in the USA. The genetics and
heritability of the traits were covered in details. The speaker stated that FAW is one of the pests that has
developed resistance at multiple locations and in different countries. He also emphasized that Among the
strategies put forward to reduce resistance development in insects include; the use of high dose events,
adopting refuge strategy and gene pyramiding of BT genes with different modes of action. Reasons for rapid
development of Bt resistance in FAW were cited as; its highly mobile and long distance migratory behavior,
relatively tolerance to Bt proteins, high reproductive potential giving rise to several generations per year, pest has
no diapause, limited refuge compliance and insecticide resistance issue. The speaker pointed out that Bt
technology can be an effective tool for FAW management in Africa but no single gene trait should be used for
FAW management in Africa. Also emphasized is that pyramiding products have longer larger longevity and the
stacked genes should have different modes of action.

3.3.7 Harnessing Google Earth Engine for large-scale crop monitoring

The topic was covered by Shawn Kefauver from the University of Barcelona and focused on how to harness the
power of digital technology in monitoring and mapping of agricultural occurrences. The speaker pointed out that
large scale crop mapping requires the use of big data and Google Earth Engine can be used to manage this
type of big data to produce crop or vegetation maps. The technology can be employed to map out FAW spread
and outbreaks and to model or forecast future spread.

3.4 Session IV: Are there solutions for controlling FAW incidence? Chair: Dr Felister Makini, Kenya

Agriculture and Livestock Research Organization

The private Service and products providers were well represented in the meeting. The integral role they play in
fighting the FAW as input providers among other services including; Pesticides, equipment and training was
recognised. Each Service Provider had an opportunity to introduce the product(s) and also touch on its;
effectiveness, costs, and scale-up capacity in Africa.

3.4.1 Kenya biologicals

An overview of Kenya Biologicals Company was provided. The company is based in Kenya and they specialize
in bio-control products using agents/organisms sourced locally. The company is in the process of collecting FAW
specimens and examining them to find out if they are infected with viruses. The target is to develop virus based
product s for FAW management. The comparative advantage of using bio-control products from Kenya biological
is that products are easily accessible to most African countries and adaptability is high, relatively cheap and like
 25

other bio-control products, non-toxic to man, animals, non- targets organisms and there is no risk of developing
resistance. The company is already producing a viral product against Lepidoptera pests.

3.4.2 International Pheromone Systems (IPS)

The brief was given by Mr Hansom of IPS, a UK based company that specializes in pheromone traps and has
over 30 years experience. The company has products for the management of over 30 pests including
Armyworm. The IPS product for FAW is Spodoptera Frugiperda S07, a Sex Pheromone attractant with an active
life of 4-6 weeks depending on the temperature. It has a shelf life of 2 years when stored correctly.

3.4.3 Bayer: Belt SC480 for the Control of Spodoptera frugiperda in Maize

A brief overview of FAW management product for Bayer was given by Mr Joseph Kibaki. The product under the
trade name Belt is recommended for FAW control in maize and the active ingredient is flubendicamide. The
product causes the FAW to stop feeding and paralyses the pest within 1-2 hours. The product should be applied
throughout the growing period and commence at early larvae stages before they barrow into the host. The
product does not harm beneficial insects, it is registered in countries when it's in use and costs US$ 25 to cover
one hectare of maize. Bayer has a network within Africa and capacity to scale out the product to ensure access
to end users.

3.4.4 Surveillance tools for crop pests

The topic was covered by Mr Roedolf Nieuwenhuis from Crop Watch Africa and he highlighted the key pests
and diseases of concern to Southern Africa. These included fungal, viral, bacterial, beetles and lepidoptera
species. Crop Watch is engaged by South Africa for early warning on sugarcane stalk borer and FAW on same
and also conducting field trials on Tuta absoluta. Crop Watch uses the following tools in early warning systems;
Satellite and NIR to highlight activities to guide effective trap placement, Mobile app for data collection and this is
uploaded on an online portal, Automated scheduled reporting program, Imagery aerial change detectors to
monitor crop growth. Currently Crop Watch is involved in FAW trapping using pheromone traps. The
organization provided training support to their clients, assists in early warning grid planning and set up,
consultants.

3. 5 Session V: Break-out Group Discussions on FAW management: Chair of plenary session: Dr

Stephen Mugo of CIMMYT
 26

Participants formed four groups and each team deliberated on a specific topic. The topics and highlights from the
sessions were discussed in plenary and these guided development of actions points and recommendations. The
summaries are provided in sections 3.5.1 to 3.5.4 also drew from the deliberations of a taskforce formed to tease
out action points under the leadership of Dr B. M Prassana of CIMMYT.

3.5.1 Contingency Planning and Awareness Creation on FAW among Farming Communities in
Africa

The group was guided by the following questions;

What contingency plans are available in the countries/regions with high FAW incidence?
What are the high risk countries /regions for which contingency plans need to be developed?
Who should be involved in the design and implementation of the country wise contingency plans
Specify institutions and their roles and responsibilities?
What are the best possible avenues to generate awareness among the farming communities about
FAW and its management options?

Most of the countries represented in the meeting have contingency plans and have put in place
measures to identify FAW in addition to creating awareness about the pest. All the countries are using
pesticides as the key management option. The national contingency plans are not harmonized and
their operationalization is constrained by; local knowledge gaps about the pest and effectiveness of
control measures being employed, lack of resistant varieties and limited; access to meteorological
data, human and financial resources. Also some plans are not anchored in national laws and
regulations. The group identified the entire Sub Saharan Africa as being at high risk from FAW
invasion while North Africa was categorized as a low risk region. Lack of region specific as well as a
continental contingency plan to effectively guide management of FAW and other transboundary pests
is another challenge.

Recommendations teased out from group discussions and plenary include;

FAO to share samples of well-designed contingency plans to assist countries strengthen

existing versions where necessary, including; anchoring the plans in national policy and
regulations and allocating sufficient resources.
Sensitizing regulatory authorities to support fast-tracking the process of testing, validating and
registering FAW control options that are not available in the local market, support national
surveillance and early warning to feed into a regional/continental early warning system.
 27

develop awareness creation materials to empower growers on best available immediate FAW
control options and to develop standard guidelines for prevalence of FAW and impact
assessment. (See Annex 3a for details from the group discussion).

3.5.2 FAW Monitoring and Early Warning Systems

Early warning in Africa

To establish an early warning system requires collection of high quality data on FAW outbreak and
timely sharing of same. Most of the African countries lack a FAW early warning system though there
are plans to procure pheromone traps. South Africa is the only African country undertaking laid out trial
traps through a private company, Crop Watch. Sao Tome is using light traps and all other countries are
making physical field visits to look out for outbreaks. However, experience from the United States
suggests that most pheromone traps are not very effective for FAW early warning but are useful for
research purposes. All participating countries plan to procure pheromone traps through support from
FAO. There is eminent threat of FAW moving to North Africa and beyond through trade and/or
migration and countries which have recorded FAW outbreak should report same to IPPC secretariat to
alert trade partners. Overall, establishing an early warning system is constrained by limited surveillance
at national level, knowledge gaps about FAW including failure of most countries to characterize the pest
to strain level. Almost all countries in Africa are presently responding to the FAW outbreaks, rather than
to an early warning. Systematic assessment of present and potential economic impacts of FAW is yet to
be done but many countries are planning to do so. Details on group deliberations on early warning and
monitoring are provided in annex 3b.

3.5.3 Development and Dissemination of FAW Management Options

Synthetic pesticides are the most common measure being employed in the management of FAW in all countries.
The use of cocktails of pesticide molecules with similar mode of action is a concern. Further, pesticide use is not
based on local efficacy trials, most are not registered for FAW control in many countries and use of protective
clothing is limited. The use of cultural measures including; hand picking, planting dates and destruction of crop
residues. In addition, the use of botanicals including neem and Tephrosia was reported. South Africa is the only
country where commercial Bt-maize with single gene for targeting FAW and double gene for stalk borer
resistance is under production. Further resistance to FAW in conventionally-derived maize germplasm has been
identified by CIMMYT from the Caribbean maize germplasm. The sources of resistance to FAW must be
transferred into relevant Africa-adapted genetic backgrounds in a fast-tracked manner. The parasitoids
 28

Telenomus remus and Cotesia marginiventris were reported to be effective against FAW in Brazil and the USA;
which alongside other management options such as SfMNV could be exploited. Details on group deliberations on
management are provided in annex 3c.

The development of sustainable management measures as teased out of the group discussions and
plenary requires that;
Immediate measures

All the available information on the efficacy of different FAW management options is complied,
adapted by sub-geographies in Africa and packaged for target audiences.

Urgently create awareness among the farming communities and extension personnel about
FAW, its life-cycle, and how to recognize and destroy egg masses and early larval stages

Create adequate awareness among policymakers and regulatory organizations on the need for
fast-tracked testing, registration and quality management of FAW management options.
Support research for development focusing on Short term: Analysis of the efficacy of available control
options, Benefit-cost analysis of the different FAW control options, host range and migration patterns
and Data on economic thresholds and injury levels of FAW, Determining the efficacy of cultural control
options against FAW and Encourage policy makers and regulatory organizations to fast-track
immediate testing of Bt maize to enable a pathway for commercial release in the medium- to long-term.

Medium-term measures: Developing appropriate formulations, dosage levels, and application

strategies for synthetic pesticides, biopesticides and botanicals for the African context. Determining the
efficacy of natural enemies on FAW to evaluate the potential for conservation / classical biocontrol
strategies, testing a classical biological control approach through exploration, introduction, evaluation
and release of natural enemies from outside Africa, Study of the effects of FAW management options
on conservation agriculture in African cropping systems and evaluate the impacts on-going integrated
pest management initiatives such as Push-Pull program and the stem borer bio-control program on
FAW invasion, and the impacts of FAW invasion on the effectiveness of these interventions.

Long-term: Determine the environmental impact of the ongoing extensive application of synthetic pesticides,
and conformity to international safety standards, Developing and implementing an appropriate insect resistance
monitoring and management strategy and tools for insecticides and transgenic control options, as relevant, in the
FAW affected countries in Africa, Testing and introgression of conventionally-derived FAW resistance into
Africa-adapted maize germplasm, followed by varietal release, seed scale-up and delivery of improved maize
hybrids/varieties, Testing and publishing the efficacy of relevant Bt Cry/Vip3A transgenic events against FAW,
and release of FAW-resistant transgenic maize germplasm in countries outside South Africa, where appropriate,
after necessary regulatory approvals and consultations. The use of transgenic crops requires training of the
 29

farming communities on the refugia strategy to maintain the efficacy of the transgene as well as to avoid rapid
buildup of insect resistance against the transgene.

3.5.4 Coordination of Institutional Interventions for FAW Management in Africa

Most African countries have been responding to FAW at national level with minimal coordination at Regional and
continental levels. Constraints contributing to coordination challenge include limited; capacity within national
institutions and the RECs that are mandated to collate and share information quickly, sharing information on
transboundary pests that may affect trade, targeted messages for different stakeholders and information and
communication flow among stakeholders. Further, roles and responsibilities are not very clear. Details of group
discussions are provided in annex 3d.

Recommendations as teased out of the group discussions and plenary:

1. Regional Economic Communities (RECs) to play a prominent role in coordinating policy, communication
and strategies at the sub-regional level. At national level, regulatory bodies and designated focal
persons/points should quickly collate the available information on the present and potential risks/negative
impacts associated with FAW menace on food security, livelihoods and national economies, and sharing
the relevant information with governments and other relevant stakeholders in Africa to fast-track
interventions at different levels.

2. Coordination role at continental level for resource mobilization and management initiatives should be
coordinated by FAO.

3. Similar to the African Armyworm, FAW should be added to the mandate of the Desert Locust Control
Organization for Eastern Africa (DLCO-EA) and International Red Locust Control Organization in Central
and Southern Africa (IRLCO-CSA) which have the structural capacities for quick detection and
emergency response as evidenced in the control of pests under their mandate.

4. Also adopt modern technology (ICT) to facilitate information sharing, establish a FAW Information Portal
needs to be setup as one-stop window for understanding the status, recommendation domains,
technologies, publications etc., similar to the Armyworm Network Information Portal developed and
managed by Prof. Ken Wilson (Lancaster University, UK), and MLN Information Portal established by
CIMMYT [Timeline: By 31st August; Responsible: CIMMYT, and Lancaster University, supported by FAO
and CABI].
 30

Some of the participants following keenly during a plenary session

 31

3.6 Session VII: Perspectives of the Development Partners on FAW management: Panel Discussion

The session chair was Dr Joe DeVries and each of the panelists representing specific development partner was
given an opportunity to give their views about FAW with emphasis on what they are doing and plan to do. The
views are summarised as follows;

Mr Joseph Huesing: USAID

Africa stands a chance to borrow and adapt the effective control measures being used in the Americas.
Whatever approaches Africa choses to employ they must be; science based and also take advantage of host
plant resistance, use advanced technologies and evaluate African germplasm. Bio-control is pivotal and
laboratories in Africa can play a key role in making this an integral component of an IPM strategy. Coordinated
information sharing and ensuring the right message gets to the target audience is critical. Also important to note
is that a seed in the farmers hand is a more predictable option of FAW management than others and hence the
need to pursue host plant resistance approach. There are concerns of misuse of pesticides and the questions
are; are farmers adequately trained? Are there clear guidelines for pesticide use? Which FAW strains exist in
each African country?

Ms Melissa Brown: World Bank

The World Bank is keen to support countries to fight FAW but to do so the stakeholders need to be very clear as
to what the immediate, short, medium and long term interventions need to be tackled. The World Bank is
providing support to countries through its lending mechanisms. However, more concrete information is needed to
help determine levels of support required at national and continental level.

Mr Duncan Barker: DFID

We need quantitative data on the expected loss attributed to FAW. DFID is looking at how existing programs
such as the initiatives through CABI can be adjusted to tackle FAW. There is need for more evidence based
information especially from NPPO and if this is not available it needs to be generated.

Dr Ian Barker: Syngenta Foundation

We need to use all possible tools in the tool box in the fight against FAW and the effort requires coordination at
national, regional and continental levels. Syngenta Foundation has had interventions on capacity building in
breeding against stem borers. The existing breeding materials which are partially resistant to stem borers should
be screened for resistant to FAW. In addition, Syngenta is keen to give more support to NPPOs. Speaker posed
the question: who is best placed to coordinate FAW initiatives at global level? Ensuing discussion settled on FAO
as the institution best placed to coordinate FAW initiatives in Africa.
 32

Dr Winfred Hammond: FAO

The speaker pointed out that FAO has been on the forefront in the fight against FAW since the first invasion in
Africa which was reported in West and Central Africa and also the subsequent outbreaks in Southern Africa. He
also mentioned that FAOs strategic framework focuses on strategic interventions and building resilience of
farmers and other actors. Further, strategic interventions ensure that inbuilt sustainability mechanisms are an
integral component. Also shared was FAOs experience in Southern Africa on strengthening national institutions
to improve on surveillance, setting up early warning systems and meeting international reporting obligations and
enhancing preparedness to respond to emergencies. Also pointed out is the recent mandate of FAO to
spearhead FAW initiatives in the Southern Africa Region and also provide data on impact assessment and status
of the pest and this is ongoing. The mandate was arrived at during the Southern Africa Development Community
(SADC) May 2017 Extra Ordinary Ministers meeting. Also pointed out is that FAO is in the process of developing
an Africa wide program to tackle the threat posed by FAW.

3.7 Closing Remarks

The remarks were made by representatives of the organizing institutions and are summarised below;

Dr Prassana stated that it was a pleasure for CIMMYT to have convened the meeting in partnership with FAO
and AGRA, all being institutions which are supporting Africa. He thanked FAO for her special role in mobilizing
NPPOs to participate. He also acknowledged the country experts who shared on the status of FAW in their
countries and all participants in particular the Donor community and the Private Sector among others. To
synthesis outcomes and frame recommendations from the meeting, Dr Prassana requested for volunteers to
form a task force and handle the task. A task force was formed.

Dr Joe DeVries of AGRA thanked all participants and emphasized that he was humbled by everyones
willingness to contribute to discussions in a meeting which focused on helping the farmer and did put the farmer
at the center. He stressed that it was time to deliver and stop FAW invasion from becoming a catastrophe. There
is a clear opportunity to help the farmer, was his concluding remark.

The FAO-SFS Crop Production and Protection officer, Dr Joyce MulilaMitti thanked CIMMYT and AGRA as co-
organizers who had embraced FAO with open hands during the planning phase of the meeting and beyond. She
pointed out that the partnership was strong. The speaker emphasized that to strengthen rapid response requires
capacity building and strengthening of national institutions to use the right tools, the International Standards for
Phytosanitary measures (ISPM). She also stressed the need for detailed assessment on the impact of FAW and
to engage policy makers, forge partnerships, enhance diagnostic capacity in a coordinated manner. The speaker
also pointed out that because pesticide use is currently a key first line of defence against the pest, FAO would
continue to significantly contribute in this area through its pesticide program to safeguard food safety issues and
 33

trade. In concluding, the speaker stressed the need for FAOs work with CIMMYT to broaden beyond; seed
technical committees, Conservation Agriculture and other agro ecology related issues.
 34

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

The key issues highlighted during the meeting include;

1. Presentations by national experts from Eastern, Southern, West and Central Africa on the status of
FAW in their respective countries revealed that the pest is widely distributed and still spreading in at
least 23 countries in the continent. The pest has been reported on sorghum, sweet corn, millet,
sugarcane, pepper, okra, cocoa, cowpea and weedy plants but the most commonly affected crop is
maize.
2. Pest identification was mainly based on its morphology, damage on host and some countries also
employed molecular tools. Both the Corn and Rice Strains were reported but majority of the African
countries are yet to characterize the pest to strain level and this has management implications.
3. The affected African countries are yet to determine the full extent of damage including yield loss due to
FAW but the impact of the pest in Africa include; intensive pesticide use including aerial sprays,
increased maize production cost, some smallholder farmers have abandoned heavily infested fields,
replanting of maize fields has been reported and overall the invasion is likely to contribute to food
insecurity. It is recommended that to build on the already gathered data and information; harmonized
impact assessment tools for FAW outbreak be developed for systematic assessment of the present and
potential social and economic impacts in addition to developing forecasting models and tools for
estimating the potential losses due to FAW infestation.
4. It was established that African countries represented have contingency plans in place but some; require
updating or anchoring to national policy, their operationalization is constrained by the relatively weak
surveillance systems and inadequate; support by policy makers, local knowledge about FAW, financial
and technical capacity and some lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities. Further the lack of region
specific as well as a continental contingency plan to effectively guide management of FAW and other
transboundary pests is another challenge. It is recommended that countries; harmonize their
contingency plans and align them to national policy and regulations, allocate sufficient resources to aid
implementation, support regular surveillance, policy makers and regulatory authorities be sensitized to
support fast-tracking the process of testing, validating and registering FAW control options that are not
available in the local market to support rapid response. Further, countries should adhere to reporting
obligations to the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) Secretariat to facilitate information
sharing.
5. Most African countries have developed strategies for FAW monitoring but an early warning system is
absent in most due to limited; diagnostic capacity and lack of information on country specific FAW
strains, access to pheromone traps, regular surveillance and adoption of modern information
communication technology (ICT) for surveillance systems. It is recommended that harmonized standard
 35

operating procedures and action plans on early warning and regular surveillance be developed,
characterisation of FAW to strain level be conducted and optimization of the best pheromone blend for
both the Rice and Corn strains of FAW be supported to aid the development of an effective early
warning tool against FAW. Further, countries need to report FAW outbreaks to the IPPC secretariat to
alert trading partners and other countries of imminent danger of FAW moving to North Africa, Middle-
East, Europe and Asia through pest migration or/and trade.
6. Presently, FAW management entails isolated use of botanicals and cultural methods in addition to the
widespread use of synthetic pesticides whose use has preceded local efficacy trials and their
registration for FAW control in most countries. South Africa is the only African country where transgenic
maize (containing genes encoding delta endotoxins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)) which has an
effective single mode of action for Fall Armyworm and dual mode of action for Stem Borers is under
commercial production.
7. Available technological options for minimizing the damage caused by FAW were discussed and include;
Synthetic pesticides preferably those within the lower levels of hazard category but must be; used
correctly, different types rotated to reduce risk of resistance development and sprayed at an appropriate
time on young larvae.
Botanicals including neem which is commercially available and Tephorosia which is being used by
farmers but may require further validating.
Cultural control measures including, intercropping, weed control, destruction of crop residues, crop
rotation, ploughing to expose larvae and pupae, handpicking egg masses and larvae. The measure is
unlikely to provide adequate control in the absence of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) measure.
Host plant resistance
o Genetically Modified crops containing Bt genes are available. Example, transgenic maize
which is widely grown in the Americas but its use is constrained by; reports of resistance with
single gene Bt-maize, the need to integrate non-Bt-maize refuges to delay buildup of
resistance and few African countries have authorized the use of transgenics.
o FAW resistant sources have been identified in conventionally derived maize from the
Caribbean maize germplasm by CIMMYT but the resistance must be transferred into
appropriate Africa-adopted maize.
Possibility of using bio-control organisms by rearing and releasing parasitoids or introduction of natural
enemies but there are possibilities that the control agents may not establish or may not be effective.
8. To minimize the damage caused by FAW through adoption of appropriate technological options, it is
recommended that;
Policymakers and regulatory organizations in African countries be sensitized to support fast-trucked
testing, registration and quality management of FAW management options including pheromones,
 36

synthetic and bio-pesticides, botanicals, natural enemies and FAW resistant germplasm to improve
access and guide FAW management.
Knowledge gaps be addressed by supporting immediate research/priority areas in; a) FAW host range
and migration patterns, benefit-cost analysis and economic injury levels as a basis for guiding FAW
management, b) targeted packaging of available information on the efficacy of different FAW
management options and c) creating awareness among key stakeholders to support FAW
management.
Support be accorded for medium-term measures on; developing appropriate formulations, dosage
levels and application strategies for pesticides and botanicals, investigating effect of early planting and
climate smart agriculture practices on FAW, determining the efficacy of natural enemies on FAW,
testing classical biological control approaches through using natural enemies from outside Africa,
determine effects of FAW management options on conservation agriculture in African cropping systems
and on-going integrated pest management initiatives.
Support be accorded for long-term measures to determine the environmental impact of the ongoing
extensive application of synthetic pesticides, develop and implement an appropriate insect resistance
monitoring and management strategy and tools for insecticides and transgenic control options, testing
and introgression of conventionally-derived FAW resistance into Africa-adapted maize germplasm and
testing and publishing the efficacy of relevant Bt transgenic events against FAW and where appropriate;
release of FAW-resistant transgenic maize germplasm in countries outside South Africa after necessary
regulatory approvals and consultations.

9. Most African countries have been responding to FAW at national level with minimal coordination at Regional
and Continental levels. Coordination is constrained by limited; capacity within national institutions and the
Regional Economic Communities (RECs), sharing of information on transboundary pests that may affect trade,
targeted messages for different stakeholders and information and communication flow among stakeholders.
Further, roles and responsibilities are not very clear. Participants at the meeting resolved that;

Coordination of FAW initiatives at continental level including resource mobilization and management
initiatives be spearheaded by FAO while RECs play a prominent role in coordinating policy, communication
and strategies at the sub-regional level. At national level, regulatory bodies and designated focal persons to
collate the available key information on FAW and share same with governments and other relevant
stakeholders. Further, countries increase support for plant health national technical committees, regular
regional technical committee forums and strengthen linkages with the Inter-Africa Phytosanitary Council.
FAW should be added to the mandate of the Desert Locust Control Organization for Eastern Africa (DLCO-
EA) and International Red Locust Control Organization in Central and Southern Africa (IRLCO-CSA) which
have the structural capacities for quick detection and emergency response.
 37

Modern information technology be adopted so as to facilitate information sharing and a FAW information
Portal be setup as a one-stop window for understanding the status and other key issues.
10. Existing opportunities which can be exploited to enhance FAW management include; the established
partnerships in most countries, some reasonable knowledge and awareness about FAW, existing FAW working
groups, field monitoring is ongoing and some knowledge generation initiatives are ongoing.

5.0 Annexes
 38

Annex 1: List of participants

Participants: Stakeholders Consultation Meeting on Fall Armyworm in Africa: Status and Strategy for Effective
Management (Kempinski Hotel, Nairobi; April 27-28, 2017)

No. Organization Names Country Contact (Email)

1 PNL INERA MULUNGU ruhebuza kijana DRC kijanaruhebuza@yahoo.fr
2 Senasem Willy Kaja Ngombo DRC cajanus2003@yahoo.fr
3 EIAR (Bako National Maize Dr. Girma Demissie Ethiopia gdemissie2009@gmail.com
Research Center
4 KALRO Dr Felister Makini Kenya Felister.Makini@karlo.org
5 KALRO Regina Tende Kenya itstende@gmail.com
6 KALRO- NSRC Dr. Muo Kasina Kenya muo.kasina@kalro.org
7 MOA Ms Teresia Karanja Kenya Teresia.Karanja@morlo.org
8 Agricultural Research Services Doctor Gondwe Malawi doctorgondwe@gmail.com
9 IIAM Prof. Domingos Cugala Mozambique dcugala@gmail.com
10 CSIR- SARI Gloria Boakyewaa Ghana gloriaboakyewaa@yahoo.com
11 RAB Claver Ngaboyisonga Rwanda c.ngaboyisonga@yahoo.com
12 MoA Grace David Matiku Tanzania dmatiku@gmail.com
13 NARO Michael Otim Uganda motim9405@gmail.com
14 Crop Protection Cyrille R. Kambire Burkina Faso cyrille_kam@yahoo.fr
15 Ministry of Food and Agriculture Christopher Ocloo Ghana ellingchrisoc@yahoo.com
Regional Plant Protection and
Regulatory Services Officer
16 Ministry of Agriculture Dr Albert Changaya Malawi ChangayaAlbertDr@yahoo.fr
17 Mr. Towolawi Oluwole Nigeria lateeftowolawi@gmail.com
Lateef
18 Ministry of Agriculture Claudine Berababyeyi Rwanda beracoco@gmail.com
19 Crop Protection Division (MAIF) Stephen Byantwale Uganda byantwale@gmail.com
20 Ministry of Agriculture Mable Mudenda Zambia banji.mudenda@gmail.com
21 KEPHIS Dr. Isaac Macharia Kenya macharia.isaac@kephis.org
22 KEPHIS Hellen Heya Kenya hheya@kephis.org
23 County Government- Tranzoia Kenneth Kagai Kenya kagaiken@yahoo.com
24 EAGC Ms Davine Minayo Kenya dminayo@eagc.org
25 AGRA Chris ASANZI DRC CAsanzi@agra.org
26 AGRA Joe DeVries Kenya JDeVries@agra.org
27 AGRA Lilian Gichuru Kenya Lgichuru@agra.org
28 AGRA Jane Ininda Kenya Jininda@agra.org
29 AGRA Rebbie Harawa Kenya Rharawa@agra.org
30 AGRA Issoufou Kapran Kenya Ikapran@agra.org
 39

31 AGRA Regina Richardson Ghana Rrichardson@agra.org

32 AGRA Olive Mogire Kenya Omogire@agra.org
33 AGRA Zuhura Masiga Kenya Zmasiga@agra.org
34 AGRA Rufaro Madakadze Kenya Rmadakadze@agra.org
35 AGMARK James Mutonyi Kenya jmutonyi@agmark.org
36 AGRA Judith Naibei Kenya JNaibei@agra.org
37 AGRA David Ndung'u South Sudan Dndungu@agra.org
38 AGRA Alice Thuita Kenya Athuita@agra.org
39 AGRA Stacy Mwangala Kenya Smwangala@agra.org
40 AGRA Itai Makanda Kenya Imakanda@agra.org
41 Lancaster University Ken Wilson UK ken.wilson@lancaster.ac.uk
42 Lousiana State University Fangneng Huang USA FHuang@agcenter.lsu.edu
43 USDA Rodney Nagoshi USA Rodney.Nagoshi@ars.usda.gov
44 Univ of Barcelona Shawn Kefauver Spain sckefauver@ub.edu
45 Virginia Tech R Muniappan USA rmuni@vt.edu
46 Monsato Mark Edge Kenya mark.edge@monsato.com
47 Bayer Joseph Kibaki Kenya josephkibaki.miano@bayer.com
48 Kenya Biologics Chris Kolenberg Kenya chris@kenyabiologics.com
49 IPS Ltd. Hans Moller UK hans@internationalpheromone.co.uk
50 One Acre Fund Patrick Bell Kenya patrick.bell@oneacrefund.org
51 Desert Locust Control Org Stephen Njoka Kenya swnjoka@yahoo.com
52 AFSTA Grace Gitu Kenya gitu@afsta.org
53 UNILU & UCB David Bugeme DRC davidbugeme@yahoo.fr
54 ICIPE Sevgan Subramanian Kenya ssubramania@icipe.org
55 ICIPE Komi Fiaboe Kenya kfiaboe@icipe.org
56 CABI Roger Day Kenya r.day@cabi.org
57 AATF Denis Kyetere Kenya d.kyetere@aatf-africa.org
58 IITA Georg Georgen Nigeria G.Goergen@cgiar.org
59 CIMMYT B.M Prasanna Kenya b.m.prasanna@cgiar.org
60 CIMMYT Stephen Mugo Kenya s.mugo@cgiar.org
61 CIMMYT Tsedeke Abate Kenya t.d.abate@cgiar.org
62 CIMMYT Anani Bruce Kenya abruce@cgiar.org
63 CIMMYT Brenda Wawa Kenya B.Wawa@cgiar.org
64 CIMMYT Hugo De Groote Kenya h.degroote@cgiar.org
65 CIMMYT Peter Craufurd Kenya p.craufurd@cgiar.org
66 CIMMYT Dave Hodson Ethiopia d.hodson@cgiar.org
67 CIMMYT Adefris Teklewold Ethiopia a.teklewold@cgiar.org
68 CIMMYT Consultant Julie Mollins USA julie.mollins@gmail.com
69 USAID Joseph Huesing USA jhuesing@usaid.gov
70 USAID - REI Brian Fahey Kenya bfahey@usaid.gov
 40

71 USAID - REI Tracy McCracken Kenya tmccracken@usaid.gov

72 USAID - REI Mary Onsango Kenya monsongo@usaid.gov
73 USAID - Mission Fenton Sands Malawi fsands@usaid.gov
74 DFID Duncan Barker UK duncan-barker@dfid.gov.uk
75 Syngenta Foundation Ian Barker Switzerland ian.barker@syngenta.com
76 Syngenta Foundation Dr. Wilson Songa Kenya wilson.songa@syngenta.com
77 NASECO Nicoli Rodeyns Uganda rodeynsnicolai@yahoo.com
78 World Bank Mellisa Brown Southern Africa mbrown1@worldbank.org
79 Ministry of Agriculture Donald Kachigamba Malawi dkachigamba@gmail.com
80 Departamento de Sanidade Carvalho Ecole Mozambique ccecole@gmail.com
Vegetal Recinto do IIAM
81 Ministry of Agriculture Mathews Matimelo Zambia yamiko2006@yahoo.com
82 Ministry of Agriculture Godfrey Chikwenhere Zimbabwe goddypasu@gmail.com
83 South African Department of Simphiwe Mnguni South Africa simphiwemn@dell.gov.za
Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries
84 Ministry of Agriculture Kuate Sebua Botswana ksebua@gov.bw
85 Ministry of Agriculture Edward Tjihuro Namibia ctjihuro@mawf.gov.na
86 Ministry of Agriculture Rorisang Mantutle Lesotho rorisangmotanyane@yahoo.co.uk
87 Ministry of Agriculture Wilson B. Sikhondze Swaziland wilson.sikhondze@gmail.com
88 Ministry of Agriculture Idalina De Sousa Sao Tome idasousa@yahoo.fr
Principle
89 Ministry of Agriculture Justin Murhula Cishugi DRC jcishugim@gmail.com
90 Ministry of Agriculture Alexis Mpawenimana Burundi almpawe2@gmail.com
91 Ministry of Agriculture Clement Ndikumasabo Burundi clementndikumasabo@yahoo.com
92 ARC Van Vuuren South Africa vanvuuren@arc.agri.za
93 DRSS Providence Mugari Zimbabwe peeana@gmail.com
94 Eddie B. S. Hasheela Namibia eddie.hasheela@mawuf.gov.na
95 ZARI Gilson Chipabika Zambia gilsonchipabika@gmail.com
96 Bheki Nzima Swaziland nzimambheki@gmail.com
97 Johnny Masangwa Malawi masangwajohnny@gmail.com
98 Ms Mpinane Sefooko Lesotho sefookompinane@gmail.com
99 Boipelo Ramangalo Botswana bramongalo@gov.bw
100 Muamba Kabongo DRC borakabongo@gmail.com
101 Osvaldo De Assuncao Sao Tome bonfimosuzldo14@outlook.com
Principle
102 Deolinda Pacho Mozambique deolindapacho.dp@gmail.com
103 Ministry of Agriculture, livestock Rebecca Mawishe Tanzania rebeccamawishe@yahoo.com
and Fisheries
104 FAO Head Quarters Marsland, Neil Rome Italy neil.marsland@fao.org
105 FAO Regional Office for Africa Jacques Conforti Ghana jacques.conforti@fao.org
106 FAO Regional Office for Africa Jean-Baptism Bahama Ghana jean.bahama@fao.org
107 FAO Regional Office for Africa Winfred Hammond Ghana winfredniiokaihammond@gmail.com
108 FAO Subregional Office for Sina Luchen South Africa sina.luchen@fao.org
 41

Sourthern Africa- REOSA

109 FAO Subregional Office for Rachel Nandelenga South Africa rachel.nandelenga@fao.org
Southern Africa - REOSA
110 FAO Subregional Office for Joyce Mulila-Mitti Zimbabwe joyce.mulilamitti@fao.org
Sourthern Africa
111 FAO Subregional Office for Ronia Tanyongana Zimbabwe ronia.tanyongana@fao.org
Sourthern Africa
112 FAO Subregional Office for Duncan Katuramu Zimbabwe duncan.katuramu@gmail.com
Sourthern Africa
113 FAO Subregional Office for Rutendo Tinarwo Zimbabwe Rutendo.Tinarwo@fao.org
Sourthern Africa
114 FAO Subregional Office for Sangia Sankung Gabon sankenga.sagnia@fao.org
Central Africa
115 University Of Zimbabwe Peter Chinwada Zimbabwe peter.chinwada@gmail.com
116 Crop Watch Africa Roedolf Nieuwenhuis South Africa roedolf@cropwatch.co.za
117 Agro-Innovations International Rose Njeru Kenya njeru_rose1@yahoo.com
118 CCARDESA Baitsi Podisi Botswana bpodisi@ccardesa.org
119 ASARECA Brian Isabirye Uganda bisabirwe@asareca.org
120 IPSAC Nana Sani Flaubert Cameroun nana_sani@yahoo.fr
121 Africa University Walter Manyangarirwa Zimbabwe manyangarirwa@africau.edu
122 Junior Chamber International Derian Echeverri - Molin South Africa derianecheverri@yahoo.com.mx
123 FAO Subregional Office for Lot Mlati South Africa lot.mlati@fao.org
Southern Africa - REOSA
124 FAO Subregional Office for East Mathew Abang Ethiopia mathew.abang@fao.org
Africa
125 FAO Subregional Office for East Solomon Gelalcha Ethiopia solomon.gelalcha@fao.org
Africa
126 FAO Somalia Alphonse Owuor Somalia alphonse.owuor@fao.org
127 SADC Esaiah Tjelele Botswana etjelele@sadc.int
128 FAO Kenya Allessio Colussi Kenya alessio.colussi@fao.org
129 TALIK AFRICA Winnie Kamau Kenya kamawinnie@gmail.com
130 BM SECURITY Joseph B. Mutinyi Kenya jbarasa@bmsecurity.com
131 AATF Emmanuel Okogbinin Kenya t.okogbeni@aatf-africa.org
132 FEWSNET Godfrey KAfera Zimbabwe gkafera@fews.net
133 FEWSNET Philmzile Mdladla South Africa pmdladla@fews.net
134 FAO Otto Vranney Muhinda Rwanda otto.muhinda@fao.org
135 NASECO Rodenys Nicoli Uganda
136 USAID/ OFDA Mackenzie Keller Ethiopia- Kenya nairobi_io@usaid.gov
137 USAID/ OFDA Rob Friedman USA rfriedman@usaid.gov
138 FEWSNET NIGIST Biru Ethiopia nbiru@fews.net
139 Kenya Biologics Samson Chege Kenya samson@kenyabiologics.com
140 FAO Kenya Stanley Kimereh Kenya stanely.kimereh@fao.org
141 Food Trade- DAI Francis Osiewe Kenya francis_osiewo@dai.com
142 Koppert Geoffrey Ongeya Kenya gongoya@keppert.co.ke
143 Luvaha Luvaha Kenya luvluvaha@gmail.com
 42

144 USAID- Mission Mellisa Fraser USA mfraser@usaid.gov

145 DFID Liz Drake Kenya L-Drake@dfid.gov.uk
146 KEPHIS George Ngundo Kenya gongoya@keppert.co.ke
147 USAID Candace Buzzard Kenya cbuzzard@usaid.gov
 43

Annex 2: Meeting program

Draft Program for Stakeholders Consultation Meeting on Fall Armyworm in Africa: Status and
Strategy for Effective Management (Kempinski Hotel, Nairobi; April 27-28, 2017)

Time Topic Speaker/Facilitator/Responsible

DAY 1 (Thursday, 27 April)
08:00-08:30 Arrival and Registration Organizers
08:30-08:40 Welcome & Introduction of Facilitator: Dr Rose Njeru
Participants
08:40-08:50 Curtain raiser video on FAW in Africa
SESSION I Moderated panel discussion Wallace Kantai, Moderator
followed by a plenary session: Each
panelist will get 2-3 minutes to make
brief remarks
Dr. B.M. Prasanna, Director Global maize Programme, CIMMYT: Overview of the
08:50 - 10:20 meeting and the place of partnerships and coordination in addressing the FAW
scourge.

Dr. Joe DeVries, Vice President, Programme Development and Innovation, AGRA:
Addressing the FAW menace to sustain the agriculture transformation momentum.

Dr. Lewis Hove, Head of the Resilience and Emergency office for Southern Africa
(SFS, REOSA): Extent of devastation across the continent, future scenarios and
solutions that can work.

Private Sector Representative TBD: Role of private sector in addressing the FAW
scourge including a highlight of available solutions that can be taken to scale,
communication with end-users

Mathews Matimelo, Principal Agriculture Research Officer, NPPO representative,

Zambia: Impact of FAW in Southern Africa and rapid response measures

Dr. Richard Lesiyampe, Principal Secretary, State Department of Agriculture, Kenya:

Threat of FAW to national food security and international trade. Government
interventions so far and the role of partners in finding solutions.

10:20-10:30 Group photo Organizers

10:30 - 11:00 Press conference with GoK, FAO, Organizers
CIMMYT and AGRA
Coffee/Tea Break
Session II: Brief overview of Fall Armyworm Chair: Joyce MulilaMitti (FAO)
incidence, impacts and control measures adopted
so far
11:00-11:40 Southern Africa (Malawi, South Representatives of NPPOs (10 min each)
Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe)
 44

11:40-12:20 Eastern Africa (Kenya, Rwanda, Representatives of NPPOs (10 min each)
Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia)
12:20-12:50 West and Central Africa (Nigeria, Representatives of NPPOs (10 min each)
Ghana, D.R. Congo)
12:50-13:00 Update on Consultation Meetings Mr. Sina Luchen (SFS_ REOSA)
organized by FAO on FAW
13:00-13:45 Lunch
Session III: Fall Armyworm -- what do we know so Chair: B.M. Prasanna (CIMMYT)
far, and what must be done?
13:45-14:15 Ecology of armyworms in Africa a Kenneth Wilson (Lancaster University, UK)
comparison of a new and an -- 20 min presentation & 10 min Q&A
established species
14:15-14:45 Fall Armyworm in North America -- Rodney Nagoshi (USDA-ARS)
Population genetics, migration -- 20 min presentation & 10 min Q&A
routes, and biological control
14:45-15:15 The jurys out: FAW evidence and Roger Day (CABI)
gaps -- 20 min presentation & 10 min Q&A
15:15-15:45 Coffee/Tea
15:45-16:15 Transgenic options for control of Mark Edge (Monsanto)
FAW in Africa -- 20 min presentation & 10 min Q&A
16:15-16:45 The resistance of Spodoptera Fangneng Huang (Lousiana State Univ.)
frugiperda to Bt: Lessons and -- 20 min presentation & 10 min Q&A
implications for Fall Armyworm
management in Africa
16:45-17:15 Harnessing Google Earth Engine for Shawn Kefauver (Univ. of Barcelona)
large-scale crop monitoring -- 20 min presentation & 10 min Q&A
Session IV: Are there solutions for controlling FAW Chair: Dr Felister Makini
incidence?
17:15-18:15 Each Service Provider will have 10 10 min for each presentation plus 5 min Q&A
min to introduce the product(s), for each Service Provider
effectiveness, costs, and scale-up
capacity in Africa
End of Day 1
 45

DAY 2 (Friday, 28 April)

Session V: Break-out Group Discussions on FAW
management
09:00-09:15 Introduction to the Group B.M. Prasanna
Discussions & formation of Groups
09:15-11:15 Break-out Group discussions (with Each Group (15-20 participants from diverse
specific set of Qs to address) institutions) will select its own Chair and
Rapporteur
11:15-11:45 Coffee/Tea
Session VI: Plenary Session Chair: Stephen Mugo (CIMMYT)
11:45-13:00 Presentations from each break-away Each Group makes a 10-15 min presentation
Group
13:00-14:00 Lunch
Session VII: Perspectives of the Development Partners on FAW management: Panel Discussion
14:00-15:00 FAO Winfred Hammond
USAID Joseph Huesing
DFID Duncan Barker
BMGF TBD
Syngenta Foundation Ian Barker
World Bank TBD
15:00-15:30 Lunch
Wrap-up
15:30-16:00 Remarks Joe De Vries (AGRA) / Joyce MullilaMitti
(FAO) / B.M. Prasanna (CIMMYT)
 46

Annex 3: Group Discussions

Annex 3a: Contingency Planning and Awareness Creation on FAW among Farming Communities in
Africa

1. What contingency plans are available in the countries/regions with high FAW incidence
2. What are the high risk countries /regions for which contingency plans need to be developed
3. Who should be involved in the design and implementation of the country wise contingency plans Specify
institutions and their roles and responsibilities
4. What are the best possible avenues to generate awareness among the farming communities about FAW
and its management options

1. Countries 2. Existence of 2.Gaps 3. High risk 4. Institutions in the Roles

/ Contingency countries/ implementation of
Regions plans contingency plans
Regions

1. Uganda Yes- Contingency Research e.g Sub Saharan Africa -Ministries of -Technical advice
mechanism existence of - high risk Agriculture and coordination
resistant Varieties
-e.g NPPO to lead

-Institutions responsible - Sectoral

for disaster
preparedness Co-ordination

2. DRC Yes- Contingency Lack of Climatic Low risk -North -Ministry of -Resources
Mechanism information Africa
Finance-

-Academia- -Technical
support

3. Malawi Yes Contigency Resources - -Taskforce Co-ordination/

mechanism human and implemetation
financial

-technical
-Research (National
 47

international) support on viable

actions

4. Swaziland Yes Tailor made Limited -Private sector -service provision

agriculture clusters knowledge e.g
effective control
options -Resources

-Donors/NGOs

- resources

-UN agencies

5. Lesotho Yes- Contingency -Farmer representation - Technology

mechanism adoption and
implementation

6. Bukina Yes-contingency
faso mechanism

7. Kenya Yes contingency

mechanism

8. Zambia Yes contingency

mechanism

9. Zimbabwe Yes- Contingency

mechanism

10. Ghana Yes Contingency

mechanism

Regional level

1. Desert
Locust
control for
Eastern
Africa
2. IRLCO-
CSA-in
Southern
Africa
 48

3. Interstate Mandate not

Communit derived out of
y Against national laws
Drought in
the Sahel
(CILSS) in
west
Africa
4. COMESA

5. East
African
Communit
y (EAC)

Note

There is need for support in harmonizing Capacity in contingency planning in the region and member states e.g
SADC experience should be adopted in all the regions
 49

Annex 3b: Monitoring and Early warning

Notes on the discussion

Pheromone traps Physical inspection Light Traps Population Dynamics

Ghana traps arriving soon All Sao Taome

S Africa trial traps by crop

watch waiting to procure
more

Plans to procure

Botswana

Namibia

Malawi

Mozambique

Angloa

Kenya

Nigeria

Zimbabwe

Somalia

Ethiopia

DRC?

Sao Taome
 50

Questions 1 & 2 & 4

Early warning:
o US experience: Pheromone traps not effective EWS; Physical exam most effective; pheromone traps are
more helpful on research side.
o Community based forecasting: Pheromone trap helpful for AAW.
o Use traps for monitoring presence and correlating with damage levels and thresholds
o None of the participating countries are currently using pheromone traps, but all plan to, and FAO is
supporting them.
o It is important to test them first
Other forms of EWS & monitoring:
o Field Surveys
o Risk modelling based on heat maps to look at where outbreaks are more likely
o Economic damage and loss assessment are needed,
o Need to think about season rain patterns and implications for setting traps
Communicating information (national to local)
o Zimbabwe: Toll free # and data collated centrally

Question 2: Monitoring and impact assessment

Monitoring effective where systematic surveys happening.

Gaps: mobilising to undertake those surveys and integrating with technology to make more efficient.
o Field surveys most doing to some extent. Is it effective?
o Reacting to impact of the pest > than EW
o Zambia, Ethiopia have effective systematic field surveys
o Kenya & DRC planning; Malawi, Botswana not doing
Impact assessments:
o No country undertaken at present, many have planned to do so.
o Ethiopia experience useful
o US economic assessments;
o Visual Davis scales are needed to established damage, but damage levels need to be linked to loss
assessment
o Impact assessment methods for other crop pests can be used, in particular GIS analysis of presence,
damage and loss to estimate impact of pests and their control methods

Question 3:

Question 5:

Crowd sourcing survey approach in Ethiopia free phone in service; can access survey and send out to target
extension agents and farmers; CYMMT and OneAcre Fund.
South African systems need to be explored in more detail.
ODK system in Somalia and national pest survey could adapt for FAW. Free. Real time data analysis. Prevalence,
means, SD. Photo and resolution 30m.
ODK is free and also used for MLN and wheat rust, some had instability experience, but there are other systems.
 51

Roles and responsibilities of different institutions

Kenya: national and county government roles key.

Tanzania: MoA and Research institutions key. MoA: Disease outbreak monitoring and response. Research on pest
control.
Malawi & Namibia: MoA main role. Special task force on FAW to spearhead and coordinate with all stakeholders.
Sub-regional level activities: should cover EWS surveillance & transboundary pest and disease outbreaks
o SADC: info to national level via country reps
o COMESA: ad hoc committee (MLM epidemic worked well now set up for FAW) not a permanent
committee; IGAD?
o Desert locust, qualia, army worms and tsetse flies control organisation. Now want to get a mandate for FAW.
o continent wide system needed to aggregate
o ECOWAS meeting 6-8th June
 52

Recommendations

Pheromone traps
1. Need list of potential suppliers for Pheromone traps (e.g. IPS/ RUSSEL). Determine capacity for supply, compare to
demand. Need to ensure economies of scale and regional procurement.

2. Need research on:

a. The best pheromone blend specific to two strains are other species affected? What blend works x
countries?
b. Need lessons learned from previous use of Pheromone traps for AAW.
c. Engage with research institutes x countries initially?
d. Need to keep pheromones refrigerated and need careful handling.
e. Literature review of survey methods to develop standard protocols and need correlation with temperature,
humidity and altitude and impact on yields.

3. Need for sub-regional coordination and logistics on how to use, monitor and manage Pheromone Traps. FAO
Sub regional office for Eastern Africa countries are considering acquiring pheromone traps (e.g. Rw, Bur, Eri, Tz, Ken,
Ethiopia, Uganda, Somalia); similar for Western and central planning sub-regional project.

4. Think about how to engage private sector in pheromone trap optimisation

Monitoring, impact and data

5. Monitoring & Early warning:

a. Need shared, coordinated & quality data & research thats geotagged x countries.
i. Need central point that can analyse, QA and coordinate data inputs and outputs.
ii. Use crowd-source based tools and systems with standardised protocols that can be merged x
countries. Keep simple 3 questions. Working group on apps. Need a scale of early warning (e.g.
alarm levels).
iii. We can piggy-back and add some questions to on-going surveys (Ethiopia agricultural survey,
Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS) surveys, Vulnerability assessment surveys in
Southern Africa,

b. Consider the use of ICT and PPP for more reliable data.
i. Do you go for fewer farms in detail or wider (but potentially lower quality data).
ii. Stats on Chemical use and purchase as a proxy EW indicator.
iii. Community surveys

c. Lessons learned on forecasting needed and made available.

i. Recording presence & absence for the models to work. (e.g. Locust approaches could help using
NDVI maps). Need to take account of country specific contexts.
ii. Need to understand links to El Nino forecasting. Perfect storm on pest population and drought
stress. Post spring barrier forecasting accuracy +ses. If increased risk- need to send clear policy
recommendations to policy makers.

Impact assessments:
 53

6. Need a variety of cost effective, clear and standardised impact assessments but build on existing pre and post
surveys and systems and add in specific FAW questions

a. Economic & Physical: Need clear but simple protocol on economic impacts & yield losses (e.g. Southern
Africa useful; standardized Davis scale, visual assessment of yield loss is hard but links can be established.
Uni of Zim trying to correlate the impact of FAW on crop and standardize it. Data needs to be geo-referenced
and look across different crops (not just maize). Use of standard crop assessment and post-harvest surveys
where questions can be added. Different countries collect their official stats differently but should build on
existing systems (e.g. Zimbabwe experience; FEWS net yield data).

b. Socio-economic surveys: (e.g. Namibia) Impacts on food security (vulnerability assessment surveys) by
country. Undertake KAP surveys different modules to understand how cultural practices play a role. Need to
know the impact on livelihoods.

c. Country lessons: Need more info from US and Brazil. Dont know if it will breed all year round in Africa.
Need to think about seasonal impacts according to crop and planting cycles.

Roles and responsibilities of different institutions

7. Add FAW to the mandate of the Desert Locust Control Organisation for Eastern & Western Africa (DLCO-EA
and SILS).
8. IRLCO
 54

Annex 3c: Potential management options for FAW and what needs to be done to come up with an effective
management options?

Control option discussed so far

- Largely pesticide sprays

- Some cultural control option- Handpicking, planting date
- Little bit on parasitoid
- Early planting and complete destruction of affected crops

Cultural control:

Handpicking:

How effective is it?

It is effective at the beginning

Major source of infestation is urban areas in Southern Africa, Handpicking could be useful in these regions

-unlike stemborer it did not bore into the stem

-encourage farmers to do early scouting and removal of eggs or early stage of feeding as skeletonizing
It also depends on the stage of crop at which infestation occurs
Labour availability

Research needs:

-A protocol when to scout and how best it can be done needs to be researched

The stage at which the techniques are likely to effective needs to be researched for all the other options such as pesticides

Training program for growers and extensionist on the scouting

Planting dates:

The role of planting dates as an option came from observation in Malawi, Nigeria, Mozambique and others

Mozambique early planting advantage was observed in the same area

Uganda early planting resulted in heavy infestation

-more to do with rainfall and host plant

-One season data might not be sufficient

-Planting date is related to water availability as well, permanent cropping in irrigated maize systems

-Community mobilization for planting within a window will help in lack of build up of inoculum

Research needs:

-Knowledge of migration
-How can early warning systems help in assessing planting dates
-Alternate crops are planted in rotation to maize??? Eg. Sorghum and Sugarcane
-Limited database on the biotype and control options vary with biotypes (need for characterization of haplotypes)
-detailed and dependable host range studies needed
-Consider stemborer
Eg. Community mobilization by CIMMYT in Kibogo helped in reducing the inoculum of MLN
FAW Planting dates is a researchable issue
 55

MLN synchronized planting is proved to be effective

Trap cropping:

- S. litura Castor plants are a trap crop

- It is worth checking for FAW
- Review of literature from Americas by CAB could add more information in this regard

Ash and sand application:

Destruction of crop residues: Where they survive in off season

Soil management: Tillage, Residue

Implication of Conservation agriculture needs to be researched in detail for sustainability

Pesticides:

Synthetics:

-Pyrethroid
-Organophosphates
-Nicotinoids (Thiamethoxam)
-Ready mix in Nigeria (Pyrethroids and systemic pesticide) effective but expensive

Botanicals

Botanicals Neem (found to be effective)

Seed treatments for early infestation

Seed treatments Aguafia in Mexico effective???

- Early instars are affected

- Use of pesticides on soil for pupae
- Affordability of pesticide by small-scale farmers

Who supplies the pesticides? Who is responsible for the efficacy trials?

Its a mixed picture of government and growers getting the pesticides

Malawi Dept of Agriculture

- Rotating different types of pesticides

- Spraying early or late in the day

Mozambique

- Govt has a stockpile of pesticide for African Armyworm and application is suggested by outbreak monitoring
- Can this type of system work in FAW?

Zambia

-Distribution of pesticide according to class of pesticides in different region

-Efficacy of chemicals evaluated on FAW is on-going

-Cypermethrin, Malathion, Lambda (effective)

 56

Uganda

looking at a rapid response

-Tested 11 pesticides on IIIrd instar with systemic pesticides as well

-Profenofos and Cypermethrin

-Lambacyhalothrin Thiamethoxam

-Chlorpyrifos 45%

- efficacy also tested at farm level

-efficacy of pesticide data from farmers assessment capacity at farmer level

Malawi:

-Neem and Tephrosia effective in Malawi

Private Sector

Class 28 (BELT and other compounds)

Not to generalize the recommendation Most combination effective in Uganda not effective in Ghana (differences in efficacy even within the
regions of Ghana)

Ghana is mainly effective Emmamectin benzoate and fenvalerate and folianutrition

-information from both research and farmers experience

Research questions to be answered:

Need to establish an Economic thresholds and injury levels (Can we link it to number of moths in traps or egg masses per 100 plants) Can
this work with community monitoring?

-Need to establish resistance in FAW (Short to Medium term)

Will be effective for suggestion on the class of pesticides

Difference in lab conditions to field

Can field experience help in answering this question?

Importance of communicating this to different stakeholders across the value chain? (Policy makers, extension, growers)

-Can we gain from the efficacy data available outside Africa?

-effectiveness is critical but economics and integration with other methods of control is critical
-Quality of chemicals is critical
-Are there any chemicals highly harmful?
-Higher doses are being currently used
-method of application
-Research on formulations and application strategies for Africa

Interventions

Short term

-Training of users

-Efficacy information to be collated

 57

-Can Chemical companies give information on what products are registered for FAW beyond Africa

-List of chemicals per region

-Application strategies, formulation needs to be researched for Africa

-Training of youths as spray

-Policy and advocacy of regulatory system on registration and quality management (Registration protocols could be lengthy)

-efficacy trials at three levels (Agrochemical Govt; NPPO; Farmer level)

Action: Involve Commercial companies/FAO to compile information on the efficacy of different molecules from field experiences and
communicate

Private sector contribution:

-Recommend a set of molecule

-Regulatory policies for introduction (Cross referencing of reports on efficacy)

-Few molecules tend to fail (eg. Tuta)

-Capacity to advice farmers on use and sustainability

-Regionalization of information across regions

CABI has accumulated a list of pesticides, what is available in each country?

Biocontrol options

-Lot of work on parasitoids in Africa and in other parts of the world

Research questions to be answered:

-What is available now in Africa?

-Parasitoids that have co-evolved in the region of origin

- Develop a matrix of database for Africa on different effective natural enemies for different stages vis a vis information from other
places
- Short term look at cross stalks of natural enemy complex from S. littoralis and S. exempta

Long term Classical biological control; Development of biopesticide suited for management of FAW in Africa

Host plant resistance:

-Information from Missisipi (Dr. Paul)

Resistance sources identified MP series (Antibiosis) but temperate zone material

-Specific genomic regions for resistance identified

-CIMMYT also worked on fall armyworm resistance (specific CML lines)

-There is a possibility of breeding conventional resistance

Research needs:

-Can conventional breeding be effective as transgenic?

Transgenic plants and pesticides effective in Americas

 58

If we go transgenic it is important we learn from information available for long standing durability?

-Will need to cross regulatory barriers for Transgenic crops

How best we can Co-ordinate research efforts?

Which institutions/organisation can play a role?

1) RECs for coordination of research in the regions (ASARECA and CCARDESA

2) Development partners (AGRA, USAID, WORLD BANK etc) for prioritization, co-ordination and resource mobilization
3) National research institutions for field evaluation and trials
4) Will be useful to have a FAW working group across the continent
5) IAPPS could also take up a working group, FAW in Africa could be one as well
6) IOBC working groups
7) Are we going to have joint research proposals for uniform intervention across the continent
8) Role of ASARECA and CCARDESA an
9) Continental problem working groups at regional level will be more effective
10) Standardization of protocols (Some information available from S Africa)
11) Need to take advantage of research capacity in National partners

Which institutions/organization can play a role?

Advocacy and policy:

FAO, Regional organization, Monsanto (transgenic option), AATF

Pesticide and pesticide registration: IPM innovation lab - USAID for enforcing approved pesticides, Private sector, NARS, Regulatory bodies

Biological control:

IITA, ICIPE, CIMMYT, ARC (training and capacity building), IPM innovation lab and National partners

Host plant resistance and sustainable management options:

CIMMYT, NARO- Uganda and other National research organisation (ICRISAT??

Cultural control:

NARS, Universities, CG and IARC

Monitoring and population dynamics:

IARC, USDA, National partners

Capacity building

FAO, REC and others

Feedbacks:-Harmonization Insecticide regulators Farmer organisation farmer at the centre Align technologies with on-going initiatives

Closed season Development partners (AGRA, DFID, USAID and others need to be included for the implementation of management actions
and addressing research needs)

Group 4: coordination

Challenges

Separation between research, technical, political

Lack of incentives to share information

 59

Delays in formal reporting

Information triggering response

Resulted in

Reactive rather than predictive

Different national level responses not informed by others

Oportunities

Build on existing structures: AU, RECs, Research hubs, NPPOs etc.

Recognising some need strengthening

Learn from other sectors (livestock, health, disaster response)

Bottom up process (scouts using social media)

Next steps

Identify more specific actions and actors

Mapping of focal points and activities

Community of practice to support communication and stimulate action

Regional framework to support national response (incentives to report)

 60

Annex 3d: Coordination of Institutional Interventions for FAW Management in Africa

Coordination of FAW response in Africa has so far been largely haphazard with most countries reacting to the
menace at an individual level, rather than through well-coordinated actions.

Specific gaps:

No coordinated mapping of relevant actors (research and development) with clearly defined roles,
responsibilities, deliverables, and timelines (Who is doing what? Who can do what? Who is mandated to do
what?)
Lack of capacity within the relevant national institutions and the RECs that are mandated to collate and
share information quickly at the continental level
Concerns about disincentives of sharing information on transboundary pests that may affect trade
Lack of targeted messages for different levels of stakeholders
Lack of effective information and communication flow among researchers, technology providers, farmers,
and policy makers

Action Points/Recommendations:
1. Regional Economic Communities (RECs) need to play a prominent role for obvious reasons of coordinating
policy, communication and strategies at the sub-regional level. At the same time, a focal institution is required
for effectively coordinating a continental response against FAW, collating quickly the available information on
the present and potential risks/negative impacts associated with FAW menace on food security, livelihoods
and national economies, and sharing the relevant information with governments and other relevant
stakeholders in Africa to fast-track interventions at different levels. [Timeline: By 31st August; Responsible:
FAO, African Union/IAPSC, and RECs]
2. URGENT and COORDINATED actions are required for mobilizing resources through various funding
agencies to be able to implement short-, medium- and long-term regionally-coordinated IPM interventions for
FAW management in Africa using the framework presented in this document, instead of fragmented/isolated
efforts. [Timeline: By 31st August; Responsible: FAO, AGRA, CIMMYT, IITA, ICRAF, CABI, ICIPE, AU, FARA,
DLCO-EA, and IRLCO-CSA]
3. Similar to the African Armyworm, FAW should be added to the mandate of the Desert Locust Control
Organization for Eastern Africa (DLCO-EA) and International Red Locust Control Organization in Central and
Southern Africa (IRLCO-CSA). This is important as these organizations have the structural capacities for
quick detection and emergency response as evidenced in the control of pests under their mandate.
[Responsible: FAO-EMPRES, DLCO-EA and IRLCO-CSA]
4. Effective and quick communications through modern ICT tools is central to coordinated management of FAW.
A Community of Practice needs to be established quickly (using social and mass media) for quick sharing of
learning and information across institutions and borders, inventory of the experiences with other migratory
pests, and stimulating necessary actions. [Timeline: By 30th June; Responsible: AGRA, CIMMYT, IITA, CABI,
FAO, and AFJ].
 61

5. A Fall Armyworm Information Portal needs to be setup as one-stop window for understanding the status,
recommendation domains, technologies, publications etc., similar to the Armyworm Network Information
Portal developed and managed by Prof. Ken Wilson (Lancaster University, UK), and MLN Information Portal
established by CIMMYT [Timeline: By 31st August; Responsible: CIMMYT, and Lancaster University,
supported by FAO and CABI].
6. Working groups need to be established on specific thematic areas, such as: a) Monitoring and early warning;
b) Impact assessment; c) IPM technologies; d) R4D on FAW interventions; e) Regulatory aspects and
policies; and f) Communications. These groups need to convene online and F2F regularly and actively share
information and data generated. [Timeline: By 31st July; Responsible: FAO, AGRA, CIMMYT, IITA, CABI,
ICIPE, ICRAF, NARS, NPPOs, AU, RECs, Lancaster University, Private Sector, DLCO-EA, IRLCO-CSA, and
AFJ].

In summary, the FAW management framework, presented in this document, should be considered as a working
platform for launching a comprehensive regional/continental plan of action to fight the challenge imposed by
transboundary pests like FAW. As the response process unfolds, gaps, challenges and successes will have to be
documented and pulled into a learning experience to inform capacity-building needs, including appropriate pest
response capacities of individual countries in Africa. While FAW outbreaks across Africa is treated as an emergency,
this should be also considered as a shock in the evolution of food security dynamics that should help us learn more
systematic approaches to confront future invasions. Capacity building of governments and NPPOs in the region is
very important in addressing this and future threats of transboundary pests / pathogens in Africa.