CHAIN - NAFAKA PESTICIDE EVALUATION REPORT & · PDF fileapplication of poor technology, ......

<INSERT DOCUMENT TITLE> 2

TANZANIA STAPLES VALUE CHAIN - NAFAKA PESTICIDE EVALUATION REPORT & SAFER USE ACTION PLAN 2012 COVERING IPM AND PESTICIDE SAFE USE IN:

RICE AND MAIZE PRODUCTION

July 26, 2012

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by ACDI/VOCA.

TANZANIA STAPLES VALUE CHAIN - NAFAKA PESTICIDE EVALUATION REPORT & SAFER USE ACTION PLAN (PERSUAP) 2012 COVERING IPM AND PESTICIDE SAFE USE IN: RICE AND MAIZE PRODUCTION

2012 TANZANIA NAFAKA PERSUAP 1

Approval Facesheets

INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATION, Amendment 1 Tanzania Staples Value Chain - NAFAKA Project

United States Agency for International Development Mission to Tanzania (USAID/Tanzania)

A. PROGRAM AND ACTIVITY DATA

PROJECT NAME:

Tanzania NAFAKA Project

ASSISTANCE OBJECTIVE: Increase Household Food Security, Nutrition and Incomes

PROGRAM AREA: 4.5 Agriculture, Feed the Future

COUNTRY: Tanzania

ORIGINATING OFFICE Office of Economic Growth

CURRENT DATE: June 1, 2012

IEE AMENDMENT: Yes No The purpose of this IEE amendment is to approve the 2012 Pesticide Evaluation Report (PER) and Safe Use Action Plan (SUAP) developed under the NAFAKA project and which will be used during project implementation.

DCN OF ORIGINAL IEE: _____________

IMPLEMENTATION START: April, 2011

IMPLEMENTATION END: April, 2016

LOP AMOUNT: $30,000,000

Environmental Media and/or Human Health Potentially Impacted:

None Air Water Land Biodiversity Human health Other

IEE Amendment (Y/N): Y

Filename & date of original IEE: Tanzania_SO12_Ag_IEE.doc, December 20, 2010

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION RECOMMENDED: (Place X where applicable)

Categorical Exclusion: ____ Negative Determination: _X __

Positive Determination: ____ Deferral: ____

ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS: (Place X where applicable)

CONDITIONS: _X__ PVO/NGO: ____


B. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this IEE Amendment is to present and approve the 2012 Tanzania NAFAKA Pesticide Evaluation Report (PER) and Safe Use and Action Plan (SUAP) recommended to be done in the original IEE. NAFAKA staff members have presented for analysis a list of pesticides that they would like to promote to their beneficiaries. It is this proposed list of pesticides—and the pests they are to be used against—that is analyzed in this NAFAK A PERSUAP. As USAID desires, the PERSUAP also focuses on, researches and analyzes preventive IPM tools and techniques useful for each pest.

USAID/Tanzania, in 2010, drafted an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) to cover future SO (Strategic Objective) 12 Agriculture and Food Security activities. These activities now fall under the Feed the Future (FtF) program. This IEE is USAID’s controlling environmental compliance document, and it recommended that PERSUAPs, like this one, be produced for any activities potentially involving pesticides. For pesticides the IEE made a Negative Determination with Conditions, which means that a full Environmental Assessment would not be needed, with the following Conditions:

“The SO 12 team shall ensure that any activity involving pesticides, or new pest management products or technologies will be preceded by the preparation and BEO approval of PERSUAPs in accordance with Agency guidance, and fulfilling all analytical elements required by 22CFR216.3(b), USAID’s Pesticide Procedures. The USAID/EA environmental staff will assist the Tanzania MEO and Activity Managers in establishing the need. New PERSUAPs will be commissioned as necessary, by the respective implementing partners.”

This 2012 Tanzania NAFAKA PERSUAP addresses this need. Due to the risk concerns presented by pesticides, USAID’s environmental regulations require that all programs that include assistance for the promotion, procurement (directly or through financial instruments) or use of pesticides must assess risks associated with this assistance following the Pesticide Procedures described in 22 CFR (Regulation) 216.3. At least 12 factors must be addressed according to Regulation 216.3 (b)(1)(i) (a through l). These 12 factors are normally examined in a technical analysis document called a “Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan” (PERSUAP).

Tanzania Staples Value Chain (NAFAKA) is a $30 million USAID-funded program that integrates agricultural, gender and nutritional development approaches to improve smallholder farmers’ productivity and profitability in maize and rice value chains. It is one of the 10 active Feed the Future (FtF) projects in Tanzania. The ACDI/VOCA Support for Food Security Activities (SFSA) team, a consortium of nine food security and agricultural development organizations, will lead the comprehensive food security program, which is part of USAID’s Feed the Future initiative, an endeavor to harmonize regional hunger- and poverty-fighting efforts in countries with chronic food insecurity and insufficient production of staple crops.

C. COUNTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE INFORMATION Tanzania's economy relies heavily on agriculture, which accounts for nearly half of GDP and employs 80% of the workforce. Smallholder farmers who dominate Tanzanian agriculture cultivate 0.9 to 3.0 hectares on rain fed land. About 70 percent of Tanzania’s crop area is cultivated by hand hoe, 20 percent by ox plow and 10 percent by tractor. Food crop production dominates the agriculture economy with 5.1 million hectares cultivated annually, of which 85 percent is under food crops. Women constitute the main part of agricultural labor force. The major constraint facing the agriculture sector is the falling labor and land productivity due to application of poor technology, dependence on unreliable and irregular weather conditions. Both crops and livestock are adversely affected by periodical droughts.

The use of new resistant varieties and hybrids, mechanization, quality inputs and sufficient water are keys to stabilizing agricultural production in Tanzania to improve food security with staple crops, respond to climate change, increase farmers’ productivity and incomes, and also to produce higher valued crops such as vegetables, fruits and flowers for export.


D. EVALUATION OF ACTIVITY WITH RESPECT TO POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND IDENTIFICATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES All activities approved in the original IEE remain valid. This proposed IEE amendment for NAFAKA will assist with the following additional activities towards current objectives:

Produce the 2012 Tanzania NAFAKA PERSUAP and EMMP to cover any and all activities related to pesticide training, promotion, or use on supported beneficiary farms that produce project crops or crop products.

Prepare NAFAKA’s environmental compliance staff to be able to do training which will include best practices for sourcing and using inputs including IPM preventive tools and curative pesticides for treating seed, crops and grain storage.

E. RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION 1. Recommended Environmental Threshold Determinations:

A Negative Determination with Conditions was recommended for activities that are related to pesticide training, promotion, distribution and use, directly or through other financial instruments (credit, sub grants, vouchers) under this amendment pursuant to 22 CFR 216.3(a)(2)(iii).

2. Conditions

Implementation of the following recommendations of Good Agriculture Practices from the PERSUAP are conditions for any assistance to farmers that might include training on, discussing or promotion of the use of pesticide inputs.

Condition 1: Only pesticides and a vaccine Accepted/Approved by this PERSUAP, listed below, can be mentioned or promoted during NAFAKA training, promoted or used on NAFAKA demonstration farms, and financed by or through NAFAKA

NAFAKA-Proposed Pesticides and a Vaccine that are Accepted by the PER analysis:

Fungicides & Mixtures as seed treatments

Funguran-OH 50 WP (Cupric hydroxide 50%) Folicur EC 250 (Tebuconazole) Cruiser 350FS (Thiamethoxam 35 g/L) Apron star 42WS (Thiamethoxam20g/Kg + Metalaxyl–M 20g/Kg + Difenoconazole 2g/Kg) Seed plus 20 WS (Imidacloprid1 + Metalaxyl + Carbendazim) Topsin M 70% WP (Thiophanate-Methyl70% w/w) Banko 500 SC (Chlorothalonil)

Herbicides

Touchdown Forte (Glyphosate 500g/L) Mamba 360 SL (Glyphosate 360g/L) Roundup 360 SC (Glyphosate) Servian 75 WG (Halosulfuronmethyl 750g/kg) Sanaphen 720SL (24-D Amine 720g/L) Ronstar 250EC (Oxidiazon 250g/l) Stomp 500 EC (Pendimethalin)

1 insecticide


Weedstop EC (Pendimethalin 500g/l) Basagran 480g/l (Bentazone) Buctril MC (Bromoxynil) Dual Gold 960EC (S-Metolactor-960 g/l) (=metolachlor) Rainbow 25 (Penoxsulam) Garil (Triclopyr)

Insecticides Gaucho 70WS (Imidacloprid) Dursban 4E (Chlorpyrifos 480g/l) Deltapaz 2.5 EC (Deltamethrin 25g/l) Actellic 50EC (Pirimiphos-Methyl 500g/L) Actellic super Dust (Pirimiphos-Methyl 1.6%+Permethrin 0.3%) Spintor Dust (Spinosad 1.25 g/kg) Stocal super Dust (Permethrin+Pirimiphos methyl) Shumba super Dust (Fenitrothion + Deltamethrin)

Rodenticides

Ex-Rat (Bromadiolone 0.005) Brodek (Brodifacoum) Rat-cide (Bromadiolone) Panyacide (Bromadiolone 0.005%) PanyaKill (Bromadiolone 0.005%) Lanirat Bait (Baramodiolone) Yasodion (Diphacinone)

NAFAKA-Proposed Vaccine2 for New Castle Virus Disease on poultry

NVD I-2

Condition 2: Pesticides Rejected by this PERSUAP, listed below, will not be mentioned or promoted during NAFAKA training, will not be promoted or used on NAFAKA demonstration farms, and will not be financed by or through NAFAKA .

4. NAFAKA-Proposed Pesticides Rejected by the PER analyses include:

Insecticides rejected for promotion or use on NAFAKA:

Sapa Cypermethrin 10EC (Cypermethrin—all agricultural uses in USA of products containing cypermethrin are RUP)

Marshall 250 EC (Carbosulfan—not registered by EPA) Thionex 35 EC (Endosulfan—on POPs list; RUP; being de-registered and phased out in the USA

and internationally) Karate 5 EC (Lambdacyhalothrin 50g/l—all Syngenta products in the USA labeled Karate are RUP) Nurellel D50/500EC (Cypermethrin 50g/l + Chloropyrifos 500g/l—all agricultural uses in USA of

2 Vaccines are not registered by USEPA or covered by USAID’s Pesticide Procedures (22CFR 216.3(b)). This PERSUAP records that Newcastle Disease Vaccine I-2 (106 EID50) is approved and registered for use in the USA. See Sect. 3.1, Annex 7.


products containing cypermethrin are RUP) Super Grain Dust (Bifenthrin—not registered in Tanzania)

Rodenticides rejected for promotion or use on NAFAKA

Racumin bait block (Coumatetralyl—not registered by EPA) Racumin paste/liquid (Coumatetralyl—not registered by EPA) Storm (Flocoumafen—not registered in Tanzania or by EPA)

Herbicides rejected for promotion or use on NAFAKA

Atranex 80WP (Atrazine—all USA products of at least 80% are labeled as RUP) Lasso GD Microtech (Alachlor 300g/l +Atrazine 180 g/l—similar to a USA product called Lariat,

labeled as RUP) Gramoxone (Paraquat—all Syngenta paraquat products registered in USA are RUP and Class I)

Fumigant rejected for use by untrained farmers or untrained personnel (but approved for certified professional and trained personnel) on NAFAKA

Quickphos (Aluminum phosphide—registered as restricted in Tanzania; all USA products containing aluminum phosphide are labeled as RUP; a Programmatic EA (PEA) is being drafted for fumigation which would permit the use of aluminum phosphide by only highly trained, certified and protected fumigation service teams)

Commando 80% (Zinc phosphide—registered as experimental in Tanzania)

Condition 3: NAFAKA will acquire, have at project offices, and use during training Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for each Approved pesticide (see above). Most approved pesticides are from name-brand companies and are easily down-loadable from company websites.

Condition 4: NAFAKA will perform repeated IPM (using Annex 1) and Safe Pesticide Use training for all implementers and beneficiaries that promote, procure or use pesticides with project assistance (see Annex 10 for pesticide issues training topics)

Condition 5: NAFAKA will assist with sourcing and acquiring quality affordable and comfortable Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for use with all spraying on all demonstration farms and will promote PPE use during training. Coordinate with pesticide companies to source, promote and provide PPE for beneficiaries.

Condition 6: NAFAKA will strongly promote the formation, training/certification and use of professional field and storage pest monitoring, spraying/fumigating and record-keeping services.

Condition 7: NAFAKA staff members will check with TPRI every 6 months to obtain new pesticide registration information.

Condition 8: NAFAKA will annually participate in the updating of this PERSUAP to include new IPM tactics and any new pesticides registered, available and desired for promotion to beneficiaries.

Condition 9: NAFAKA will attach a copy of Annex 9 (pesticide AIs that cannot be used with USAID assistance) onto any financial instrument (loan, grant, sub-contract and so on) supported.

Condition 10: NAFAKA will implement an EMMP based on the SUAP under section 4 and prepare an EMMR periodically.

ADDITIONAL PESTICIDE SECTOR PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS (if resources are, or become, available)


Actions Recommended

NAFAKA will make Pest Management Plans (PMP) for rice and maize (use Annex 1 as well as local farmer knowledge) so that managers and farmers have a tool to predict, prevent and manage pests throughout the season (see annual or seasonal PMPs on the following website: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/crops-agriculture.html).

For all demonstrations, NAFAKA project implementers introduce pest and pesticide record-keeping concepts and tools following GlobalGAP or other internationally accepted Best Management Practices (BMPs).

NAFAKA will work with pesticide distributors and MAFSC to develop a system for return of empty plastic pesticide containers to farm stores, perhaps using incentives like a rebate system. Farm stores may triple-rinse empty containers if there is sufficient water and a suitable disposal of the rinseate, and properly dispose of them with municipal waste or enter them into a plastic recycling system.

Program Management Actions on Compliance

NAFAKA will monitor beneficiary farmers for their understanding and use of best practices and IPM tools and tactics found in the field form in Annex 11.

NAFAKA will report on monitoring of risk reduction success by reporting number of farmers trained and using IPM tactics/tools and PPE in Annual Reports to USAID COR and MEO, under a heading titled “Risk Mitigation and Monitoring”.

NAFAKA implementers will report on any changes in Tanzania pesticide regulations and registrations to USAID.

F. MANDATORY INCLUSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS IN SOLICITATIONS, AWARDS, BUDGETS AND WORKPLANS 1. Appropriate environmental compliance language shall be included in solicitations and awards for this activity with an appropriate level of funding and staffing to satisfy the environmental compliance requirements set forth in this IEE Amendment.

2. The implementing partner will incorporate conditions set forth in this IEE in to their work plans.

G. LIMITATIONS OF THE IEE Generally this IEE Amendment does not cover major activities involving:

1. Classes of substantial actions normally having a significant effect on the environment pursuant to 22CFR 216.2(d)(1):

i. Programs of river basin development; ii. Irrigation and water management; iii. Agricultural land leveling; iv. Drainage projects; v. Large scale agricultural mechanization; vi. Resettlement projects; vii. New land development; viii. Penetration road building and road improvement; ix. Power plants; x. Industrial plants;


xi. Potable water and sewerage projects; 2. Activities affecting endangered species or introducing exotic species. 3. Support to extractive industries (e.g. mining and quarrying). 4. Support for activities that promote timber harvesting. 5. Construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or renovation work. 6. Activities involving support to agro-processing, industrial enterprises, and regulatory permitting. 7. Activities involving support to industrial enterprises, and regulatory permitting. 8. Potential activity components dealing with privatization of industrial facilities or infrastructure with heavily polluted property. 9. Project preparation, project feasibility studies, and infrastructure investments for projects that may have a potentially significant impact on the environment. 10. Procurement or use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). 11. DCA or GDA programs. Any of the above actions would require another amendment to the IEE approved by the BEO.

H. REVISIONS: Pursuant to 22 CFR 216.3(a) (9), if new information becomes available that indicates that activities covered by the IEE might be considered “major” and their effect “significant,” or if additional activities are proposed that might be considered “major” and their effect “significant,” this Initial Environmental Examination will be reviewed and, revised by the MEO with concurrence by the BEO. It is the responsibility of the USAID COR to keep the MEO, REA and BEO informed of any new information or changes in the activity that might require revision of the IEE.

APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDED ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION:

CONCURRENCE:

Bureau Environmental Officer: revised & cleared by Walter Knausenberger [Acting BEO] 10/23/2012

[for] Brian Hirsch

CLEARANCE:

Mission Director, USAID Tanzania: /signed/ Date: 9/24/2012 Robert F. Cunnane

ADDITIONAL CLEARANCES:

Mission Environmental Officer, USAID/ Tanzania: /signed/ Date: 9/14/2012 Gabriel Batulaine

EG/NRM Office Director: /cleared/ Date: 9/14/2012 Mary Hoobs

FtF Team Leader /cleared/ Date: 9/20/2012

Thomas Hobgood

Regional Environmental Officer /cleared/ Date: 9/14/2012

David Kinyua

Distribution:

Project file; AOR and Activity Manager

FtF Team Leader; EG/NRM Office Director; ACDI/VOCA & NAFAKA Team


2012 Tanzania NAFAKA PERSUAP

(Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe Use Action Plan)

Covering IPM and Pesticide Safe Use in: Rice and Maize Production

April 2011 –April 2016

Alan Schroeder, PhD, MBA Environmental Assessment Professional

[email protected] Business cell phone: 703-859-1676 Skype VOIP: happywildwarthog


ACRONYMS USED IN THIS 2012 TANZANIA NAFAKA PERSUAP

AI Active Ingredient (pesticide reference) AIRD Associates for International Resources and Development APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (part of USDA) BMP Best Management Practice BTC Belgian Development Cooperation CFR Code of Federal Regulations COP Chief of Party COTR Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative CRS Catholic Relief Services CVB Center for Veterinary Biologics (part of USDA APHIS dealing with vaccines) EA Environmental Assessment EC/E Emulsifiable Concentrate (pesticide formulation) EC50 Effective Concentration 50 (acute toxicity measure) EMMP Environmental Mitigation & Monitoring Plan EPA US Environmental Protection Agency (also known as USEPA) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations agency) FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act FIPs-Africa Farm Input Promotions-Africa FS Flowable concentrate for Seed treatment (pesticide formulation) FtF Feed the Future (a USAID program) GAP Good Agriculture Practice GD Granular Dispersible (pesticide formulation) GlobalGAP Global Good Agriculture Practices, a certification system GOT Government of Tanzania Ha Hectares HT Highly Toxic ID Identification IEE Initial Environmental Examination IPM Integrated Pest Management KILORWEMP Kilombero and Lower Rufiji Wetlands Ecosystem Management LC50 Lethal Concentration 50 (acute toxicity measure) LD50 Lethal Dose 50 (acute toxicity measure) M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MC Misting Concentrate (pesticide formulation) MEO Mission Environmental Officer MAFSC The Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives MRL Maximum/Minimum Residue Level/Limit MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet MT Moderately Toxic NAFAKA Local word in Swahili meaning ‘grain’ NAT Not Acutely Toxic NEPA US National Environmental Policy Act NVD Newcastle Viral Disease (of poultry) PAN Pesticide Action Network PEA Programmatic Environmental Assessment PER Pesticide Evaluation Report PERSUAP Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe Use Action Plan pH log of Hydrogen concentration, measure of acidity PHI Pre-Harvest Interval


PIC Prior Informed Consent (a treaty, relates to highly toxic pesticides) POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants (a treaty, relates to toxic persistent pesticides) PMP Pest Management Plan PNT Practically Non-Toxic PPE Personal Protection Equipment R&D toxin Reproductive and Developmental toxin REA Regional Environmental Advisor Reg 216 Regulation 216 (USAID Environmental Procedures) REI Re-Entry Interval (safety period after pesticide spraying) RUDI Rural Urban Development Initiatives RUP Restricted Use Pesticide SAGCOT Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor S&C Standards and Certification SC Suspension Concentrate (pesticide formulation) SFSA Support for Food Security Activities SL Soluble Liquid (pesticide formulation) SO Strategic Objective (a USAID term) ST Slightly Toxic SUAP Safe Use Action Plan TAHA Tanzania Horticulture Association TPRI Tropical Pesticide Research Institute (registers pesticides for Tanzania) UC University of California UN United Nations USAID United States Agency for International Development USAID/EA USAID/East Africa USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA US Environmental Protection Agency (also known as EPA) VHT Very Highly Toxic WHO World Health Organization WG Wettable Granules (pesticide formulation) WP Wettable Powder (pesticide formulation) WS Water dispersible powder for Slurry seed treatment (pesticide formulation)


2012 TANZANIA NAFAKA PERSUAP TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary The PERSUAP Focus on IPM, PMPs and Pesticides How to Use the PERSUAP Efficiently Update the Report Annually and Amend the Report in Two Years Policy Recommendations PERSUAP-Recommended Mitigation and Reporting Measures Section 1: Introduction 1.1 USAID Environmental Regulations Development 1.2 Regulation 216 1.3 The Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan (PERSUAP) 1.4 Integrated Pest Management—USAID Policy 1.5 Tanzania PERSUAP Methodology Section 2: Background 2.1 Country Background 2.2 NAFAKA Project Background 2.3 Crop Production Constraints 2.4 Evaluation of Tanzania Pest and Pesticide System Risks 2.5 Climate Change Risks 2.6 International Standards and Certification Systems that Reduce Pesticide Risks Section 3: Pesticide Evaluation Report (PER) for NAFAKA Project 3.1 Factor A: USEPA Registration Status of the Proposed Pesticide 3.2 Factor B: Basis for Selection of Pesticides 3.3 Factor C: Extent to Which the Proposed Pesticide Use Is, Or Could Be, Part of an IPM Program 3.4 Factor D: Proposed Method or Methods of Application, Including the Availability of Application and Safety Equipment 3.5 Factor E: Any Acute and Long-Term Toxicological Hazards, either Human or Environmental, Associated With the Proposed Use, And Measures Available To Minimize Such Hazards 3.6 Factor F: Effectiveness of the Requested Pesticide for The Proposed Use 3.7 Factor G: Compatibility of the Proposed Pesticide Use with Target and Non-Target Ecosystems 3.8 Factor H: Conditions under Which the Pesticide Is To Be Used, Including Climate, Geography, Hydrology, and Soils 3.9 Factor I: Availability of Other Pesticides or Non-Chemical Control Methods 3.10 Factor J: Host Country’s Ability to Regulate or Control the Distribution, Storage, Use, and Disposal of the Requested Pesticides 3.11 Factor K: Provision for Training of Users and Applicators 3.12 Factor L: Provision Made For Monitoring the Use and Effectiveness of Each Pesticide Section 4: Pesticide Safer Use Action Plan (SUAP) for NAFAKA


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In April of 2012, NAFAKA proposed a list of pesticides that they would like to be able to promote to their beneficiaries and use on demonstration farms. USAID requires that such pesticide lists be analyzed using a PERSUAP tool. And, USAID requires that an IPM approach be taken in such a PERSUAP—and by USAID projects—with pesticides considered as a last resort after other preventive tactics have been exhausted. This report both focuses on IPM and analyzes the NAFAKA-proposed pesticides.

In 2010, USAID/Tanzania drafted an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) to cover future SO (Strategic Objective) 12 Agriculture and Food Security activities. These activities now fall under the Feed the Future (FtF) program. This IEE is USAID’s controlling environmental compliance document, and it recommended that PERSUAPs, like this one, be produced for any activities potentially involving pesticides. For pesticides the IEE made a Negative Determination with Conditions, which means that a full Environmental Assessment would not be needed, with the following Conditions:

“The SO 12 team shall ensure that any activity involving pesticides, or new pest management products or technologies will be preceded by the preparation and BEO approval of PERSUAPs in accordance with Agency guidance, and fulfilling all analytical elements required by 22CFR216.3(b), USAID’s Pesticide Procedures. The USAID/EA environmental staff will assist the Tanzania MEO and Activity Managers in establishing the need. New PERSUAPs will be commissioned as necessary, by the respective implementing partners.”

This 2012 Tanzania NAFAKA PERSUAP addresses this need. Due to the risk concerns presented by pesticides, USAID’s environmental regulations require that all programs that include assistance for the promotion, procurement (directly or through financial instruments) or use of pesticides must assess risks associated with this assistance following the Pesticide Procedures described in 22 CFR (Regulation) 216.3. At least 12 factors must be addressed according to Regulation 216.3 (b)(1)(i) (a through l). These 12 factors are normally examined in a technical analysis document called a “Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action Plan” (PERSUAP).

TANZANIA NAFAKA STAPLES VALUE CHAIN ACTIVITY

The Tanzania Staples Value Chain (NAFAKA) is a $30 million USAID-funded activity that integrates agricultural, gender and nutritional development approaches to improve smallholder farmers’ productivity and profitability in maize and rice value chains. It is one of the 10 active Feed the Future (FtF) projects in Tanzania. The ACDI/VOCA Support for Food Security Activities (SFSA) team, a consortium of nine food security and agricultural development organizations, will lead the comprehensive food security program, which is part of USAID’s Feed the Future initiative, an endeavor to harmonize regional hunger- and poverty-fighting efforts in countries with chronic food insecurity and insufficient production of staple crops.

The NAFAKA program will work with rural communities and the Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives (MAFSC) to analyze the local maize and rice value chains and develop a strategy to strengthen them. It will use a multifaceted approach to:

improve productivity, through a strong program of public and private extension services;

increase incomes of vulnerable farmers, including women and young people by building robust marketing groups to increase their capacity to generate assets, capital, skills and knowledge;

improve competitiveness and trade by encouraging greater trade investments and facilitating win-win demonstration initiatives; and

increase investment and innovation, through a $2 million grant fund to buy down the risk of value chain actors to adopt new technologies and practices.

One NAFAKA implementing partner, FIPS (Farm Input Promotions), trains progressive farmers to be entrepreneurs by serving as input dealers. They receive donations of mini-packets of inputs (fertilizers,


treated seed), which also include poultry vaccinations against Newcastle Viral Disease (NVD) in the form of eye-drops. This supports the rice and maize value chains by strengthening the input dealer network, providing greater quantities of organic fertilizer from healthier poultry, and supporting rice and maize growers who also raise poultry.

Maize and Rice Production Constraints

NAFAKA will work with the private sector and farmers to address maize and rice production and storage constraints. These include annual and perennial grasses and broadleaf weeds; stalk borers, termites, flea beetles, root-feeding white grubs, thrips, mites, whiteflies, stem and root maggots, leaf spots, viruses and rusts, as well as occasional outbreaks of armyworms, locusts, Quelea and other birds and rodents. Stored maize and rice grain pests include rodents, grain borers and weevils.

THE PERSUAP STUDY FOCUS ON IPM, PMPS AND PESTICIDES

The practice of IPM – the use of which is USAID policy3 – is fully supported and promoted in Section 1.4 of this PERSUAP as well as in the required PER Section 3.3 Factor C analysis. In the USA, the USDA supports the use of IPM through regional centers4, and through the development of Pest Management Plans (PMPs)5. Moreover, Annex 1 of this PERSUAP presents off-the-shelf preventive and curative IPM tools researched and culled from practices in other countries, particularly the USA and other countries, for the same or similar crop-pest combinations as those found at project implementation locations. These IPM tactics (including, as a last resort same or similar pesticides registered and used in the USA for the same crop-pest combinations) are presented for NAFAKA to consider, test and adopt if found to be practical and effective.

Prevention of Crop Production Constraints

IPM preventive tools recommended include, but are not limited to, the use of:

Certified clean treated seed of resistant maize and rice varieties;

High quality fertilizers matched to soil (tested) needs;

Crop rotations and intercropping with nitrogen-fixing crops;

Maize push-pull strategy to repel stalk borers from a field;

Minimum and no-till options, with herbicide use;

Use of proper harvesting times;

Crop refuse removal and destruction; and

Grain storage facilities that are thoroughly sealed, cleaned, aerated, lighted, equipped with wooden pallets and protected.

Prevention of Newcastle Viral Disease

Restrict access to the poultry pen, and post warning signs for visitors to not enter.

All people entering the farm need to drive and walk through a disinfectant, then wear disposable boots and a clean lab coat.

For workers, have shower-in and shower-out procedures for cleaning up.

Disinfect all vehicles and equipment used for poultry.

3 USAID.1990.Integrated Pest Management: A.I.D. Policy and Implementation 4 http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/pest/in_focus/ipm_if_regional.html 5 http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/


Clean clothes and wash hands after any outside contact with birds or poultry.

Exclude all wild birds from the poultry area and exclude and set traps for rats.

Keep new birds separate and quarantined from the rest of the poultry for 30 days.

Do not share tools, equipment, supplies or poultry from neighbors.

Understand disease symptoms, and watch for sick or dead birds.

Communicate with government and private veterinary services on disease status.

Treatment of Crop Production Constraints

To treat crop constraints, the Tanzania Government’s pesticide registration arm, the Tropical Pesticide Research Institute (TPRI), based with laboratories in Arusha and with an administrative office in Dar Es Salaam, in late 2011, presented a list of 369 pesticides tested and approved for import and use as “Fully Registered” in Tanzania over the next 5 years, as well as shorter lists of “Provisional” use pesticide for use over 2 years; “Restricted” use pesticides for use over 2 years and “Experimental” use pesticides for use by permit. Of these 369 “fully registered” pesticides, the following subset list of 37 pesticides has been selected by NAFAKA as proposed for use by their clients and on demonstration farms.

This PERSUAP presents recommendations and conditions for NAFAKA to address to be environmentally compliant with the intents of Regulation 216.

A main intent of a PERSUAP, in addition to focusing strongly on preventive IPM strategies, is to analyze the list of pesticides proposed by a project such as NAFAKA, as with that below, and reject those pesticides not registered for the same or a similar use in the USA by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or those products that are labeled as Restricted Use Pesticides (RUP). Additional criteria for rejection may, depending on circumstances, include: pesticide too toxic, a known carcinogen, or a known water pollutant.

NAFAKA-Proposed Pesticides6

Fungicides & Seed Treatments

Funguran-OH 50 WP (Cupric hydroxide 50%)

Folicur EC 250 (Tebuconazole)

Cruiser 350FS (Thiamethoxam 35 g/L)

Apron star 42WS (Thiamethoxam20g/Kg + Metalaxyl–M 20g/Kg + Difenoconazole 2g/Kg)

Seed plus 20 WS (Imidacloprid+ Metalaxyl + Carbendazim)

Topsin M 70% WP (Thiophanate-Methyl70% w/w) Banko 500 SC (Chlorothalonil)

Herbicides

Touchdown Forte (Glyphosate 500g/L)

Mamba 360 SL (Glyphosate 360g/L)

Roundup 360 SC (Glyphosate)

Servian 75 WG (Halosulfuronmethyl 750g/kg)

Sanaphen 720SL (24-D Amine 720g/L)

Ronstar 250EC (Oxidiazon 250g/l)

Stomp 500 EC (Pendimethalin)

6 Not all of these pesticides were approved by the PER analysis, see below


Weedstop EC (Pendimethalin 500g/l)

Atranex 80WP (Atrazine)

Basagran 480g/l (Bentazone)

Buctril MC (Bromoxynil)

Dual Gold 960EC (S-Metolactor-960 g/l)

Lasso GD Microtech (Alachlor 300g/l +Atrazine 180 g/l)

Gramoxone (Paraquat) – not approved

Rainbow 25 (Penoxsulam)

Garil (Trichorpyr)

Insecticides

Gaucho 70WS (Imidacloprid)

Dursban 4E (Chlorpyrifos 480g/l)

Deltapaz 2.5 EC (Deltamethrin 25g/l)

Thionex 35 EC (Endosulfan)

Sapa Cypermethrin 10EC (Cypermethrin)

Karate 5 EC (Lambdacyhalothrin 50g/l)

Marshall 250 EC (Carbosulfan)

Nurellel D50/500EC (Cypermethrin 50g/l + Chloropyrifos 500g/l)

Actellic 50EC (Pirimiphos-Methyl 500g/L)

Actellic super Dust (Pirimiphos-Methyl 1.6%+permethrin 0.3%)

Spintor Dust (Spinosad 1.25 g/kg)

Stocal super Dust (Permethrin+pirimiphos methyl)

Shumba super Dust (Fenitrothion + Deltamethrin)

Super Grain Dust (Bifenthrin)

Storm (flocoumafen)

Ex-Rat (Bromadiolone 0.005)

Brodek (Brodifacoum)

Rat-cide (Bromadiolone)

Panyacide (Bromadiolone 0.005%)

PanyaKill (Bromadiolone 0.005%)

Lanirat Bait (Baramodiolone)

Racumin bait block (Coumatetralyl)

Yasodion (Diphacinone)

Racumin paste/liquid (Coumatetralyl)


Quickphos (Aluminum phosphide—registered as restricted in Tanzania)

NAFAKA-Proposed Vaccine for NVD

NVD I-2

NAFAKA will oversee and work with the private sector on a rigorous training and monitoring program,


which will mitigate the risk to human health and the environment that could result from NAFAKA’s programs in pest management. In designing/implementing/overseeing training, IPM will be a guiding principle for NAFAKA.

NAFAKA will only recommend or assist with the use of pesticides that have been approved in this PERSUAP. The selected pesticides have cleared the PER 12 factor analysis and are the safest regarding human health and the environment, while at the same time they are expected to provide the necessary protection against crop pests and diseases when used in conjunction with an IPM program. The selected pesticides also take into account the need to vary pesticide families to avoid pesticide resistance.

Condition 1: Only pesticides and a vaccine Accepted/Approved by this PERSUAP, listed below, can be mentioned or promoted during NAFAKA training, promoted or used on NAFAKA demonstration farms, and financed by or through NAFAKA

NAFAKA-Proposed Pesticides and a Vaccine that are Accepted/Approved by the PER analysis:

Fungicides and seed treatments

Funguran-OH 50 WP (Cupric hydroxide 50%) Folicur EC 250 (Tebuconazole)

Cruiser 350FS (Thiamethoxam 35 g/L) Apron star 42WS (Thiamethoxam20g/Kg + Metalaxyl–M 20g/Kg + Difenoconazole 2g/Kg) Seed plus 20 WS (Imidacloprid+ Metalaxyl + Carbendazim) Topsin M 70% WP (Thiophanate-Methyl70% w/w) Banko 500 SC (Chlorothalonil)

Herbicides

Touchdown Forte (Glyphosate 500g/L) Mamba 360 SL (Glyphosate 360g/L) Roundup 360 SC (Glyphosate) Servian 75 WG (Halosulfuronmethyl 750g/kg) Sanaphen 720SL (24-D Amine 720g/L) Ronstar 250EC (Oxidiazon 250g/l) Stomp 500 EC (Pendimethalin) Weedstop EC (Pendimethalin 500g/l) Basagran 480g/l (Bentazone) Buctril MC (Bromoxynil) Dual Gold 960EC (S-Metolactor-960 g/l) Rainbow 25 (Penoxsulam) Garil (Trichorpyr)

Insecticides

Dursban 4E (Chlorpyrifos 480g/l) Deltapaz 2.5 EC (Deltamethrin 25g/l) Gaucho 70WS (Imidacloprid) Actellic 50EC (Pirimiphos-Methyl 500g/L) Actellic super Dust (Pirimiphos-Methyl 1.6%+Permethrin 0.3%) Spintor Dust (Spinosad 1.25 g/kg) Stocal super Dust (Permethrin+Pirimiphos methyl) Shumba super Dust (Fenitrothion + Deltamethrin)


Ex-Rat (Bromadiolone 0.005) Brodek (Brodifacoum) Rat-cide (Bromadiolone) Panyacide (Bromadiolone 0.005%) PanyaKill (Bromadiolone 0.005%) Lanirat Bait (Baramodiolone) Yasodion (Diphacinone)

NAFAKA-Proposed Fumigant: Use only by Trained Certified Professional Pest Control Spray Teams, not farmers



NAFAKA-Proposed Vaccine for NVD Accepted by the PER analysis:

NVD I-2

Condition 2: Pesticides Rejected by this PERSUAP, listed below, will not be mentioned or promoted during NAFAKA training, will not be promoted or used on NAFAKA demonstration farms, and will not be financed by or through NAFAKA (Note that farmers, on their own farms with their own resources, can purchase and use whatever pesticide they wish)

NAFAKA-Proposed Pesticides Rejected by the PER analyses include:

Insecticides rejected for promotion or use on NAFAKA


Marshall 250 EC (Carbosulfan—not registered by EPA) Thionex 35 EC (Endosulfan—on POPs list; RUP; being de-registered and phased out in the USA

and internationally) Karate 5 EC (Lambdacyhalothrin 50g/l—all Syngenta products in the USA labeled Karate are RUP) Nurellel D50/500EC (Cypermethrin 50g/l + Chloropyrifos 500g/l—all agricultural uses in USA of

products containing cypermethrin are RUP) Super Grain Dust (Bifenthrin—not registered in Tanzania)

Rodenticides rejected for promotion or use on NAFAKA

Racumin bait block (Coumatetralyl—not registered by EPA) Racumin paste/liquid (Coumatetralyl—not registered by EPA) Storm (Flocoumafen—not registered in Tanzania or by EPA)

Herbicides rejected for promotion or use on NAFAKA

Atranex 80WP (Atrazine—all USA products of at least 80% are labeled as RUP) Lasso GD Microtech (Alachlor 300g/l +Atrazine 180 g/l—similar to a USA product called Lariat,

labeled as RUP) Gramoxone (Paraquat—all Syngenta paraquat products registered in USA are RUP and Class I)

Fumigant rejected for use by untrained farmers or untrained personnel (but approved for trained personnel) on NAFAKA


Quickphos (Aluminum phosphide—registered as restricted in Tanzania; all USA products labeled as RUP; a Programmatic EA (PEA) is being drafted for fumigation which would permit the use of aluminum phosphide by only highly trained, certified and protected fumigation service teams)

Note that farmers—with their own resources—may purchase and use whatever chemical they wish. The intent of this PERSUAP is to adhere to Regulation 216 and highlight pesticides that should not be promoted during training, purchased or otherwise financed for farmers, or used on demonstration farms. The intent is not necessarily to disapprove or discourage, during training or otherwise, use of pesticides that were rejected by this Regulation 216-specific analysis.

All recommendations contained in this evaluation have been formulated in consultation with project technical staff (NAFAKA technical experts). Pesticides that passed the screening process are presented in Annex 8 showing the basis for selection. The selection takes into account the need to use a variety of pesticide families so that pathogens and pests do not develop resistance. Pesticides chosen are applied during different periods of the year, some before the start of plant growth, others during plant growth, and more after harvest.

While this PERSUAP requests the least toxic pesticides, all pesticides are hazardous to the environment and to human health to some degree. Hence, this PERSUAP includes recommendations that will mitigate significant adverse impacts of pesticide use on the environment, including the human environment.

PERSUAP FINDINGS THAT INDICATE RISKS FROM PESTICIDES

For this study, it was intended that in order for project field staff and beneficiaries using USAID resources to properly, safely and correctly provide advice to cooperating farmers during demonstrations and training, at a minimum they should understand:

Primary pests impacting each project-supported crop

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) tools and tactics used to prevent primary pests of project-supported crops

Pesticides that can be used for each primary pest

USA and Tanzania pesticide registrations

Risk issues like acute and chronic toxicities with commonly-used pesticides

PPE (Personal Protection Equipment) recommended for specific pesticide uses

Field visits to project sites in Tanzania included interviews with cooperating beneficiary farmers who will require inputs through local farm stores that sell seeds, pesticides, fertilizers and farm tools. These visits showed that the above intentions for understanding of pest, IPM and pesticide issues were not met with reality on the ground.

Most farm stores visited were found to be clean and reasonably well organized, but with a limited supply of inputs. Very few reliable brand name pesticides were found, but the fact that pesticides are available indicates that some farmers will buy and use them. Thus pesticide awareness “market entry points” exist for name brand pesticide companies that wish to penetrate local markets.

Most small- and medium-scale farmers rarely use PPE other than boots, long pants, a shirt and a hat, and therefore many farm stores do not stock gloves, respirators, and goggles. Respirator masks that were encountered in farm stores contained sponge or paper filters, which stop dusts and some mists, but not volatile organic vapors. The best masks for protection from pesticide vapors contain carbon filter media.

Some farmers were unable to identify crop constraints, especially those that are difficult to see or find, and many were not using basic preventive tools like use of seed treatments, resistant varieties/hybrids and weed control. In numerous cases, basic understanding of pesticides was lacking and incorrect choices had been made. Many “generic” copycat pesticides produced by Chinese and other companies are present and used by farmers who do not understand the value of using name-brand products. As such, demand for name brand


products and thus the actual market for those products remain undeveloped.

Unfortunately, government agencies responsible for testing, approving and controlling pesticide imports and doing extension are not sufficiently funded. This leads to imports of untested and unapproved products, as well as farmers without access to state of the art crop production and pest prevention and management information and tools. Farmers are also left without access to important information on health and environmental risks of pesticides.

Many farmers do not understand the importance of when to apply pesticides, how to avoid damage to pollinators, backpack sprayer maintenance, and how to store and dispose of pesticides and used containers.

These risks necessitate the following conditions for NAFAKA to implement in order to mitigate risk:

Condition 3: NAFAKA will acquire, have at project offices, and use during training Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for each Approved pesticide (see above). Most approved pesticides are from name-brand companies and are easily down loadable from company websites.

Condition 4: NAFAKA will perform repeated IPM (using Annex 1) and Safe Pesticide Use training for all implementers and beneficiaries that promote, procure or use pesticides with project assistance (see Annex 10 for pesticide issues training topics)

Condition 5: NAFAKA will assist with sourcing and acquiring quality affordable and comfortable Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for use with all spraying on all demonstration farms and will promote PPE use during training. Coordinate with pesticide companies to source, promote and provide PPE for beneficiaries.

Condition 6: NAFAKA will strongly promote the formation, training/certification and use of professional field and storage pest monitoring, spraying/fumigating and record-keeping services.

Condition 7: NAFAKA staff members will check with TPRI every 6 months to obtain new pesticide registration information.

Condition 8: NAFAKA will annually participate in the updating of this PERSUAP to include new IPM tactics and any new pesticides registered, available and desired for promotion to beneficiaries.

Condition 9: NAFAKA will attach a copy of Annex 9 (pesticide AIs that cannot be used with USAID assistance) onto any financial instrument (loan, grant, sub-contract and so on) supported.

Condition 10: Monitoring: NAFAKA will develop and implement the EMMP based on the (SUAP) under section 4.

ADDITIONAL PESTICIDE SECTOR PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS (if resources are, or become, available)

Actions Recommended

USAID COR, MEO and REA, at least two times annually, will make audit visits to farms receiving assistance through the NAFAKA project and check for compliance with the recommendations on pesticides and IPM found in this PERSUAP.

NAFAKA will make Pest Management Plans (PMP) for rice and maize (use Annex 1 as well as local farmer knowledge) so that managers and farmers have a tool to predict, prevent and manage pests throughout the season (see annual or seasonal PMPs on the following website: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/crops-agriculture.html).

For all demonstrations, NAFAKA project implementers will introduce pest and pesticide record-keeping concepts and tools following GlobalGAP or other internationally accepted Best Management Practices (BMPs).

NAFAKA will work with pesticide distributors and MAFSC to develop a system for return of empty


plastic pesticide containers to farm stores, perhaps using incentives like a rebate system. Farm stores may triple-rinse empty containers if there is sufficient water and a suitable disposal of the rinseate, and properly dispose of them with municipal waste or enter them into a plastic recycling system.

Program Management Actions on Compliance

NAFAKA will monitor beneficiary farmers for their understanding and use of best practices and IPM tools and tactics found in the field form in Annex 11.

NAFAKA will report on monitoring of risk reduction success by reporting number of farmers trained and using IPM tactics/tools and PPE in Annual Reports to USAID COR and MEO, under a heading titled “Risk Mitigation and Monitoring”.

NAFAKA will implementers report on any changes in Tanzania pesticide regulations and registrations to USAID.

HOW TO USE THE PERSUAP EFFICIENTLY The best way to use this document then is to focus on the parts that apply to the pests of each crop and the preventive and curative tools and tactics, including pesticides. To do this efficiently, search this document for the pests (common or scientific name) using the Word computer program’s “Find” feature, which allows one to enter the word or phrase desired, and then takes one to the exact parts of the report where the word or phrase is used. Specific pesticide active ingredients in Annexes 1, 7, 8 and 9 can be found using the same method.

UPDATE THE REPORT ANNUALLY AND AMEND THE REPORT IN TWO YEARS It is important to note that the development of new IPM tools, pesticides, regulations and registrations are all highly dynamic, changing every month. In addition, new human health and environmental data is produced continuously. For these reasons and others, this PERSUAP should be updated at least annually, and amended after two years in order to remain current and accurate.


SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 USAID ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS DEVELOPMENT From 1974 to 1976, over 2,800 Pakistan malaria spray personnel were poisoned (5 to death) by insecticide mishaps on a USAID/WHO anti-malaria program7. In response to this and other incidents arising from USAID programs, a lawsuit was brought by a coalition of environmental groups for USAID’s lack of environmental procedures for overseas projects. USAID, in response to the lawsuit, drafted US 22 CFR 216. This regulation, which was updated in 1979 to include extraterritorial affairs in response to changes in the scope of the application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), now guides most USAID activities that could have potentially negative environmental impacts.

1.2 REGULATION 216 According to Regulation 216, all USAID activities are subject to analysis and evaluation via – at minimum – an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and – at maximum – an Environmental Assessment (EA).

A large part of Regulation 216 – part 216.3 – is devoted to pesticide use and safety. Part 216.3 requires that if USAID is to provide support for the use of pesticides in a project, 12 pesticide factors must be analyzed and recommendations be written to mitigate risks to human health and environmental resources. This plan must be followed up with appropriate training, monitoring and reporting for continuous improvement on risk reduction and adoption of international best practices for crop production, protection and pesticide use safety is strongly encouraged.

1.3 THE PESTICIDE EVALUATION REPORT AND SAFER USE ACTION PLAN (PERSUAP) In the USA, the EPA can rely on the following safety-enhancing factors, not present to the same degree in most developing countries—including Tanzania:

An educated literate population of farmers

A well-functioning research and extension system to extend IPM information to farmers

Quality IPM information and Pest Management Plans (PMPs)

Certification systems for farmer training on restricted and other pesticides

Quality affordable PPE to reduce pesticide exposure risks

Quality pesticide labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) to guide farmer safety

Accurate information and training on pesticide purchase, storage, use and disposal

Because of the differences in infrastructure and resource availability, USAID and US regulations require location specific analysis of pesticide use in developing countries, and development of procedures to ensure safe use. Thus, in the late 1990s, the Regional Environmental Officer (REO) from USAID/East Africa and an environmental consultant working in Uganda developed the concept of a Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe Use Action Plan (PERSUAP)—a tool to analyze the pesticide system or sector in any given country or territory.

7 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/74508


A PERSUAP is generally recommended by and submitted as an amendment to the project IEE or an EA (although most PERSUAPs are very similar to an EA in terms of breadth and detail). Although not actually an explicit goal of the PERSUAP, the application of PERSUAP recommendations has the additional benefit of helping to prepare project participants to be able to more rapidly adopt BMPs, GlobalGAP other S&C systems principles, as desired, for future market access.

1.4 INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT—USAID POLICY In the early 1990s, USAID adopted the philosophy and practice of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as official policy. IPM is also strongly promoted and required as part of Regulation 216.3. Since the early 2000s, IPM—which includes judicious use of ‘safer’ pesticides—has been an integral part of GAPs and is increasingly considered to constitute best management practices in agriculture.

1.5 TANZANIA PERSUAP METHODOLOGY From April to June of 2012, the consultant was paired with NAFAKA’s environmental compliance staff member. During April, they collected background information on the pesticide sector in Tanzania in order to better direct and select groups for field visits. Together, in May, they traveled to Tanzanian government offices and NAFAKA project implementation sites. There, they visited project staff, beneficiary farmers, pesticide shopkeepers and informal pesticide markets.

Field sites visited include Morogoro, Ifakara, Mlimba, Dakawa, Kibaigwa, Dosidosi and Kibaya.

The strategy used for writing this PERSUAP is for it to contain as many links to websites with best practices as possible, both to make it easier to use (reduce the length and thickness) and more up-to-date or accurate (as websites are updated). So, instead of having numerous Annexes containing pesticide safety equipment recommendations or safe pesticide use practices, websites now take their place. However, if project participants do not have access to the Internet, NAFAKA staff should reproduce and distribute key information.

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

2.1 COUNTRY BACKGROUND Tanzania is located on the eastern coast of the African continent south of the equator between latitudes 1o 00’ S and 11o 48’ S and longitudes 29o 30’ E and 40o 30’ E. Eight countries--Kenya and Uganda in the north, Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia in the west, Malawi and the Republic of Mozambique to the south--share boundaries with Tanzania. The eastern side of Tanzania is a coastline of about 800 Km long marking the western side of the Indian Ocean.

Tanzania, with an area of 942,784 Km2, is the largest country of the three East African Community member countries, the others being Kenya and Uganda. Out of the land mass area, water bodies cover 61,495 Km2 (6.52% of the total area), 88% of which is made up of the three big lakes of Victoria, Tanganyika and Nyasa. Other major water bodies include Lake Rukwa and the soda lakes Natron, Manyara, Burunge and Eyasi. There are several inland major wetlands including the Malagarasi/Moyowosi and Lake Manyara, both of which have been declared Ramsar sites of international significance under the international Ramsar Convention.

Tanzania is a country of 43.6 million people. It is tropical on the coast and semi-temperate inland. In the eastern rift zones and on the southeastern slopes of the volcanoes precipitation of 1,500 to 2,000 mm occurs due to orographic rain with more than 10 wet months. Along the coast, the monsoon brings moderate rainfall (500 to 1,000 mm) with 5 to 6 wet months. The highland in the interior is relatively dry with 3 to 4 wet


months and annual precipitation of below 500 mm.

Tanzania's economy relies heavily on agriculture, which accounts for nearly half of GDP and employs 80% of the workforce. Smallholder farmers who dominate Tanzanian agriculture cultivate 0.9 to 3.0 hectares on rain fed land. About 70 percent of Tanzania’s crop area is cultivated by hand hoe, 20 percent by ox plow and 10 percent by tractor. Food crop production dominates the agriculture economy with 5.1 million hectares cultivated annually, of which 85 percent is under food crops. Women constitute the main part of agricultural labor force. The major constraint facing the agriculture sector is the falling labor and land productivity due to application of poor technology, dependence on unreliable and irregular weather conditions. Both crops and livestock are adversely affected by periodical droughts.

The use of new resistant varieties and hybrids, mechanization, quality inputs and sufficient water are keys to stabilizing agricultural production in Tanzania to improve food security with staple crops, respond to climate change, increase farmers’ productivity and incomes, and also to produce higher valued crops such as vegetables, fruits and flowers for export.

2.2 NAFAKA PROJECT BACKGROUND Tanzania Staples Value Chain (NAFAKA) is a $30 million USAID-funded program that integrates agricultural, gender and nutritional development approaches to improve smallholder farmers’ productivity and profitability in maize and rice value chains. It is one of the 10 active Feed the Future (FTF) projects in Tanzania. The ACDI/VOCA Support for Food Security Activities (SFSA) team, a consortium of nine food security and agricultural development organizations, will lead the comprehensive food security program, which is part of USAID’s Feed the Future initiative, an endeavor to harmonize regional hunger- and poverty-fighting efforts in countries with chronic food insecurity and insufficient production of staple crops.

TANZANIA FARMERS TO GROW MORE, SELL MORE Tanzania has experienced strong growth in its agricultural sector over the past decade, but the benefits have not been widely distributed. More than 40 percent of Tanzanians live in food-deficit regions, where irregular rainfall causes recurring food shortages. With 80 percent of the labor force employed in agriculture, the sector has the potential to drive economic growth and reduce poverty. The NAFAKA program will work with rural communities and MAFSC to analyze the local maize and rice value chains and develop a strategy to strengthen them. It will use a multifaceted approach to:

improve productivity, through a strong program of public and private extension services;

increase incomes of vulnerable farmers, including women and young people, by building robust marketing groups to increase their capacity to generate assets, capital, skills and knowledge;

improve competitiveness and trade by encouraging greater trade investments and facilitating win-win demonstration initiatives; and

increase investment and innovation, through a $2 million grant fund to buy down the risk of value chain actors to adopt new technologies and practices.

The interventions will focus on the geographic region of the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor (SAGCOT), primarily in the Kilombero and Mvomero districts in Morogoro. The program will conduct activities in the Kiteto district in Manyara, Kongwa district in Dodoma and Zanzibar.

FOOD SECURITY PARTNERS NAFAKA is the first award to the ACDI/VOCA consortium under the SFSA indefinite quality contract. In implementing the project, ACDI/VOCA will draw on its more than 45 years of agricultural value chain and food security experience in Africa, integrating market-oriented humanitarian assistance with market-driven staple food production and trade promotion interventions.


The program also will draw on the expertise of several other consortium members:

• IFDC will contribute to input supply and market development activities. • Catholic Relief Services (CRS) will bring its expertise in savings and lending methodology, and

interactions with vulnerable groups. • Danya International will implement behavioral change and communications strategies. • Targeted trainings will be provided by Associates for International Resources and Development

(AIRD), Crown Agents USA and Kimetrica.

The ACDI/VOCA consortium will partner with East African private and public organizations as well, including Farm Input Promotions-Africa (FIPs-Africa), Match Makers Associates, MVIWATA and Rural Urban Development Initiatives (RUDI). It will identify additional local implementing partners to conduct key on-the-ground activities throughout the life of the project.

USAID/Tanzania, in 2010, drafted an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) to cover future SO (Strategic Objective) 12 Agriculture and Food Security activities. These activities now fall under the Feed the Future (FtF). And, the IEE recommended that PERSUAPs, like this one, be produced for any activities potentially involving pesticide promotion, purchase or use.

2.3 CROP PRODUCTION CONSTRAINTS Interviews with farmers indicated that NAFAKA crops have, in addition to a lack of sufficient mechanization, fertilizers and water, the following production-limiting constraints:

Maize:

Stem borers

Termites

Maize leafhopper (transmits Maize Streak Virus)

Maize flea beetles

White C-shaped grubs

Whiteflies

Spider mites

Maize thrips

Maize aphids

Seedcorn maggot

Armyworms

Rodents

Locusts

Birds

Ear and kernel mold rots (produce aflatoxins)

Maize rusts

Gray leaf spot

Annual & Perennial Grass Weeds

Broad Leaf Weeds

Rice:

White C-shaped grubs


Termites

Rice thrips

Rice stem borers

Rice gall midges and shoot maggots

Rice beetles and flea beetles

Rice blast

Rice Yellow Mottle Virus

Weeds

Rodents

Armyworms

Locusts

Quelea birds


Broad Leaf Weeds

Maize and Rice Storage Pests

Rodents

Larger grain borer

Sitophilus grain weevil

Maize ear and kernel mold rots (aflatoxins)

These constraints are highlighted in Annex 1, an IPM matrix containing both preventive and curative tools and tactics useful for managing each constraint. The AIs in curative pesticides proposed by NFAKA for beneficiary farmer use are analyzed in Annex 7 and the PER part of this PERSUAP, below. The use of curative pesticide solutions carries certain risks in Tanzania, outlined in the following section.

2.4 EVALUATION OF TANZANIA PEST AND PESTICIDE SYSTEM RISKS Factors that increase risks from pesticides in Tanzania are listed below. These are programmatic in nature and are for the pesticide sector, in general, to tackle and not all are necessarily within the resource reach of NAFAKA. These factors help justify development projects like NAFAKA, which assist to fill extension service gaps and shortfalls.

Factors that indicate increased risks from pesticides

Problems, constraints or risks in the Tanzania pesticide cycle of use

Recommendations for MAFSC, donors, private sector and projects

Priority

Inability of farmers to be able to identify many crop pests properly, leading to incorrect use of inputs

Produce extension materials for each crop including a description and photos of each pest, life stages, and damage.

High

Farmers lack basic knowledge of important prevention tools and tactics for pest

Use Annex 1 to train farmers on preventive best practices for each pest of each crop.

High

Farmers lack basic information on which Use Annex 1 and Private Sector recommendations on pesticides for each

High




Priority

pesticides to use for each pest pest.

Insufficient certified analytical capacity for analyzing and monitoring pesticides and residues.

NAFAKA and private sector combine resources to analyze questionable pesticides for contents, if desired and if a budget is available.

High

Lower quality, illegal & pirated trademark Chinese pesticides present

Do repeated training on quality pesticide choices available.

High

Limited resources for pesticide regulations enforcement

Taxes could be levied from a more productive agriculture sector.

Med

Limited pesticide choices from reputable international and regional companies

Promote the value and use of quality inputs from reputable companies.

High

Limited resources for extension Do demonstration farms and field days. Med

Limited resources and training for Customs officers who control entry of pesticides to Tanzania

Promote training of Customs officers to be able to recognize illegal pesticide entries

Low

Pesticide shops with limited safety equipment available

Source and subsidize (cost share) the purchase of quality PPE for beneficiaries, and make it a condition for receipt of assistance.

High

Farmers do not understand pesticide risks to human health

Do repeated training on pesticide risks, how to mitigate those risks and poisoning first aid

High

Very little use of PPE by farmers mixing and applying pesticides

Do training on proper PPE to use; subsidize quality PPE and encourage the development of professional pesticide spraying/recordkeeping services.

High

Pesticides stored in the farm homes where kids have access

Do repeated training on proper pesticide storage and encourage the development of professional pesticide spray services.

High

Incorrect, over- and under-applications of pesticides and no record-keeping

Do repeated training on calibration & application. Promote the development and use of spray and record-keeping services organized or channeled through cooperatives or associations.

Med

Pesticides applied at the wrong time of day, or when honeybees forage and/or with winds too high

Do repeated training on application timing risks and encourage the development of professional pesticide spray services that know when to spray.

Med

Back-pack sprayers leak (at most parts junctions) onto farmers applying chemicals

Do repeated training on sprayer maintenance and encourage the development of pesticide spray services.

High




Priority

Improper pesticide container disposal Do repeated training on proper disposal. Encourage the development of professional pesticide spray services trained to collect and properly dispose of used containers.

High

Pesticides containing internationally-banned (since 2011) AI endosulfan are still registered and available in farm stores near project sites

Do not permit pesticides containing endosulfan to be promoted or used on any NAFAKA demonstration farms

High

Highly toxic Temik (aldicarb) is available in farm input stores near Dar Es Salaam

Do not permit pesticides containing aldicarb to be used on NAFAKA demonstration farms

Pesticides containing aluminum phosphide are available in most farm stores for the general public to purchase and use

Do not permit aluminum phosphide to be promoted or used on demonstration activities by untrained and unprotected NAFAKA beneficiaries

High

Factors that indicate reduced risks from pesticides:

Most small-scale Tanzanian farmers near project sites have not used pesticides on rice and maize.

Very few pesticide choices have been and are available to small-scale Tanzanian farmers near project sites.

Many farm input stores visited near project sites were well organized with pesticides in plastic bottles, with no opened bottles, and with no balances for subdividing and selling small portions of pesticides.

With the exception of products containing endosulfan, the PERSUAP team did not find internationally banned pesticides containing organochlorine AIs in any farm input stores near project sites.

There is no field evidence of pesticide misuse leading to poisonings of people, domestic animals or environmental contamination (like fish kills) near project sites.

There remain numerous issues that can potentially increase the risk for errors or accidents involving pesticides to occur in Tanzania. For instance, in 2007, due to a severe lack of pesticide choices available to most farmers in Tanzania, TAHA recommended that TPRI analyze and approve the registration of many of the same chemicals registered at that time in Kenya. Although this move increased potential options that could be available to Tanzanian farmers, some of these newly registered pesticides are Class I or are restricted in other countries, and potentially introduce increased risks.

This situation increases the risk of exposing uneducated and unaware small-scale farmers, laborers and farm family members to relatively dangerous poisons, and polluting their immediate environment. Thus the pesticide risk profile is potentially higher than might be encountered in more developed countries, so extra care, including awareness and safety training, is required.

2.5 CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS According to several reports found on the internet, climate change will impact Tajikistan in important ways, not the least of which is the reduction in flow of some of the largest rivers in the region. Like the agriculture


sector, climate change is projected to have both positive and negative consequences for Tanzania’s water-resources, specifically for the three major river basins: Ruvu, Pangani, and Rufiji.

Resulting water shortages could result in drought and spark regional conflicts. Rain-fed agriculture projects may be much more vulnerable than projects in areas with reliable irrigation. At the same time, the irrigation systems themselves may also be at risk, further complicating the picture.

Depletion of the soil organic carbon pool exacerbates carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. Soil degradation decreases methane uptake by agricultural soils.

Waterlogging and indiscriminate use of nitrogen-containing fertilizers increases nitrous oxide emissions from croplands. All of these may increase the rate of organic matter decomposition and soil degradation. Challenges include finding land use strategies and crops that restore degraded ecosystems and soils by improving water use efficiency, enhancing soil quality and sequestering carbon in soil biomass.

Increases in temperatures will favor the spread and speed of increase of insect and disease pests. Many pests, which would die while overwintering in cooler areas, will now survive. The increase in crop pests will lead to the use of more pesticides, which will increase the resistance of pests to these pesticides.

Because of illegal tree cuttings, both for wood sale, charcoal making and clearing farmland, the CO2

sequestration by forests and other forest biomass has decreased. As a result of changes in land use and reclamation of new lands, CO2

absorption by soils has increased. And, CO2

emission due to intensively used

soils has increased. Continued loss of the montane forest belt (which collects a significant amount of water from fog entrapment) from fire intensification would lead to a significant reduction of water yields with serious regional implications, affecting sectors such as agriculture and livestock as well.

The safety of agricultural crops and fisheries also may be threatened through contamination with metals, chemicals, and other toxicants that may be released into the environment as a result of extreme weather events, particularly flooding, drought, and wildfires, due to climate change8. All of these factors combined will challenge food security.

Estimates of the affect of climate change on maize yields are available from model runs of the Crop Environment Resource Synthesis model (CERES-Maize) (Jones and Kiniry, 1986). In general, simulation results show that maize yields were lower, a result of higher temperatures and, where applicable, decreased rainfall. The average yield decrease over the entire country was 33%, but simulations produced decreases as high as 84% in the central regions of Dodoma and Tabora.

Yields in the northeastern highlands decreased by 22% and in the Lake Victoria region by 17%. The southern highland areas of Mbeya and Songea were estimated to have decreases of 10-15%. These results suggest that climate change may significantly influence future maize yields in Tanzania, reducing them in all zones that were studied, relative to baseline levels.

These reductions are due mainly to increases in temperature that shorten the length of the growing season and to decreases in rainfall. Consequently, the continued reliance on maize as a staple crop over wide areas of the country could be at risk.

2.6 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS AND CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS THAT REDUCE PESTICIDE RISKS Food safety and protection of agricultural resources drive Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreements between trading partner countries and blocks. Pesticide and chemical residues, heavy metals, mycotoxins like aflotoxin, foreign materials like metal, glass, plastic, stones, additives, animal and human hair, dead insects, rodent droppings and pathogenic bacterial contamination compromise food safety. The presence of plant or

8 http://www.cdc.gov/climatechange/effects/foodborne.htm


animal pests or diseases on imported fruit, vegetables, meat, milk and other agricultural products can compromise food production systems in the country of import. The adoption of ISO, GlobalGAP, IPPC standards, OIE standards, Good AgroProcessing Practices (GAPP) and HACCP standards, along with the implementation of legislation and policies including pest risk analyses and traceability systems, can reduce some of these risks.

Below are some of the international systems that have been developed to deal with these food safety issues and trans-boundary movement of pests or disease agents, for improved trade efficiency and security.

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATION (ISO) The ISO, found at website www.iso.org, is the world's largest developer and publisher of International Standards. ISO is a network of the national standards institutes of 161 countries, one member per country, with a Central Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland, that coordinates the system.

ISO is a non-governmental organization that forms a bridge between the public and private sectors. On the one hand, many of its member institutes are part of the governmental structure of their countries, or are mandated by their government. On the other hand, other members have their roots uniquely in the private sector, having been set up by national partnerships of industry associations. Therefore, ISO enables a consensus to be reached on solutions that meet both the requirements of business and the broader needs of society. Of particular relevance to this PERSUAP, ISO has developed standards for food safety management systems (ISO 22000) and environmental management standards (ISO 14000).

GLOBALGAP Started in 1997 as EurepGAP, the new GlobalGAP (Good Agriculture Practices) is a private sector body that sets voluntary standards for the certification of agricultural products around the globe. The GlobalGAP standard is primarily designed to reassure consumers about how food is produced on the farm by minimizing detrimental environmental impacts of farming operations, reducing the use of chemical inputs and ensuring a responsible approach to worker health and safety as well as animal welfare.

GlobalGAP serves as a practical manual for Good Agricultural Practice anywhere in the world. The basis is an equal partnership of agricultural producers and retailers who wish to establish efficient certification standards and procedures. The GlobalGAP website, www.globalgap.org, is a comprehensive knowledge base for all interested parties: producers, suppliers, retailers, journalists and consumers. With its clear and easy navigation, the website incorporates exhaustive information on the GlobalGAP standard and its modules and applications.

INTERNATIONAL PLANT PROTECTION CONVENTION (IPPC) The IPPC is an international treaty to secure action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products, and to promote appropriate measures for their control. It is governed by the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM), which adopts International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs). The CPM has confirmed the IPP as the preferred forum for national IPPC reporting and the exchange of more general information among the phytosanitary community. The IPPC Secretariat coordinates the activities of the Convention and is provided by the FAO, and can be found at the IPPC website, www.ippc.int.

OFFICE INTERNATIONAL DES EPIZOOTIES (OIE), OR WORLD ORGANIZATION FOR ANIMAL HEALTH The need to fight animal diseases at global level led to the creation of the Office International des Epizooties through the international Agreement signed in 1924, and in 2003 the Office became the World Organization for Animal Health but kept its historical acronym OIE. Found at website http://www.oie.int/eng/en_index.htm, the OIE is the intergovernmental organization responsible for


improving animal health worldwide. It is recognized as a reference organization by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and as of April 2009, had a total of 174 Member Countries and Territories. The OIE maintains permanent relations with 36 other international and regional organizations and has Regional and sub-regional Offices on every continent.

HAZARD ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL CONTROL POINTS (HACCP) & FOOD PROCESSING SAFETY Linking with ISO 22000, HACCP, which began in 1959, is a systematic preventive approach to food safety and pharmaceutical safety that addresses physical, chemical, and biological hazards as a means of prevention rather than finished product inspection. HACCP is used in the food industry to identify potential food safety hazards, so that key actions, known as Critical Control Points (CCP's) can be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of the hazards being realized. The system is used at all stages of food production and preparation processes including packaging, cold storage, distribution and final sale.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) use mandatory juice, seafood, meat and poultry HACCP programs as an effective approach to food safety and protecting public health. Meat and poultry HACCP systems are regulated by the USDA, while seafood and juice are regulated by the FDA. The use of HACCP is currently voluntary in other food industries. More recently, HACCP has been increasingly applied to industries other than food, such as cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. One of the best websites for understanding HACCP is found located at website http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_fsheet.php?product_id=155.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (EC) & PESTICIDE RESIDUES The EC has established a harmonized legal framework for the regulation of pesticides in all member countries of the EC. The Commission of the European Communities, in collaboration with member countries of the EC, is responsible for the registration of pesticide active ingredients (also referred to as active substances) for use in all EC member countries. Individual member countries, called Member States, are responsible for the registration in their country of specific pesticide products containing active ingredients authorized for use by the Commission. Standards and regulations for the classifications, labeling, and packaging of pesticides are set by a Council Directive in 1967.

An up-to-date pesticide Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) list for EU countries can be found quickly by visiting the following European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) website: http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm, searchable by pesticide product, active ingredient, or crop.

UN’S CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Program. The main purposes of this Program are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations, and its website is www.codexalimentarius.net.

SOUTHERN AFRICA DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY (SADC) FREE TRADE AREA (FTA) The Southern African Development Community (SADC) has been in existence since 1980, when it was formed as a loose alliance of nine majority-ruled States in Southern Africa known as the Southern African Development Coordination Conference, with the main aim of coordinating development projects in order to lessen economic dependence on the then apartheid South Africa. The founding Member States are: Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The SADC website is found at www.sadc.int.


SADC’s Free Trade Area (FTA) aims to create a platform through which the various target groups and audiences, stakeholders and role-players of the SADC FTA can be informed and educated about the various aspects of the SADC FTA. It will also ensure that the various target groups and audiences, stakeholders and role-players take ownership of the FTA Regime and become its "ambassadors, promoters, defenders and communication multipliers" across the SADC Region and beyond.

The FTA will foster a culture of dialogue and debate amongst the various stakeholders, target groups, role players and SADC Co-operating partners regarding the SADC FTA. It aims to enrich and perfect the various components of the SADC FTA for the ultimate benefit of the citizens and residents of the SADC Region and those with whom they conduct trade, business and investment outside the Region. And, it aims to develop collaborative efforts with SADC Member States' relevant and appropriate structures such as the SADC National Committees, Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Non-Governmental Forums, Mass Media Associations and Parliamentary Forums.


SECTION 3: PESTICIDE EVALUATION REPORT (PER) This part of the PERSUAP, the PER (Pesticide Evaluation Report), addresses pesticide choices proposed by NAFAKA based upon regulatory, environmental and human health issues, uses, alternate options, IPM, biodiversity, conservation, training, PPE options, and mitigation and monitoring recommendations according to the twelve Regulation 216.3(b)(1) Pesticide Procedures 12 Factors, outlined to the right and analyzed below.

Reg. 216.3(b)(1)(i) stipulates: “When a project includes assistance for procurement or use, or both, of pesticides registered for the same or similar uses by USEPA without restriction, the Initial Environmental Examination for the project shall include a separate section evaluating the economic, social and environmental risks and benefits of the planned pesticide use to determine whether the use may result in significant environmental impact. Factors to be considered in such an evaluation shall include, but not be limited to the [12 factors listed to the right].” Pesticide “use” is now interpreted broadly, to include factors that may influence use like training and proposing pesticides. “Without restriction” is interpreted to mean a pesticide not labeled as “Restricted Use” by the EPA.

Pesticides can be home-made (artisanal), extracted or synthesized in a factory, and may contain either natural extracts from plants, microbes, spices, oils, minerals or synthesized chemicals, or occasionally combinations of these materials. Pesticides generally contain more than just the AI; they also contain a carrier (water, oil, or emulsion), emulsifiers, surfactants, synergists, adhesives, additives to reduce risk, and other ingredients.

Pesticides generally contain just one AI, but can contain more than one AI for different types of pests, in a mixture. When produced commercially, each pesticide is made, marketed and sold with a product commercial name. This product name—in addition to names of artisanal products—is the “pesticide” referred to by Regulation 216. These pesticide names can be ubiquitous (like Roundup for products containing the AI glyphosate) or can be given different names in different countries or regions depending upon cultural and linguistic differences and marketing objectives.

It would be ideal to find pesticides for every need that are Class IV acute toxicity, have no chronic human health issues, no water pollution issues and no aquatic ecotoxicity issues. Such pesticides do not exist. Almost every pesticide known has toxicity to at least one aquatic organism, or bees, or birds. Furthermore, dose determines toxicity, so any pesticide in a sufficiently high dose, may be fatal to humans.

THE12REG216PESTICIDEFACTORS

FactorA.USEPARegistrationStatusoftheProposedPesticides

FactorB.BasisforSelectionofPesticides

FactorC.Extenttowhichtheproposedpesticideuseis,orcouldbe,partofanIPMprogram

FactorD.Proposedmethodormethodsofapplication,includingtheavailabilityofapplicationandsafetyequipment

FactorE.Anyacuteandlong‐termtoxicologicalhazards,eitherhumanorenvironmental,associatedwiththeproposeduse,andmeasuresavailabletominimizesuchhazards

FactorF.Effectivenessoftherequestedpesticidefortheproposeduse

FactorG.Compatibilityoftheproposedpesticideusewithtargetandnon‐targetecosystems

FactorH.Conditionsunderwhichthepesticideistobeused,includingclimate,geography,hydrology,andsoils

FactorI.Availabilityofotherpesticidesornon‐chemicalcontrolmethods

FactorJ.Hostcountry’sabilitytoregulateorcontrolthedistribution,storage,use,anddisposaloftherequestedpesticide

FactorK.Provisionfortrainingofusersandapplicators.

FactorL.Provisionmadeformonitoringtheuseandeffectivenessofeachpesticide


Pesticides Proposed by NAFAKA (for beneficiaries and for PERSUAP analysis9)

Fungicides & Seed Treatments

Funguran-OH 50 WP (Cupric hydroxide 50%)

Folicur EC 250 (Tebuconazole)

Cruiser 350FS (Thiamethoxam 35 g/L)

Apron star 42WS (Thiamethoxam20g/Kg + Metalaxyl–M 20g/Kg + Difenoconazole 2g/Kg)

Seed plus 20 WS (Imidacloprid + Metalaxyl + Carbendazim)

Topsin M 70% WP (Thiophanate-Methyl70% w/w)

Banko 500 SC (Chlorothalonil)

Herbicides

Touchdown Forte (Glyphosate 500g/L)

Mamba 360 SL (Glyphosate 360g/L)

Roundup 360 SC (Glyphosate)

Servian 75 WG (Halosulfuronmethyl 750g/kg)

Sanaphen 720SL (24-D Amine 720g/L)

Ronstar 250EC (Oxidiazon 250g/l)

Stomp 500 EC (Pendimethalin)

Weedstop EC (Pendimethalin 500g/l)

Atranex 80WP (Atrazine)

Basagran 480g/l (Bentazone)

Buctril MC (Bromoxynil)

Dual Gold 960EC (S-Metolactor-960 g/l) (= metoalchlor)

Lasso GD Microtech (Alachlor 300g/l +Atrazine 180 g/l)

Gramoxone (Paraquat) – Not Approved

Rainbow 25 (Penoxsulam)

Garil (Trichorpyr)

Insecticides

Gaucho 70WS (Imidacloprid)

Dursban 4E (Chlorpyrifos 480g/l)

Deltapaz 2.5 EC (Deltamethrin 25g/l)

Thionex 35 EC (Endosulfan—registered as experimental in Tanzania)

Sapa Cypermethrin 10EC (Cypermethrin)

Karate 5 EC (Lambdacyhalothrin 50g/l)

Marshall 250 EC (Carbosulfan)

Nurellel D50/500EC (Cypermethrin 50g/l + Chloropyrifos 500g/l)

Actellic 50EC (Pirimiphos-Methyl 500g/L)

9 Note that some of these proposed pesticides are rejected by this PERSUAP for promotion, purchase on credit, and use on NAFAKA demonstration farms, see analyses below.


Actellic super Dust (Pirimiphos-Methyl 1.6%+permethrin 0.3%)

Spintor Dust (Spinosad 1.25 g/kg)

Stocal super Dust (Permethrin+pirimiphos methyl)

Shumba super Dust (Fenitrothion + Deltamethrin)

Super Grain Dust (Bifenthrin—not registered in Tanzania)

Rodenticides

Ex-Rat (Bromadiolone 0.005)

Brodek (Brodifacoum)

Rat-cide (Bromadiolone)

Panyacide (Bromadiolone 0.005%)

PanyaKill (Bromadiolone 0.005%)

Lanirat Bait (Baramodiolone)


Yasodion (Diphacinone)




Storm (Flocoumafen—not registered in Tanzania)

Vaccine

Newcastle Disease Vaccine (NDV) 106 EID50

3.1 FACTOR A: USEPA REGISTRATION STATUS OF THE PROPOSED PESTICIDE NAFAKA project activities are effectively limited to promoting or recommending during training, granting or financing, or permitting on demonstration farms, pesticides containing active ingredients (AIs) in products registered in Tanzania by the MAFSC and in the US by the EPA for the same or similar uses. Emphasis is placed on “similar use” because often the crops and their exact same pest species found overseas are not present in the US, and therefore pesticides may not be registered for the exact same use, but often are registered for similar crops, pest situations and methods of application.

The USEPA classifies pesticides according to actual toxicity of the formulated products, taking formulation types and concentrations into account, thus generally making the formulated product less toxic than the technical active ingredients alone would be. This method of classifying acute toxicity is accurate and representative of actual risks encountered in the field. By contrast, the WHO acute toxicity classification system, used by much of the rest of the world, is based on the active ingredient only, and does not include an acute toxicity analysis of fumigants. For a comparison of USEPA and WHO acute toxicity classification systems, see Annex 6.

Annex 7 provides, in column 3, EPA registration status for each AI found in all pesticides currently registered (in 2011 by TPRI) for import and use in the Tanzania. Pesticide products containing AIs that are not registered in any products in the USA, or in products whose registration has been cancelled in the past by EPA, are not permitted on USAID projects.

In the USA, only, some specific commercial pesticide products are labeled as Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs) due to a history of inordinate risks, usually under specific circumstances of use. However, for each


AI, which may be present in a number of RUP products, there are generally additional or other products, formulations and uses with the exact same AI that do not possess the same risks and are thus labeled or determined to be for general use. Ergo, for each AI, there may be RUP and non-RUP products depending upon risks they do or do not pose.

ISSUE: PRODUCTS CONTAINING ACTIVE INGREDIENTS NOT EPA-REGISTERED The analysis of AIs in NAFAKA proposed pesticides, found in Annex 7, shows pesticide AIs in products currently registered in Tanzania that are not registered with the EPA in any products. They have either not passed through EPA’s battery of environmental and human health tests because of insufficient demand to warrant the expensive and time-consuming testing process, or have been voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer, or have been cancelled for use in the USA by the EPA. Products and AIs that are not registered by EPA (listed below) are not permitted for use on USAID-supported projects with USAID support.

Pesticide products and AIs that are not in any pesticide registered by EPA (or Tanzania):

Insecticides rejected for use on NAFAKA

Marshall 250 EC (Carbosulfan—not registered by EPA)

Thionex 35 EC (Endosulfan—on POPs list; being de-registered and phased out in the USA and internationally)

Super Grain Dust (Bifenthrin—not registered in Tanzania)

Rodenticides rejected for use on NAFAKA

Racumin bait block (Coumatetralyl—not registered by EPA)

Racumin paste/liquid (Coumatetralyl—not registered by EPA)

Storm (Flocoumafen—not registered in Tanzania or by EPA)

Recommendation

NAFAKA project will not promote or recommend during training, grant or finance, or permit on demonstration farms, pesticides containing AIs not registered by EPA or Tanzania.

If NAFAKA wishes to permit the granting, financing or use of any non-EPA registered pesticide on any demonstration farm, then a full Environmental Assessment (EA) must be done and approved by the AFR BEO.

ISSUE: PRODUCTS THAT ARE RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDES (RUPS) EPA categorizes every use of every pesticide as either "unclassified" or "restricted use"10. The EPA classifies individual pesticide products as “restricted” if it determines that the pesticide may be hazardous to human health or to the environment in particular contexts or methods of application even when used according to the directions on the label.

Several of the pesticide products being imported into the Tanzania are the same as or sufficiently similar to those designated as RUPs by the USEPA (comprehensively screened in Annex 7).

Annex 8 lists AIs for pesticides registered for import that this PERSUAP judges to have acceptable risks and to be permissible for use with NAFAKA activities, if they are, or become, available and are desired by NAFAKA farmers.

Pesticide products and AIs that are the same as, or similar to, RUPs:

10 http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/tpes.html


Insecticides rejected for use on NAFAKA


Thionex 35 EC (Endosulfan—on POPs list; being de-registered and phased out in the USA and internationally; most products remaining are RUP)

Karate 5 EC (Lambdacyhalothrin 50g/l—all Syngenta products in the USA labeled Karate are RUP)

Nurellel D50/500EC (Cypermethrin 50g/l + Chloropyrifos 500g/l—all agricultural uses in USA of products containing cypermethrin are RUP)

Herbicides rejected for use on NAFAKA

Atranex 80WP (Atrazine—all USA products of at least 80% are labeled as RUP)

Lasso GD Microtech (Alachlor 300g/l +Atrazine 180 g/l—similar to a USA product called Lariat, labeled as RUP)

Gramoxone (Paraquat—all Syngenta paraquat products registered in USA are RUP and Class I)

Fumigant rejected for use by untrained farmers or untrained personnel (but approved for trained personnel) on NAFAKA

Quickphos (Aluminum phosphide—registered as restricted in Tanzania; all USA products labeled as RUP; a Programmatic EA (PEA) is being drafted for fumigation which would permit the use of aluminum phosphide by only highly trained, certified and protected fumigation service teams)

Recommendations

Integrate information on pesticides permitted into NAFAKA training.

Discourage farmers from using products like Thionex that containing internationally-banned endosulfan, and Quickphos that contains highly toxic and risky aluminum phosphide.

NAFAKA project will not promote or recommend during training, grant or finance, or permit on demonstration farms, pesticides containing AIs not registered by EPA or Tanzania.

If NAFAKA wishes to permit the granting, financing or use of any RUP product on any demonstration farm, then a full Environmental Assessment must be done and approved by the AFR BEO (a Fumigation PEA is being drafted for aluminum phosphide grain fumigation use).

All NAFAKA project offices continue to collect and maintain copies of MSDSs for commonly used pesticides. MSDS information should also be used during training.

Vaccines

Vaccines are not mentioned or covered in 22CFR 216. In the USA, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB), a division of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), "regulates veterinary biologics (vaccines, bacterins, antisera, diagnostic kits, and other products of biological origin) to ensure that the veterinary biologics available for the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of animal diseases are pure, safe, potent, and effective."

The Virus Serum Toxicity Act (21 USC § 151-159 et seq.) of 1913 proscribes the preparation or sale of "any worthless, contaminated, dangerous, or harmful virus, serum, toxin, or analogous product intended for use in the treatment of domestic animals" and establishes a legal basis for the licensing and inspection of veterinary biologics and for the USDA's creation and enforcement of implementing regulations.

USDA regulations concerning biological products are codified under Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations (9CFR § 101-123). In addition to "standard requirements" laid out in Part 113, which prescribes


extensive in vivo toxicological testing for each batch product and stipulate that the product is pure, safe, potent, and efficacious. In addition, the regulations permit APHIS itself to conduct duplicative purity, safety, potency, and/or efficacy studies for confirmation purposes.

Newcastle Disease Vaccine I-2 (106 EID50) proposed by NAFAKA is approved and registered for use in the USA. For NAFAKA Project’s convenience, numerous disinfectants (microbiocides) used in the poultry sector are listed and evaluated by EPA registration and toxicity. This information is contained in Annex 7.

3.2 FACTOR B: BASIS FOR SELECTION OF PESTICIDES This procedure generally refers to the practical, economic and/or environmental rationales for choosing a particular pesticide. In general, best practices and USAID – which promote IPM as policy – dictate that the least toxic pesticide that is effective is selected. Fortunately, as a general but important trend, the more toxic pesticides (Class I) are decreasing in number worldwide and the number of least toxic pesticides (Class IV) is increasing. Thus, farmers may be able to choose products of lower toxicity (Class III and IV/U pesticides), especially if PPE is not available or used.

In Tanzania, according to NAFAKA experts, the bases for selection of pesticides by farmers and the project are as follows:

price

efficacy

availability

safety

environmental protection

Recommendations for Selection of Pesticides

Continue to choose and use pesticides of trusted quality with low human and environmental risk profiles (see decision matrix in Annex 7, MSDSs, and pesticide labels), as practical.

3.3 FACTOR C: EXTENT TO WHICH THE PROPOSED PESTICIDE USE IS, OR COULD BE, PART OF AN IPM PROGRAM USAID promotes training in and the development and use of integrated approaches to pest management tools and tactics whenever possible. This section emphasizes how use of approved pesticides can be incorporated into an overall IPM strategy.

Good crop management practices can strongly affect the success of IPM, and good agronomic or cultural practices are the most basic and often the most important prerequisites for an effective IPM program. A vigorous crop that has been protected from seedling damage, fertilized and watered properly optimizes both capacity to prevent or tolerate pest damage while maintaining or increasing yield potential.

In the USA, the USDA supports several programs aimed at investigating and developing IPM tools and tactics. These include NIFA11 (the National Institute of Food and Agriculture) and the National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service of the National Center for Appropriate Technology12 (NCAT). Tanzania has a cadre of experts who recognize the importance of these tools and techniques, and are ready to implement them in crop-specific PMPs.

11 http://www.csrees.usda.gov/pesticides.cfm 12 http://www.attra.ncat.org/


According to NAFAKA experts in the crop protection sector, the GAPs and IPM tools recognized and used in Tanzania in the maize and rice sectors are as follows:

Soil nutrient, texture and pH testing

Pest resistant/tolerant seed

Seed treatment with pesticides

Follow seeding rate & thinning recommendations

Soil moisture measurements

Use of organic fertilizers (manure, compost)

Use of purchased mineral fertilizers

Combinations of organic and mineral fertilizers

Crop rotation

Use of green manure crops

Farmer ability to correctly identify pests

Mechanical weed control by hoe or tiller

Use of herbicides for weed control

Crop residue destruction at end of season

BMPs/IPM for stored grain pests:

Sanitation/Cleaning up of all residues

Good aeration of commodities

Multiple management tactics are combined

For stored grain pests, farmers need to become familiar with continuous monitoring and the capability to accurately identify pests and know their biology, ecology and behavior. Annex 1 shows preventive and curative IPM tools that could be taught and used for each major pest/disease of maize and rice.

Recommendations for Incorporating Pesticide Use into an IPM

NAFAKA will train farmers on IPM methods, which can include the use of pesticides if other methods are not effective.

NAFAKA project should assist the MAFSC with the production and use of seasonal crop production and pest management plans (PMPs)13 and production of posters for on-farm use in prediction and management of the major pests of each crop.

3.4 FACTOR D: PROPOSED METHOD OR METHODS OF APPLICATION, INCLUDING THE AVAILABILITY OF APPLICATION AND SAFETY EQUIPMENT This section examines how the pesticides are to be applied, to understand specific risks with different application equipment available and application methodologies, and the measures to be taken to ensure safe use for each application type. Pesticides can and do enter the body on the hands, skin or eyes when mixing and from splashes, on back and arms from leaking backpack sprayers when spraying, through the nose and

13 http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/crops-agriculture.html, see “Year-Round IPM Programs” checked in a box next to each applicable crop; there is a program and checklist for corn (maize), but not for rice


mouth as vapors while spraying and from spray drift, and by mouth from ingestion on food or cigarettes.

Findings from a survey show that all of the following types of equipment or methods are used to apply pesticides to field crops, orchards and cattle in Tanzania:

Hand-pump (piston or diaphragm pump) backpack sprayer with wand

Motorized backpack sprayer

Hand-held micro-ULV sprayers

Fumigation tablets of aluminum phosphide

In many cases the formulation of the pesticide dictates the method(s) of application to be used. Pesticides with FS (Flowable concentrate for Seed treatment) or WS (Water dispersible powder for Slurry seed treatment) formulation (see proposed pesticides above) are used for treating seed. These formulations need to be used by project beneficiaries in batch seed treatment machinery that assures safety and even coverage (and less wastage) of product. Aluminum phosphide is generally sold formulated as TB (tablets) to be used for fumigating stored grains. These tablets are usually placed and kept under a plastic tarp that covers the bags of grain for 7-10 days.

Pesticides labeled as EC or E (Emulsifiable Concentrate), SL (Soluble Concentrate), SC (Suspension Concentrate = Flowable Concentrate) or WP (Wettable Powder) are formulated for mixing with water and applying with backpack, among other types of, sprayers. WP formulations tend to quickly wear out the moving parts of piston pump powered sprayers and should be used in diaphragm pump powered sprayers. Otherwise the piston-driven sprayer needs to be cleaned after every WP pesticide use.

Furthermore, one sprayer used by a professional crop spraying service should be marked with a big “H” for herbicide use, only. Then a second sprayer can be used for applying insecticides and fungicides. Many small scale farmers can barely afford to buy and maintain one sprayer; in such cases an argument can be made that farmers band together into an association or cooperative to form and use a spray service that can pool resources, costs and benefits.

Dust formulations are generally for applying pesticides to stored grain products. Fumigants used for stored grain are generally available as a tablet that releases toxic gas when exposed to air and moisture.

Rodenticides are generally formulated as pellets (zinc phosphide) that are mixed by farmers with a protein or grain bait and placed in the field near rodent crop entry areas. Phosphine gas is produced when the pellets

reacted with acid and water in the rodent’s stomach. Other rodenticides are formulated as commercial bait blocks and pastes—used in closed bait boxes that do not permit children or domestic animals to access them.

None of the pesticides proposed by NAFAKA contain a UL or ULV (Ultra Low Volume) formulation, even though ULV sprayers are available and used by farmers in Tanzania—mostly supplied by the MAFSC for controlling emergency outbreak pests like locusts or armyworms.

The use of manual hand-held boom (in small-scale rice production in Asia) and electrostatic or air-assisted sleeve-boom sprayers (for larger-scale farmers) can reduce pesticide drift and waste, while applying more of the chemical to the plant surfaces. These methods of application are the proposed methods over the traditional backpack sprayer for rice. The USAID NAFAKA project could promote the use of manual hand-held boom sprayers during training. See hand-held boom sprayers at http://www.yamaho-k.co.jp/en/01product_range/02vegetables_short_rice_fields/.

The NVD vaccine will be applied by eye drops to chickens.

ISSUE: MISAPPLICATIONS In several instances the NAFAKA PERSUAP team encountered farmers who had used an EC formulation of


a stored grain pesticide product to directly spray and treat grain, when in fact the EC formulation is designed for spraying the walls, floor, wooden pallets and ceiling of the grain storage facility—not the grain. A Dust formulation is designed for directly and safely treating grain, as an admixture. Some farmers became ill after eating the sprayed grain.

Recommendations for Understanding Pesticide Application Methods

NAFAKA and/or private sector train farmers to be able to understand pesticide formulations and formulation codes so that errors of application are reduced.

ISSUE: LEAKY BACK-PACK SPRAYERS Hand-pump backpack sprayers, used by small- and medium-scale farmers, among others, can and do eventually develop leaks at almost every parts junction (filler cap, pump handle entry, exit hose attachment, lance attachment to the hose and at the lance handle) and these leaks soak into exposed skin. Moreover, soaked clothing serves as a wick that holds these pesticides in constant contact with the skin. Unless the clothes are washed immediately after use, other family members may also come in contact with pesticide residues.

ISSUE: MOST SMALL-SCALE FARMERS DO NOT HAVE OR USE PPE Most Tanzania farmers do not have or use PPE. NAFAKA staff and/or private sector will promote PPE use as a best practice. The best way to ensure PPE use is to hire professional spray services that will have and maintain such PPE. Pesticide labels should provide guidance on appropriate PPE to use, and EPA has such guidance on a dedicated website14.

Recommendations for Mitigation

NAFAKA should promote the development and use of professional spraying and record-keeping services, promoted to and accessible by farmers at congregation places (farms stores, cooperatives/associations, produce consolidation/cold storage/processing sites). Such services will be encouraged to properly maintain spray equipment in working and non-leaking order, and use recommended PPE.

NAFAKA and/or private sector, during training, should promote and teach proper sprayer maintenance and repair.

NAFAKA and/or private sector should train participants on post-spray hygiene, washing clothing and equipment, including proper disposal of wastes.

3.5 FACTOR E: ANY ACUTE AND LONG-TERM TOXICOLOGICAL HAZARDS, EITHER HUMAN OR ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED USE, AND MEASURES AVAILABLE TO MINIMIZE SUCH HAZARDS This section of the PERSUAP examines the acute and chronic toxicological risks associated with the proposed pesticides. Information on specific risks to environmental resources and how to mitigate or minimize such risks are detailed below under Factor G.

14 http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/workers/equip.htm


Most pesticide poisonings result from ignorance or carelessness regarding the safer handling of pesticides. Pesticides can enter the body in four major ways: through the skin, the mouth, the nose, and the eyes. Chapter 13 in the resource http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADK154.pdf contains measures to reduce risks of exposure via oral, dermal, respiratory and ocular routes.

Pesticides can be poisons, and nearly all of them present acute and/or long-term toxicological hazards, especially if they are used incorrectly. The pesticide AI analysis matrix in Annex 7 contains information on acute and chronic human and environmental toxicological risks for each AI in products registered for use in Tanzania. The way to reduce these risks is to ensure that farmers or professional spray service personnel use recommended PPE.

Other than the case of farmers spraying the wrong formulation of pesticide on their stored grain, the NAFAKA PERSUAP team found no documented instances of pesticide poisoning, or environmental contamination, near project sites. Analyses of the NVD vaccine and the accompanying MSDS show no significant acute or long-term toxicological hazards.

ISSUE: TRACES OF ALUMINUM PHOSPHIDE The grayish-whitish residue that remains following fumigation with aluminum phosphide is composed of aluminum hydroxide and trace quantities (usually 3% to 5%) of un-vaporized aluminum phosphide. Thus, these residues need to be kept out of contact with the grain bags and grain. Tablet residues in grain can be avoided by putting tablets in a single layer on trays, suspending trays in the headspace, or placing trays on the grain surface. An alternative to using tablets is to use phosphine products that are sold as bag chains, belts or blanket formulations; disposal of spent residue is easier to do with these formulations.

ISSUE: PERSISTENT POPS AND TOXIC PIC CHEMICALS The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and Rotterdam Convention’s Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure which list banned and highly regulated toxic chemicals, respectively, were not known when Regulation 216 was written, so there is no language directly governing their use on USAID projects. Nevertheless, they present high risks to users and the environment, due to persistence and toxicity. It is thus prudent that they be discussed. The following websites contain current lists of all POPs and PIC chemicals: http://www.pops.int and http://www.pic.int.

None of the chemicals contained on the 2010 POPs or PIC lists were found to be present in Tanzania and they will be increasingly unlikely to be found in the future as world-wide production of most of these chemicals has ceased or is ceasing. Further, there are numerous less-toxic replacements for all of these chemicals. Newer chemicals are rapidly replacing the older, more dangerous chemicals. One chemical that was just (2011) added to the POPs list, endosulfan, needs to be phased out in Tanzania. NAFAKA farmers should not use pesticides containing endosulfan.

ISSUE: PESTICIDES OF VERY HIGH ACUTE TOXICITY Few pesticides found in Tanzania contain active ingredients that are EPA Class I or WHO Class Ia or Ib (the highest toxicities by mg/kg of body weight), which are considered too toxic for small-scale, uninformed and unprotected farmers to use. Less toxic alternatives, including preventive tactics and tools, and several curative pesticide choices, can be found in Annex 1, and should thus be used in place of Class I pesticides.


With the exception of all rodenticides (which are to be applied in bait boxes and not sprayed), aluminum phosphide (dealt with above), and some copper-containing pesticides (which are too bitter to be accidentally ingested), project beneficiaries should not use products containing active ingredients that are WHO Class 1a or 1b, or EPA Class I (see Annex 9).

NAFAKA promote the formation and use of professional spray services that understand, have and


use PPE to protect against acute and chronic health issues.

NAFAKA train farmers on how to reduce risks to valuable natural resources like water, soil and biodiversity.

3.6 FACTOR F: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE REQUESTED PESTICIDE FOR THE PROPOSED USE This section of the PERSUAP requires information similar to that provided previously, but more specific to the actual conditions of application and product quality. This section considers the potential for use of low-quality off-patent generic and pirated products (such as many of those imported from China) as well as the development of pest resistance to proposed pesticides, both of which will decrease effectiveness (efficacy) of proposed pesticides.

In general, pesticides have been chosen for use and proposed by NAFAKA based on proven effectiveness in the same or similar situations, as well as other factors such as cost and availability. The economic reality is that farmers will not continue to spend scarce funds on pesticides that do not work, even if initially they try increasing dosages when a pesticide starts losing efficacy. One of NAFAKA’s responsibilities is to help farmers make better and faster decisions by incorporating better measurement and documentation systems into their operations.

Aluminum phosphide is adsorbed very quickly by paddy rice and brown rice, leaving little to kill insects (http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR-1154/). Therefore, dosage rates of phosphine vary with the commodity being fumigated. For highly sorptive commodities the aluminum phosphide dosage may need to be doubled from 3 tablets/metric ton to 6 tablets/metric ton.

Pesticides are important pest management tools. Many pesticides have gradually lost their effectiveness due to the development of resistance by pests they once controlled. Pest resistance is defined as a significant decrease in the sensitivity of a pest population to a pesticide or class of pesticides, and manifests as a reduction in the field performance of pesticides. Resistant pests may include insects, mites, weeds, and fungi and bacteria. The management of pesticide resistance development is an important part of sustainable pest management and this, in conjunction with alternative pest management strategies and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs, can make significant contributions to reducing risks to humans and the environment.

An important pesticide resistance management strategy is to avoid the repeated use of a particular pesticide, or pesticides that have a similar pesticide class and target site of action as the pest control mechanism in the same field. One pest control strategy is to rotate pesticides and/or use tank mixtures or premixes with different mode/target sites of action. This will delay the onset of resistance, as well as slow the development and subsequent buildup of resistance, without resorting to increased rates and frequency of application, and ultimately, will prolong the useful life of many pesticides.

A resistance management strategy should also consider cross-resistance between pesticides with different modes/target sites of action. Pests may develop cross-resistance to pesticides based on mode/target site of action. Annex 1 shows IPM tools that are currently effective against specific pests of NAFAKA crops. Further, http://www.pesticideresistance.com/ can be used to search for specific known resistance issues with certain pest or disease resistance to specific pesticide AIs. Pests that are known to rapidly develop resistance are aphids, whiteflies, thrips, mealybugs, leafhoppers, psyllids, mites, Colorado Potato Beetle and the Tomato Fruitworm (Heliothis and Helicoverpa species).


ISSUE: LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION ON REDUCED PESTICIDE EFFECTIVENESS AND HOW TO CHECK AND REDUCE DEVELOPMENT OF PEST RESISTANCE At some point, project field staff and demonstration farmers may begin to note that some products no longer work well to control pests in their field, and will likely begin to blame pesticide manufacturers for a weaker product. This could be due to the use of cheap generic products, improper dosing, or the development of resistance. Farmers should be trained to monitor for the development of resistance, and project implementers should be on the lookout for it during their field visits.

If pesticide use is warranted and a risk of pesticide resistance development is identified, a Resistance Risk Management approach should be followed. The following list details points of concern for both application equipment and pesticide applications.

Application equipment o Calibrate and maintain o Choose proper application nozzle and spray pattern, pressure and droplet size to achieve

best coverage Pesticide applications

o Limit applications during the season to the minimum required o Alternate pesticide mode of action or use mixes of products with different modes of action

when allowed, to avoid use of a group of pesticides with a single mode of action o Time pesticide applications for greatest effect (e.g. Target applications during times when the

pest is most vulnerable). o Use forecasting systems or alerts when available to make the most informed management

decision. o Use recommended dose rates. Do not increase dose rate when efficacy appears reduced and

avoid using lower dosages at all times. o Positively identify the problem and do not make assumptions. Expert consultation may be

required (e.g. extension agent, state diagnostic lab, crop consultant, etc.). This will ensure that the proper pesticide can be chosen for control and avoid unnecessary applications (e.g. When the problem is actually an abiotic problem that is mistaken for a pest problem.).


NAFAKA, through training and hands-on field visits, should continue to encourage farmers to use quality name-brand products and discourage farmers from using cheap generic products.

NAFAKA should work with private sector and MAFSC to teach farmers proper sprayer use, calibration, spray nozzle choice and maintenance.

NAFAKA and private sector teach farmers and other beneficiaries to rotate pesticides among the classes of pesticides available to reduce the development of resistance, and use the above recommendations for reducing resistance.

3.7 FACTOR G: COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED PESTICIDE USE WITH TARGET AND NON-TARGET ECOSYSTEMS This section examines the potential effect of the pesticides on organisms other than the target pest. Non-target ecosystems include protected areas, species and water resources. Non-target species of concern include fish, honeybees, birds, earthworms, aquatic organisms and beneficial insects.


Annex 7 compiles the known risks to the different types of terrestrial and aquatic organisms referred to above for each pesticide active ingredient found in pesticide products registered for use in Tanzania and covered by this PERSUAP, so that informed product choices can be made if a pesticide is to be used in or near sensitive areas or resources. According to NAFAKA pest management experts, farmers understand many of these issues and do take steps to mitigate them.

ISSUE: PESTICIDES CAN IMPACT BIODIVERSITY AND PROTECTED AREAS A USAID tropical forestry and biodiversity (118/119) analysis was performed in 2005 for Tanzania and it identified critical protection issues. This study found that pesticide contamination, watershed degradation, road construction, soil erosion, solid and liquid waste disposal and management, water and air pollution, deforestation, desertification, deterioration of wetlands and biodiversity loss are serious concerns. The invasion of protected area lands by agricultural users occurs in some remote parks.

The Government of Tanzania is fully cognizant of the importance of conserving the natural resource base and has strategically set aside for protection a network of protected areas which covers over 25% of Tanzania's total area and is composed of 13 National Parks, 18 Game Reserves, 56 Game Controlled Areas and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area. In addition, there are 540 Forest Reserves totaling 13 million hectares (ha) – about 15% of the land area and 30% of the forested area.

Tanzania is classified as one of the global “mega-diversity” sites with numerous biological hotspots and unique ecosystems of high diversity of species in a variety of habitats, species and genetic levels. However, these high value resources are not quantified and not reflected in the economy. The state’s initiative to conserve terrestrial biodiversity have been made through policy and legal frameworks that establish network of protected areas with varying levels of protection and imposition of restrictions to access and resource utilizations. Altogether, Tanzania has allocated about 25% of its total area to national parks, game reserves, and game controlled areas. The network of protected areas range from those that enforce total protection in national parks to game reserves where access to and resources utilization through hunting by permits is allowed to multiple land use category where local communities whose land use pattern is compatible with biodiversity and natural resources conservation share same areas with biodiversity conservation management area.

The network of protected areas in Tanzania presents some of the key terrestrial biodiversity areas and represents a major asset not only to the country but also contributes significantly to the international biodiversity conservation community as a whole. Currently those protected areas of international significance are designated as either Biosphere Reserves (2) or as World Heritage sites (3) or even Ramsar sites (2). All these are values that transcend the forest and wildlife sectors purely for the tourism industry and the informal sector.

Tanzania has a unique natural heritage, which includes a rich and diverse spectrum of wildlife, including many endemic species and sub-species. The country ranks among the top five African biologically rich countries with 310 species of mammals, 1060 species of birds and 273 species of reptiles (Stuart and Adams 1991). Such high biological diversity is also associated with a high degree of endemism for example, primates, (20 species and 4 endemic), antelopes (34 species and 2 endemic) fish (with many endemic in Lake Victoria, Tanganyika and Nyasa and other small lakes and rivers), reptiles (290 species and 75 endemic), amphibians (40 endemic) and invertebrates. Limited studies on invertebrates have shown that several species of swallowtail butterflies and dragonflies are endemic to the Eastern Arc montane forests.

In Africa, Tanzania boasts the third largest population of elephants, and probably the largest population of wild dogs and hippopotamuses. The country also possesses the largest, and only surviving, wildlife migration spectacle involving well over one and a half million wildebeest, zebra, Thompson’s gazelles and their attendant predators anywhere in the world. Nationally wildlife is regarded as one of the key natural endowments of Tanzania, contributing to biological, economic, and tribal spiritual values.

Enhanced agricultural production can lead to soil erosion, soil and water pollution by pesticides, and land


salinization caused by poor fertilizer and irrigation practices.


Before the development of IPM plans and PMPs, be aware of protected areas near the project sites

Use GAPs and avoid using highly toxic or persistent pesticides in or near national parks and/or where endangered species are known to exist

Do not spray pesticide within 30 m of a water body

Use erosion control mechanisms like low till and no till on all project sites and especially those near national parks or where water catchments lead to any of Tanzania’s rivers

Where project farms lie near a water course, use the pesticide decision matrix in Table I to choose products with low aquatic impacts

Ensure pesticide applicators respect best practices for notification of beekeepers when applications will occur and apply pesticides when honeybees do not forage, such as late in the day when winds are low.

ISSUE: PESTICIDE CAN PERSIST IN THE ENVIRONMENT AFTER APPLICATION The effect of each pesticide on non-target ecosystems will depend on how long it stays in the environment, that is, its rate of breakdown, or half-life. Half-life is defined as the time (in days, weeks or years) required for half of the pesticide present after an application to break down into degradation products. The rate of pesticide breakdown depends on a variety of factors including temperature, soil pH, soil microbe content and whether or not the pesticide is exposed to light, water, and oxygen.

Many pesticide breakdown products are themselves toxic, and each may also have a significant half-life. Since pesticides break down with exposure to soil microbes and natural chemicals, sunlight and water, there are half-lives for exposure to each of these factors. Fortunately, most of the very persistent pesticides AIs, like chlorinated hydrocarbons, are no longer available or used in modern agriculture.

Pesticides with a long residual period (that are labeled persistent and may last for years) include atrazine herbicide and organochlorine pesticides. In this PERSUAP, persistence has been used as a disqualifying characteristic in the overall analysis and selection of pesticides proposed. Many if not most of the newer carbamate, organophosphate, neonicotinoid, synthetic pyrethroid and growth regulator insecticides and most fungicides found in Annex 1 break down much more quickly in the environment, generally within weeks. None of the pesticides proposed in Annex 1 have a high rate of persistence in the environment, or are known water pollutants.

Recommendation for Mitigation

NAFAKA use ONLY those pesticide AIs proposed in Annex 1, which have been filtered for persistence.

ISSUE: PESTICIDES CAN ADSORB TO SOIL, LEACH AND CONTAMINATE WATER RESOURCES Each pesticide has physical and chemical characteristics, such as solubility in water, ability to bind to soil particles and be held there (adsorbed) and their natural breakdown rate in nature. If they are strongly held by soil they do not enter the soil water layers and the ground water table as easily. A listing of these properties for at least some of the pesticides in use in Tanzania can be found by checking at this website: http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/footprint/en/index.htm.

In general, pesticides with water solubility greater than 3 mg/liter have the potential to contaminate groundwater; and pesticides with a soil adsorption coefficient of less than 1,900 have the potential to


contaminate groundwater. In addition, pesticides with an aerobic soil half-life greater than 690 days or an anaerobic soil half-life greater than 9 days have the potential to contaminate groundwater. Moreover, pesticides with a hydrolysis half-life greater than 14 days have potential to contaminate groundwater.

The potential for pesticides to enter groundwater resources depends, as indicated above, on the electrical charge contained on a pesticide molecule and its ability and propensity to adhere to soil particles, but this also depends on the nature and charge of the soil particles dominant in the agriculture production area. Sand, clay and organic matter, and different combinations of all of these, have different charges and adhesion potential for organic and inorganic molecules. Sandy soil often has less charge capacity than clay or organic matter, and will thus not interact significantly to hold charged pesticide molecules. So, in areas with sandy soil, the leaching potential for pesticides is increased, as is the velocity with which water and the pesticide migrate.

A pesticide’s ability to enter groundwater resources also depends on how quickly and by what means it is broken down and the distance (and thus time) it has to travel to the groundwater. If the groundwater table is high, the risk that the pesticide will reach it before being broken down is increased. Thus, a sandy soil with a high water table is the most risky situation for groundwater contamination by pesticides. Groundwater contamination potential for each pesticide active ingredient available in Tanzania is provided in Annex 7.

The following are known water pollutants:

Active Ingredients in herbicides that are known water pollutants: o alachlor (already rejected under Factor A, above) o atrazine (already rejected under Factor A, above) o bentazone (use with adequate precaution) o s-metolachlor (use with adequate precaution)


Ensure that pesticides labeled for risk to aquatic or other environments, or areas, are in fact used according to label recommendations.

Since transport of soil particles with pesticides adsorbed to them is a likely transportation route to waterways, techniques should be employed to reduce farm soil erosion (such as low till, no till, terracing, employing ground covers between rows, planting rows perpendicular to the slope, using drip irrigation, and so on).

Use care with herbicides with high leaching and groundwater pollution potential (see Annex 7) on highly sandy soils or soils with water tables close (2-3 meters) to the surface.

Do not spray pesticides with high toxicities to aquatic organisms before an impending rainstorm, as they can be washed into waterways before breaking down.

ISSUE: PESTICIDES CAN DAMAGE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Improperly used pesticides can and do damage the following natural resources:

honeybees—needed for pollinating most crops

fish—needed for aquifer health and human food

birds—needed to control insect pests

predators and parasitoids—needed to control insect pests

earthworms—needed for soil health

mollusks and crustaceans—needed for aquifer health and human food

clean water—needed for drinking, irrigating and washing

biodiversity and rare species—needed for ecosystem functioning



Warn beekeepers of upcoming spray events so that they may move or protect their hives

Spray at night (best), very late afternoon when winds are below 13 kph, there is no rain and bees do not forage

Read and follow pesticide label instructions including environmental warnings

Choose the pesticide least toxic to fish and wildlife (see Annex 7, MSDS and pesticide label)

Do not apply granular pesticides in fields known to be frequented by migratory waterfowl and completely cover granules with soil, especially spilled granules at the ends of rows

Minimize pesticide spray drift by using low-pressure sprays and nozzles that produce larger droplets, properly calibrating and maintaining spray equipment, and use of a drift-control agent

Do not spray or rinse equipment in or within 30 meters of ponds and drainage ditches and maintain at least a 2.5 km buffer no-spray zone around national parks or other protected areas

Do not use pesticides with potential or known groundwater risks near drinking water sources, or where the water table is less than 2 meters, or on sandy soils with high water tables

Properly dispose of empty pesticide containers (provide training on what this means locally)

3.8 FACTOR H: CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE PESTICIDE IS TO BE USED, INCLUDING CLIMATE, GEOGRAPHY, HYDROLOGY, AND SOILS In general, in addition to element G above, this requirement attempts to protect natural resources from the dangers of pesticide misuse and contamination, especially of groundwater resources. The following conditions apply, regardless of pesticide use sector, and thus the information here covers all seven sectors.

TANZANIA CLIMATE As a consequence of a diversity of landscapes and land features, Tanzania experiences a variety of climatic conditions ranging from humid coastal to alpine deserts crowning the high peaks of Mt. Kilimanjaro and Mt. Meru mountains to highland montane forest and moist tropical forest. The coastal area and all of the islands in the Indian Ocean experience a tropical climate, and most of the country is sub-tropical except for the areas at higher altitudes. The coastal areas are influenced by two monsoon winds, which comprise of the northeast and southeast monsoons. The northeast monsoons blow southwards from December to March and bring with them hottest temperatures; the southeast monsoons blow northwards from March to September bringing with them heavy intermittent rains. June and July are the coolest months and sometimes temperatures become so low as to result in frost around higher altitude and highlands areas (like Kitulo in Mbeya and Iringa regions).

There is a considerable variation in temperatures influenced by altitude; it ranges between below 0o C on top of Mountains Kilimanjaro and Meru and in the higher altitude highlands and the Kitulo plateau in the southern highlands to above 29o C along the coast. Rainfall in about 75% of the country is erratic and only 21% of the country can expect an annual rainfall of more than 750 mm with a 90% probability. The mean annual rainfall varies considerably, ranging from less than 400 mm to over 2,500 mm per annum. The driest areas in the country are found in a 100 to 250 km wide strip, which runs from the Kenyan border through portions of Arusha, Manyara, Singida, Dodoma, Iringa regions and to the northern part of Mbeya region bordering Singida where rainfall ranges from less than 400 mm to 800 mm per annum. These areas also have very high evapotranspiration rates that exceed precipitation rates for most of the year. However, in the highlands and higher altitude parts of the country in Morogoro, Kilimanjaro, Mbeya, Arusha, Manyara, Kagera, Kigoma and Tanga regions, the Ukerewe and Kara islands in Lake Victoria and the northern shores


of Lake Nyasa average annual rainfall is more than 1,500 mm.

Most of the areas where NAFAKA is operating have been stressed by drought conditions for 2012. Farmers interviewed felt that this is due to climate change, but this is difficult to confirm.

TANZANIA GEOGRAPHY Most of the country is part of the Central African plateau (1,000 – 1,500 m a.s.l.) with gently sloping plains and plateaus broken by scattered hills and low-lying wetlands. The coastal belt and the islands are of much lower altitude (0 – 250 m a.s.l.) and the landscape differs markedly from nine physiographically stratified regions described by a 1994 joint study of World Bank – Tanzania have been further refined. This refinement divides the country into four main physiographic regions15 namely:

a) The lowland coastal zone: This zone comprises the coastal plain and low lands with altitude ranging from 0 to1000 m.

b) The highland zone: This zone is comprised of the dissected highlands, up to 2100 m, which flank the deep trough of Lake Tanganyika to the west, including the southern portion of the Albertine Rift, which extend from the north in Uganda. The Eastern Arc Mountains of Uluguru, Nguu, Usambara and Pare mountains mark the eastern boundary. In the northeast, tectonic and volcanic activity produced spectacular mountain peaks and highlands in the Eastern Rift Zone including the snow-capped Mt. Kilimanjaro, Mt. Meru, the Ngorongoro crater and Ol Donyo Lengai. The Southern Highlands include the Livingstone ranges as well as Rungwe, Poroto, Umalila, Mbisi and Mbeya Mountains, and Kitulo and Ufipa plateaus.

c) The Plateau zone: This zone with average altitude of 1200 m above sea level is comprised of gently undulating countryside over much of the western half of Tanzania and includes certain areas around Lake Victoria.

d) The semi-arid zone: Throughout much of central Tanzania, the country is characterized by generally flat topography, undulating, isolated hills, and inselbergs or rock outcrops. The altitude is between 1200 and 1500m.

Most of NAFAKA’s activities are in the plateau and semi-arid zones.

TANZANIA HYDROLOGY Tanzania has a diverse range of national (and international) wetland resources. These include the great lakes system, major river networks, and deltaic mangroves. Wetlands in Tanzania support an extensive trading and transport system, rural and urban domestic water supply systems, fishing grounds, mariculture, agro pastoral activities, hydrological processes, irrigation, and hydropower generation. Constituting about 10% of the country’s land surface, wetlands have major socio- economic functions in addition to aesthetic, cultural and religious values that are often taken for granted.

The diverse offerings of the wetlands provide the livelihoods for large numbers of people, ranging from rice cultivation, to foraging for fish and other livestock, to the weaving of baskets, mats, and rafts from native papyrus and palm. Additionally, certain ethnic groups attach strong historic and cultural or ritual importance to wetlands. Currently fishing is the most important activity associated with aquatic resources, with fresh water fisheries accounting for over 80% of total fish catches Tanzania’s fresh water lakes include Tanganyika, Rukwa, Victoria, Malawi, Eyasi, Natron, Kitangiri and Manyara. Inland lakes cover 7% of the country. Major rivers include Rufiji, Ruvuma, Pangani, Ugalla, Great Ruaha, Rungwa, Ruvu, Wembere and Malagaras.

Swampy areas cover 5.8% of Tanzania. Together these resources constitute an intertwined network of transportation, culture, livelihoods, power, trade, and biodiversity.

15 2001 National CBD Implementation Report


Much of NAFAKA’s activities on rice occur in the south near the Kilomberu wetlands. The GOT ratified the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in 2000. The Kilombero Valley wetlands and flood plain, which runs along, and to the east of the Udzungwa Mountains National Park and Kilomberu Nature Reserve, from Ifakara in the north to Mlimba in the south, was added to the Ramsar Convention list in 2002 in an attempt to improve its social, economic and environmental values. It is about 260km long and 52km wide.

The wetlands are a source of livelihood for 87% of the dwellers in the area and a major source of hydropower16. The Kilombero Valley flood plain has, for several years, attracted a number of large-scale farming investors in addition to small-scale producers individually and sometimes in association under private farms. Large-scale farms make up 77% of the cultivated land. Most of the farms are 1 ha or less, with only about 10% exceeding 4 ha. Food crops grown include paddy rice, maize, banana and cassava while cash crops include sugar cane and paddy rice. The Kilombero Teak Company produces teak. Minor crops include sweet potatoes, vegetables, peas, pigeon peas, groundnuts and sesame.

Now, about 50% of the flood plain is converted to agricultural land. Large-holders are Mofu Farm, Mbingu Farm, Kilombero Holdings Ltd, Kilombero Sugar Company, Escarpment Forest Company and Kilombero Valley Teak Company. Increases in soil erosion have resulted in siltation of downstream hydro dams and desiccation of streams and swamps. There are concerns that intensive agriculture may further deplete and pollute what water remains.

National Parks that the Kilomberu runs through support large mammals including elephant, lion, giraffe, buffalo, hippopotamus and puku. Fishing was the traditional primary resource use but agriculture and livestock are rapidly replacing that.

The Belgian Development Cooperation (BTC) currently supports the KILORWEMP (Kilombero and Lower Rufiji Wetlands Ecosystem Management) Project. The project supports decentralized and community-based resources management. It aims to livelihoods are improved and economic development is sustained.

The 1997 GOT National Environmental Policy and Agriculture and Livestock Policy stressed the fact that agriculture is dependent on the sound maintenance of natural resources. The GOT ratified the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in 2000. The Kilombero Valley wetlands and flood plain, which runs along, and to the east of the Udzungwa Mountains National Park and Kilomberu Nature Reserve, from Ifakara in the north to Mlimba in the south, was added to the Ramsar Convention list in 2002 in an attempt to improve its social, economic and environmental values. It is about 260km long and 52km wide.

The wetlands are a source of livelihood for 87% of the dwellers in the area and a major source of hydropower17. The Kilombero Valley flood plain has, for several years, attracted a number of large-scale farming investors in addition to small-scale producers individually and sometimes in association under private farms. Large-scale farms make up 77% of the cultivated land. Most of the farms are 1 ha or less, with only about 10% exceeding 4 ha. Food crops grown include paddy rice, maize, banana and cassava while cash crops include sugar cane and paddy rice. The Kilombero Teak Company produces teak. Minor crops include sweet potatoes, vegetables, peas, pigeon peas, groundnuts and sesame.

Now, about 50% of the flood plain is converted to agricultural land. Large-holders are Mofu Farm, Mbingu Farm, Kilombero Holdings Ltd, Kilombero Sugar Company, Escarpment Forest Company and Kilombero Valley Teak Company. Increases in soil erosion have resulted in siltation of downstream hydro dams and desiccation of streams and swamps. There are concerns that intensive agriculture may further deplete and pollute what water remains. National Parks that the Kilomberu runs through support large mammals including elephant, lion, giraffe, buffalo, hippopotamus and puku.

Fishing was the traditional primary resource use but agriculture and livestock are rapidly replacing that. The

16 http://academicjournals.org/JAERD vol 3(9), pp. 153-164, 2 September, 2011

17 http://academicjournals.org/JAERD vol 3(9), pp. 153-164, 2 September, 2011


Belgian Development Cooperation (BTC) currently supports the KILORWEMP (Kilombero and Lower Rufiji Wetlands Ecosystem Management) Project. The project supports decentralized and community-based resources management. It aims to livelihoods are improved and economic development is sustained. The 1997 GOT National Environmental Policy and Agriculture and Livestock Policy stressed the fact that agriculture is dependent on the sound maintenance of natural resources.

TANZANIA SOILS Tanzania has typical tropical soils with a generally low nutrient content particularly in regard to nitrogen and phosphorus. Despite the presence of a great variety of soils, the most suitable for agriculture occur in a few highland places like Arusha, Manyara, Kilimanjaro, Tukuyu and Mbeya. Only 9% of Tanzanian soils are of medium to high fertility, 23% of low to medium fertility and the remaining soils (more than 60%) are generally of lower fertility (FAO-UNESCO, 1977). The coastal zone is mainly covered with deep, sandy to heavy textured soil with moderate to high water content. Sandy loams of a low nutrient content and low water holding capacity mantle most of the central and western plateau areas. The northern portions of the country including extensions in Kagera, the Maasai Steppes and the southeastern plateau have moderate to low fertility soils that are dominated by Ferric Luvisols. Well-drained volcanic soils of high ash content are found in the northern and southwestern rift zones and volcanic areas. The principal and most common soil type are the Ferric Acrisols characterized by a subsurface horizon of clay accumulation, relatively low pH and cation exchange capacity. Chromic Luvisols are dominant in areas of very high biodiversity encompassing the eastern arc crystalline mountains with relatively fertile soils and structurally well-developed subsurface horizon. The soils around Lake Victoria especially southeast and east of the lake are Pellic Vertisols type that although characterized as normally fertile, are poorly drained and comprised of expanding clays that are seasonally inundated with water and crack when dry. Among the most infertile soils present in certain areas of the country, particularly in certain parts of Kagera, Lindi and Mtwara regions are Orthic Ferralsols.

NAFAKA has contracted soil analyses for typical project farm sites and is in the process of analyzing this information for fertilization and other requirements.

3.9 FACTOR I: AVAILABILITY OF OTHER PESTICIDES OR NON-CHEMICAL CONTROL METHODS

This section identifies less toxic synthetic, as well as non-synthetic or ‘natural’ (extracts of naturally-occurring plants, spices, oils, fatty acids, induced resistance elicitors, minerals, microbes or microbial extracts) pesticide options for control of pests, and their relative advantages and disadvantages. Many of these ‘natural’ pesticides can be toxic to humans, and several are even classified as RUPs due to environmental risks; thus safe pesticide use practices extend to these natural as well as synthetic (produced in laboratories or factories) pesticides.

Annex 1 contains numerous non-chemical preventive control methods for major pests of maize and rice in Tanzania. It is the intent of this PERSUAP that USAID projects dealing with agriculture use this valuable resource, which compiles all known IPM tools and tactics for each pest. It can be considered as a pullout, stand-alone section that can be reproduced as necessary, and should be considered for translation into Swahili, lamination, and distribution to farm input supply companies to help advise farmers at point-of-purchase.

ISSUE: NATURAL PEST CONTROLS UNAVAILABILITY Natural chemicals: Many non-synthetic chemical IPM tools are listed in Annexes 4 and 5. The list of natural pesticides likely entering Tanzania is very low compared with other emerging market countries. The list of TPRI registered insecticides and miticides includes some natural oils, neem/azadirachtin, pyrethrins, garlic


extract, Bacillus thuringiensis (BT), Bacillus spaericus, Beauveria bassiana, emamectin benzoate, cartap hydrochloride, abamectin, milbamectin, and spinosad (spinosyn A and B).

The list of fungicides includes compounds with copper and sulfur as well as Trichoderma virdae, Trichoderma harzianum, natural oils, garlic extract, and ascorbic acid. One natural microbial nematocide is listed, Paedilomyces species.

Of these, NFAKA has proposed compounds containing copper and spinosad.

Recommendation

As appropriate, NAFAKA can promote low-risk preventive and natural chemical pest controls that are found in Annexes 1, 4 and 5 of this PERSUAP.

3.10 FACTOR J: HOST COUNTRY’S ABILITY TO REGULATE OR CONTROL THE DISTRIBUTION, STORAGE, USE, AND DISPOSAL OF THE REQUESTED PESTICIDES This section examines the host country’s existing infrastructure and human resources for managing the use of the proposed pesticides. If the host country’s ability to regulate pesticides is inadequate, the proposed action – use of pesticides – could result in greater risk to human health and the environment.

TPRI has produced pesticide regulations and has an extensive and updated list of permitted pesticides for agricultural pest control. In 2007, TPRI registered most of the same pesticide that were then registered for use in Kenya, at the recommendation of TAHA. However, a very small faction of the pesticides currently registered is actually found in the country. Some unregistered pesticides like Temik (aldicarb) and others are found in Tanzania pesticide stores. Some of the chemicals from China are noted for not working well, and require testing of quality before they can be recommended.

Most pesticide stores visited were well organized and did not have open pesticide bottles or unmarked containers. Most farmers interviewed either purchase what they need and use it up, or store leftover pesticides in their home for safekeeping. Pesticides should be properly labeled, stored outside of the house out of reach of children.

For a country where PPE is, for all intents and purposes, little used, there are still some very toxic products being sold in quantity, which leads to increased risk. These include Class I fumigants aluminum phosphide and magnesium phosphide, and Class I insecticides carbofuran, methomyl, endosulfan (just added as a POPs chemical), fenamiphos, chlorfenvinphos, dichlorvos, omethoate, oxydemeton-methyl and triazophos.

Due to a lack of resources, the government’s ability to regulate and enforce regulations is limited, as are resources to stop unregistered pesticides from entering at border customs points.

DISPOSAL OF OBSOLETE PESTICIDES In 1995, USAID assisted the Netherlands with the removal of 245,000 kilograms/liters of obsolete DDT and malathion from Zanzibar. In 2006, the World Bank provided $6.9 million for the collection and disposal of 1200 tons of obsolete pesticides from over 350 farm stores throughout the country. According to FAO18, in 2008 about 1500 tons of obsolete pesticides remained scattered throughout Tanzania, awaiting disposal.

DISPOSAL OF EMPTY PESTICIDE CONTAINERS Most farmers met do not understand proper pesticide container triple rinsing with water, puncturing and

18 http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/obsolete-pesticides/where-stocks/africa-stocks/en/


disposal methods. In some countries, the plastic is often burned, buried, or recycled. Burning is discouraged due to the toxic chemicals released upon incineration. For most farmers, rinsing, puncturing and burying is the option of choice. In many parts of the world, Crop Life International provides funds for local pesticide associations and ministries to collect, rinse, cut into chips and recycle or sell plastic from empty pesticide containers.

GlobalGAP and other S&C systems require that empty pesticide containers are triple rinsed over a pesticide mixing pit, and then properly stored in plastic drums in the field or storage shed, to await disposal. Few empty pesticide containers were found on farms visited likely due to the lack of use. Website http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/labeling/lrm/chap-13.htm provides pesticide and container best practices disposal options.

Recommended Mitigation Actions

For all farmers supported by NAFAKA, encourage and support the use of GlobalGAP best practices with pesticide storage, use and disposal, whether or not certification is sought.

Ensure that demonstration farms, beneficiary farmers and professional spray services who apply pesticides wear sufficient (what is recommended by the pesticide label and MSDS) PPE as a condition of employment or as a condition for receiving USAID assistance.

Explore the possibility of an empty pesticide container take-back program (perhaps with a deposit system built in).

3.11 FACTOR K: PROVISION FOR TRAINING OF USERS AND APPLICATORS USAID recognizes that, in addition to the use of PPE, safety training is an essential component in programs involving the use of pesticides. The need for thorough training is particularly acute in developing countries, where the level of education of applicators may typically be lower than in developed countries.

ISSUE: FARMERS NEED INTENSIVE AND REPEATED TRAINING Training in Safe Pesticide Use and GAP/IPM are of paramount importance for NAFAKA farmers, spray services and farm laborers using pesticides. NAFAKA will work with private sector partners to provide such training. Additional and refresher trainings are good means for setting beneficiary farmer behavior, as many farmers may begin to use pesticides for the first time, and may begin to intensify usage.


NAFAKA should work with private sector partners to implement GAP, IPM and Pesticide Safe Use training for project staff and beneficiaries.

NAFAKA use Annex 1 to produce and promote the use of Pest Management Plans for farmers to anticipate and better manage primary pests.

Conduct training programs for professional spray services on monitoring and data record keeping techniques for pest control and pesticide needs and/or effectiveness.

3.12 FACTOR L: PROVISION MADE FOR MONITORING THE USE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF EACH PESTICIDE Evaluating the risks, impacts and benefits of pesticide use should be an ongoing, dynamic process. Pest resistance is one of the risks for which this element is intended, as well as human health and safety, and environmental effects.


Record keeping should track quantities and types of pesticides used, where they were used and what they were used for with notes on efficacy. Records of training received are also important to keep, if any sort of future certification will be sought. Notes on effectiveness of individual pesticides and pest numbers will help develop a more sustainable pesticide use plan for NAFAKA beneficiary producers.

Records of farmers, as well as NAFAKA agronomists, will need to take note of any reductions in pesticide efficacy experienced, which is the first indication that resistance may be developing, and then a strategy needs to be in place to determine a shift to a different pesticide class, and rotation among classes, to overcome resistance development.

ISSUE: NAFAKA BENEFICIARIES AND FARM RECORD KEEPING On NAFAKA demonstration farms, input use will be carefully documented. The following aspects should be included in a farm record keeping system, for a USAID-funded program:

Environmental conditions: Field conditions should be incorporated into the record keeping system (for example; precipitation, soil analyses and moisture, soil pH, temperatures and so on).

GAPs/IPM measures tried/used (see Annex 1): NAFAKA agronomists should try to incorporate new IPM measures and document their success or failure.

Local regulatory compliance: A list of country laws related to the use of agrochemicals for plant protection, short notes on the relevance of the law, dates the laws come into or exit force and MRLs for each crop-pesticide combination.

A pesticide checklist: This list allows agronomists to ensure that the pesticides they are using are registered. It should also provide notes on special safety requirements.

PPE: Lists of the types of equipment made available to applicators, dates when equipment needs to be maintained or replaced.

Monitoring/recording pests: Agronomists or spray services should incorporate into their records regular field pest monitoring and identification.

ISSUE: MONITORING BY NAFAKA FIELD STAFF AND BENEFICIARY FARMERS Poor quality pesticide product. Any pesticide that does not work as it is supposed to, following

recommended dose and usage.

Resistance: Pesticide resistance development among pests has likely occurred and could eventually occur more, and will be noted by farmers complaining that the spray no longer works as it once did.

Human poisonings and any incidences of chronic health issues.

Farm animal and livestock deaths.

Any incidences of water pollution.

Fish, bird, wildlife or honeybee kills.

Any of the above items should be reported immediately to USAID. Other information should be transmitted at least annually to USAID, and NAFAKA should report on this progress in pesticide environmental and human health safety in annual reports.

ISSUE: NAFAKA PLANNING AND REPORTING Several issues should receive attention in NAFAKA annual work plans and reports. These include a section on Environmental Impact Mitigation and Best Practices, with subsections (and issues) on:

Training/capacity building in IPM and Safe Use (hands-on, demos, sessions, meetings, extension,


flyers, brochures, pamphlets, posters, crop PMPs, and radio and TV outreach/safety message enforcement)

Compliance with lists of rejected and accepted pesticides found in this PERSUAP and use of PPE

GAPs/IPM measures tried/used and on project farms

Biodiversity and conservation (soil, water, energy) measures used on farms


SECTION 4: PESTICIDE SAFER USE ACTION PLAN (SUAP) FOR NAFAKA PROJECT Action Plan Title: Actions to increase awareness and use of IPM Safe Pesticide Use on Tanzania NAFAKA project sites

Action Plan Objective: Reduce risks from pesticides

Once this is action plan is completely filled, and actions are under way or done, it can be transmitted to AID to show Regulation 216 compliance progress reducing pesticide risks on your project.

Actions/Activities Start Date End Date Who Does Budget

Good Agriculture Practices/IPM

Do repeated training on pest ID, preventive and curative IPM tactics/tools for beneficiary farmers growing NAFAKA crops (use Annex 1)

Produce crop-specific annual crop production and pest management plans (PMPs) for NAFAKA crops (use Annex 1) if resources are, or become, available

Reiterating Pesticide Regulations and Restrictions

Check with MOA regularly (at least every 6 months) for new pesticide registrations and evaluate newly desired or proposed pesticides for EPA registration and risk issues

Ensure that beneficiaries do not, with USAID resources, use pesticide products containing active ingredients rejected by this PERSUAP, contained in Annex 9

Pesticide Risk Awareness and Mitigation

Work with private sector partners and provide or ensure regular training for project staff and beneficiaries using the pesticide safer use training topics in the list in Annex 10

Promote the development and contracting of professional monitoring, spraying/fumigating and record keeping services that have and maintain quality spray equipment and PPE

For beneficiary farmers that do not hire spraying and record-keeping services, explore ways to subsidize or cost-share PPE, or have farmer associations maintain and share such equipment among members

Promote GlobalGAP standards and website http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/labeling/lrm/chap-13.htm for leftover pesticide and empty container


Action Plan Goals: Decrease the number of beneficiary farmers unaware of pesticide safety, environmental and natural resource protection, and IPM concepts

Action Plan Discussion Points:

Action Plan Final Sign-off: COP ____________________________ date: ________________

disposal and pesticide record-keeping, if resources are, or become, available

Project Management Responsibilities

Make and keep copies of the current list of pesticide AIs accepted and rejected by this PERSUAP at all project sites for NAFAKA staff who interface with farmers

Collect and keep at all project sites copies of MSDSs for each commercial pesticide that beneficiaries commonly use

Promote pest and pesticide record-keeping concepts and tools following GlobalGAP or other internationally-accepted Best Practices, if resources are, or become, available

Keep PERSUAP recommendation implementation records (number of farmers trained, and number using IPM tools/tactics and PPE) and report on them in Annual Reports, under a heading titled “Environmental Compliance and Best Practices”


Annex 1: Maize and Rice Pests and Diseases Found in Tanzania with Preventive and Curative Control Measures

Maize Field Pests and Diseases

Pest or Disease Preventive IPM Measures Curative IPM Measures

Maize Stalk Borers

African Maize Stalkborer, Busseola fusca

Pink Stalkborer, Sesamia calamistis

Spotted Stalkborer, Chilo partelus

Improve & manage soil fertility

Use resistant varieties (TMV-1, Staha,

Use seed treated with insecticide

Collect or destroy (by disking and plowing under) crop stalk residues

Intercrop with beans and sunflower

Intercrop with borer-repellent Desmodium plant (see ICIPE Push-Pull Strategy at http://www.push-pull.net/3.shtml)

Use crop rotation with legumes

Control weeds on field margins

Apply artisanal neem powder and/or extract to the whorl when first larval damage appears.

Rotate among pesticides classes and pesticides to manage resistance.

A preventive seed treatment with thiamethoxam or imidacloprid.

At least 45 days post-emergence from treated seed, broadcast a spray with thiamethoxam or imidacloprid.

Termites

Macrotermes species

Microtermes species and

Odontotermes species

Destroy termite mounds in and near fields.

Excavation of mound tops and burning of straw to suffocate and kill the colony.

Dig out and remove the queen (the one with really fat abdomen).

Use baits: wood stakes treated with borates.

Seed treated with systemic insecticide.

Use composted instead of fresh mulch.



Spray with synthetic insecticides containing chlorpyrifos or permethrin.

If available, registered in Tanzania and desired by NAFAKA, insecticides containing the microbe Metarhizium anisopliae or synthetic chemicals called Insect Growth Regulators (IGRs) could be used.

Maize Leafhopper—transmits Maize Streak Virus (MSV)

Use resistant varieties like TMV-1, Staha-ST, Kilima-ST, Kito-ST.

Control weeds, especially grasses, on field


At least 45 days post-emergence from treated


Cicadulina mbila

margins.

Plant maize well away from previously irrigated cereals or grassland maximizes the distance the

leafhopper needs to travel from another host.

Create a barrier of 10 m of bare ground between maize fields and previously infested crops which can reduce leafhopper movement and hence MSV

incidence.

Removal of MSV-infected maize plants (rogueing)

at an early stage.

Planting a large area of maize all at once is likely to make the crop less vulnerable to maize leafhopper infestation than planting in a staggered

sequence.

Remove residues of maize and other cereal crops

since they serve as infection sources.

Do intercropping and crop rotation.

seed, rotate among broadcast sprays with thiamethoxam, deltamethrin, fenitrothion or chlorpyrifos and imidacloprid.

Maize Flea Beetles

Chaetocnema species

Natural parasites include Braconid wasps, crickets and lacewings.

Sanitation: Keep fields and field margins free from weeds, especially mustards and field bindweed.

Heavily damaged fields may require re-planting.

Remove and destroy or compost all plant residues.

Yellow sticky traps placed in and around the field.

Artisanal water extracts of neem may provide effective control.


At least 45 days post-emergence from treated seed, rotate among broadcast sprays with thiamethoxam, deltamethrin, fenitrothion or imidacloprid.

Black maize beetles and white soil-inhabiting larvae called white “C-shaped” grubs

Use seed treated with systemic insecticide.

Soil solarization and tillage.

Can use natural soil insecticides containing Beauveria bassiana.


Heteronychus arator

Phyllophaga

Other species

Light trapping of adults.

Ensure good soil drainage.

Inter-planting with alliums (onions, garlic).

Do crop rotation with a pulse, mustard or chiocory.

Sanitation: Remove crop residues after harvest.



Can apply a synthetic insecticide containing chlorpyrifos or fenitrothion in-furrow or as a T-band application.

White flies

Bemisia tabaci

Other species

Controlled in nature by hymenopteran parasitoids (Encarsia species), lady beetles and minute pirate bugs.

Yellow sticky traps may reduce populations but cannot prevent the spread.

Spray natural solutions of insecticidal soap, horticultural oil, neem oil or Beauveria bassiana if the infestation is heavy.


At least 45 days post-emergence from treated seed, rotate among broadcast sprays with thiamethoxam or imidacloprid, and deltamethrin, fenitrothion.

Spider mites

Tetranychus species

Olygonychus species

Natural predators like minute pirate bugs and big-eyed bugs provide a lot of spider mite control.

Maize thrips will feed on early season maize mite eggs and control mite populations.

Plant well away from roads to reduce dust collection on maize leaves.

Remove weeds in field and on field margins using cultivation or herbicides.

Some neonicotinoid pesticides have been shown to increase the prevalence of spider mites.

Rotate among miticides containing deltamethrin, chlorpyrifos, or spinosad.

Treat when maize is 0.5 to 1.5 meters high; control after this height is ineffective due to poor leaf coverage.

Maize thrips

Frankliniella occidentalis

Frankliniella williamsi

Controlled in nature by minute pirate bugs.

Use good field sanitation.

Thrips populations tend to build up on weeds. Cultivating or herbiciding nearby weedy areas

Generally treatment is not necessary because seedlings will recover from thrips damage.


Other species

before maize emerges will reduce the potential of a thrips problem when the weeds begin to dry out. (Cultivating weedy areas after corn emergence will increase thrips problems).

Maize thrips will feed on early season maize mite eggs and help control mite populations.

Maize Aphids

Maize leaf aphid, Rhopalosiphum maidis

Green peach aphid, Myzus persicae

Other species

Natural enemies include Braconid parasitoids, ground beetles, spiders, rove beetles, ladybird beetles, lacewings, damsel bugs, aphid midges and hoverfly larvae.

Use crop rotation.

Plant trap crops such as lupine, nasturtiums, and timothy grass near the crop to be protected (plow under or spray). Anise, chives, garlic, onions, and radish are good companion crops.

Control ants, which protect aphids.

Avoid using heavy doses of highly soluble nitrogen fertilizers. Instead apply fertilizer into 3 phases: during seeding, vegetative, and reproductive stages of plant growth.

Use yellow sticky board traps placed in field (spread used motor oil on yellow painted plastic, thick cardboard or wood).

Use botanical and homemade water extracts of chili, or neem, narrow range oil, and insecticidal soaps.

Can rotate among synthetic pesticides containing chlorpyrifos or fentrothion and deltamethrin.

Seedcorn maggot Delia platura

Other species

Natural enemies include predaceous rove beetles.

Use a systemic seed treatment.

Physical control includes use of yellow sticky traps (see methodology below) placed on field margins and in field.

Plow under crop residues immediately after harvest. Plowing destroys the pest and exposes pupae to ground predators and sunlight. Maggots can survive for some time in crop residues.



Root flies prefer to lay eggs in the soil that is moist and with high organic matter. Do not plant susceptible crops unless the plant residues are dry and/or completely decomposed by use of composting.

Armyworms

Spodoptera exempta

Use pheromone traps to detect.

Use regular surveillance to detect and quickly reduce populations before they explode.

Quickly report outbreaks to MOA; if detected early, the MOA may spray them at no cost.

Control weeds around field and in adjacent fields.


At least 45 days post-emergence from treated seed, rotate among broadcast sprays with thiamethoxam or imidacloprid, deltamethrin (there is some armyworm resistance known to deltamethrin) or fenitrothion.

Rodents

Many mouse and rat species


Control weeds around field.


Place traps in strategic locations (entry points).

Encourage all neighbors to also control rodents on an area-wide basis.

Can use artisanal rat attractants plus rodenticides: ground avocado seeds, Glyricida seeds, coconut and salt.

Can use, in a hazard-labeled rodent bait box, synthetic rodenticides containing bromadialone.

Locusts

Red locust, Nomadacris septemfasciata

Migratory locust, Locusta migratoria



Insecticides containing fenitrothion or deltamethrin may provide some control.

Birds

Crow group of birds, Corvidae

Bird scaring with scarecrows, UV-reflective tape or crop guards.

No avicides are recommended for bird control.

Ear and Kernel Rots & production of aflatoxins

Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus (yellow-green colored mold)

Fusarium moniliforme (white-salmon colored mold)

Use certified clean seed.

Use hybrid varieties with resistance to Aspergillus.

Plant early and avoid drought stress, if possible.

Control insects that damage the husk, ear and

Commercial biological treatments are available in the USA, called Afla-Guard and AF36, and EPA-approved. If desired, try to get these registered by TPRI and try them.

Few synthetic fungicides provide economically


Fusarium graminearum (Gibberella zeae) (pink-red colored mold)

kernals.

Control fertilizer applications carefully and according to extension timing recommendations so as to not over-apply or apply at the inopportune time.

Harvest early and on time (the longer maize is left in the field, the higher the aflatoxin content).

Avoid or reduce kernel damage during harvest.

Dry and store maize at less than 13% moisture.

Keep storage facilities clean and cool, with proper ventilation.

Screen incoming corn for infection (see mold colors), remove and destroy (burry or burn) diseased ears.

efficient control of aflatoxin molds.

Maize Rusts

Puccinia sorghi

Puccinia polysora

Use rust resistant or tolerant varieties or hybrids.

Maintain soil and plant health (test these with lab tests).

Destroy infected residue.

Rotate maize with other crops.

Generally, fungicides are not needed or economical.

If needed, fungicides containing mancozeb, difenoconazole, or tebuconazole can be used.

Gray Leaf Spot

Cerospora zaea-maydis

Use resistant varieties, such as H6302, UH6010, or TMV-2 or early maturing variety Kilima.

Observe locally recommended time of planting.

Use crop rotation.

Sanitation: remove and destroy crop debris soon after harvest.

Fungicide sprays are not economical.


Broad Leaf Weeds

Use an integrated weed management scheme:

Perform thorough land preparation (soil tillage, fertilizer, and water management).

Narrow row spacing makes the crop more competitive than the weeds, use intercropping.

Place the fertilizer in such a way that the crop has access to it but the weeds do not. This allows the

Before planting, use non-selective herbicides containing glyphosate or s-metolachlor.

At planting, use synthetic herbicides containing S-metolachlor, glyphosate, or pendimethalin.

After planting, use synthetic herbicides containing pendimethalin, glyphosate, bromoxynil, or


crop to be more competitive with weeds.

Keep the surroundings of farm free of weeds, unless they are maintained and intended as habitats for natural enemies of crop pests.

Regularly clean farm tools.

Use green manure, which chokes out weeds.

Use intercropping.

Hand weeding, hoeing and composting (do not compost weeds that have flowered and set).

halosulfuron-mehtyl.

Rice Field Pests and Diseases

June and May beetles and white soil-inhabiting larvae called white “C-shaped” grubs

Phyllophaga

Other species

Use seed treated with systemic insecticide.

Soil solarization and tillage.

Light trapping of adults.

Ensure good soil drainage.

Inter-planting with alliums (onions, garlic).

Do crop rotation with a pulse, mustard or chiocory.

Sanitation: Remove crop residues after harvest.

Can use natural soil insecticides containing Beauveria bassiana.



Termites

Macrotermes species

Microtermes species and

Odontotermes species

Destroy termite mounds in and near fields.

Excavation of mound tops and burning of straw to suffocate and kill the colony.

Dig out and remove the queen (the one with really fat abdomen).

Use baits: wood stakes treated with borates.

Seed treated with systemic insecticide.



Spray with synthetic insecticides containing chlorpyrifos or permethrin.

If available, registered in Tanzania and desired by


Use composted instead of fresh mulch.

NAFAKA, insecticides containing the microbe Metarhizium anisopliae or synthetic chemicals called Insect Growth Regulators (IGRs) could be used.

Rice thrips

Stenchaetothrips biformis

Predatory thrips, Coccinellid beetles, Anthocorid bugs, and Staphylinid beetles are biological control agents that feed on both the larvae and adults.

Use resistant cultivars.

Flooding to submerge the infested field for 2 days as a cultural control practice is very effective against the rice thrips.

Use a preventive seed treatment with thiamethoxam or imidacloprid.


Rice stem borers

Chilo zacconius

Coniesta ingnefusalis

Orseola oryzicola

Maliarpha separatella

Pink borer (Sesamia calamistis)

Use resistant and early-maturing varieties. Improved semi-dwarf varieties are generally more resistant to stem borers than the tall traditional ones.

Transplant & grow healthy rice seedlings and plants.

Harvest at the very base of the plants, or plow stubble under and flood.

Early/synchronized planting & water management.

Use natural extracts of neem and chili peppers.



Rice gall midges, shoot maggots cause deadheart

Orseolia oryzivora

Cricotopus sylvestris Paralauterborniella subcincta Paratanytarsus species

Use resistant varieties.

Plow under ratoon from previous crop.

Remove off-season alternate host plants like wild rice.

Draining fields for 3-4 days controls the midge.

Seeding synchronously as soon as possible after flooding.

Seed parts of the field in sequence as they fill with water.

Avoid over-doses of fertilizer.


At least 45 days post-emergence from treated seed, broadcast a spray with thiamethoxam, imidacloprid, fenitrothion, or deltamethrin.


Rice beetles and flea beetles

Leaf-feeding beetle (Epilachna similis)

Hispid Beetle (Trichispa species)

Flea Beetle (Chaetocnema varicornis)

Use resistant varieties.

Use crop rotation.

Keep bunds and surroundings free from grass weeds

Destroy stubble and avoid ratooning.

Top the tips of leaves and seedlings before transplanting to destroy egg masses.

Ensure balanced nutrition (avoid excessive nitrogen application).

Removing weedy vegetation on the levees in spring near the time of seeding.

Winter flooding of the field to enhance straw breakdown and provide waterfowl habitat.


At least 45 days post-emergence from treated seed, broadcast a spray with thiamethoxam, imidacloprid, fenitrothion, or deltamethrin.

Rice blast

Pyricularia oryzae

Use of resistant cultivars.

Destruction of infested residue.

Use of certified clean or non-infested seed.

Water seeding (not drill seeding).

Continuous flooding.

Avoid using excess nitrogen.

Do not plant too early or too late.

Avoid close planting in nurseries.

Use application of synthetic fungicides containing metalaxyl.

Rice yellow mottle virus (RYMV) Many predators control the vectors of RYMV, so avoid over-spraying for insect vectors

Use resistant cultivars as they are developed, such as SSD-1, SSD-3, SSD-5, SSD-7, SSD-35.

Manage the vectors of RYMV by using synthetic pyrethroid pesticides (get RUP training and avoid getting pyrethroids into the water)

Use clean seedling material

Control flea beetles (above).

Rice weeds Use an integrated weed management scheme:

Perform thorough land preparation (soil tillage,

Minimizing weed competition during the early stages of the crop, before it has formed a closed leaf canopy, is particularly important. In upland rice this critical


fertilizer, and water management).

Narrow row spacing makes the crop more competitive than the weeds, use intercropping.

Place the fertilizer in such a way that the crop has access to it but the weeds do not. This allows the crop to be more competitive with weeds.

Keep the surroundings of farm free of weeds, unless they are maintained and intended as habitats for natural enemies of crop pests.

Regularly clean farm tools.

Use green manure, which chokes out weeds.

Use intercropping.

Hand weeding, hoeing and composting (do not compost weeds that have flowered and set).

period is approximately 15-40 days after seeding, while in transplanted rice, the crop can form a canopy more rapidly. Where a crop is exposed to prolonged weed competition during this critical period it is not usually able to recover sufficiently to give a good yield.

Pre-emergence: use an herbicide containing pendimethalin plus hand weeding/hoeing.

Post-emergence: use an herbicide containing 2, 4 D, bentazone or trichlopyr selectively control broadleaves and sedges.

Rodents

See above for maize

Armyworm

See above for maize

Locusts

See above for maize

Quelea Birds

Quelea quelea

Bird scaring with scarecrows, UV-reflective tape or crop guards.

Remove weaverbird nests and eggs.

No avicides are recommended for farmer Quelea control.

Maize and Rice Storage Pests and Diseases

Rodents Use regular surveillance to detect and quickly Can use artisanal rat attractants plus rodenticides:


Rats and Mice

reduce populations before they explode.

Control weeds around the facility.

Place traps in strategic locations (entry points).

Encourage all neighbors to also control rodents on an area-wide basis.

ground avocado seeds, Glyricida seeds, coconut and salt.

Can use, in a hazard-labeled rodent bait box, synthetic rodenticides containing bromadialone, brodifacoum or diphacinone.

Larger Grain Borer

Prostephanus truncatus

and

Sitophilus Grain Weevil

Sitophilus granarius

Do routine monitoring. Ensure good pest identification; understand pest biology, ecology, and behavior.

Use good sanitation and good grain storage practices, as follows:

All grain stored off the floor on palates, with space between palates, well ventilated/aerated and lighted, dispose of old containers.

In empty shipping containers, thoroughly sweep or brush down walls, ceilings, ledges, braces, and handling equipment, and remove all spilled debris.

Brush, sweep out and/or vacuum the truck beds, augers, and loading buckets to remove insect-infested grain and debris.

Remove all debris from fans, exhausts, and aeration ducts (also from beneath slotted floors, when possible).

Remove all debris and vegetation growing within ten feet of the warehouses (preferably the whole storage area).

Examine area to determine if rodent bait stations are required, and use if needed. Be sure to follow all label directions.

Spray cleaned area around bins with a residual herbicide to remove all undesirable weedy plants.

Remove all debris from the storage site and dispose of it properly.

Spray inside (ceiling, walls, floor, pallets) of storage area with an insecticide containing pirimiphos-methyl.

Treat stored seed and grain with an insecticide containing pirimiphos-methyl and permethrin or spinosad.


Frequent rotation of the stocks, "FIFO" (First In - First Out) rule applies.

Use sticky traps to monitor for presence and quantity.

Maize Ear and Kernel Rots & production of aflatoxins

Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus (yellow-green colored mold)

Fusarium moniliforme (white-salmon colored mold)

Fusarium graminearum (Gibberella zeae) (pink-red colored mold)

Clean the storage space thoroughly before putting new crop.

Reduce kernel damage from insects.

Manage and reduce humidity (below 13%).

Increase fresh airflow.

Manage and reduce temperature.

Few fungicides control aflatoxin-producing fungi and molds.

References: http://ipm.ifas.ufl.edu/agriculture/index.shtml; http://attra.ncat.org/index.php; http://www.agroatlas.ru/en/about/; http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/.

To find MRLs for each crop and pesticide, see http://www.mrldatabase.com/ and choose MRLs for the market targeted by each crop, in the absence of a national MRL database, Codex.


ANNEX 2. GUIDELINES FOR PEST MANAGEMENT PLANS (PMPS) FOR TANZANIA CROPS AND BENEFICIARIES

WHAT IS A PMP19?

Pest Management Plans or Guides provide field crop, livestock production or project decision-makers – farmers and farm managers – with best production practices recommendations, usually adapted by region, crop phenology and seasons. The aims of PMPs are to reduce the risks to production from pests by using a combination of best practices, including IPM, Integrated Vector Management (IVM) and Integrated Weed Management (IWM), that maximize crop or livestock health, and thus resilience to or tolerance of pests, and without an over-reliance on pesticides needed when best practices are not followed. Thus, prevention of pests plays a strongly pivotal role in the PMP, followed closely by management of pests when prevention alone is not adequate for the level of control needed or desired.

Who are the PMP’s intended audiences and users?

Farm land preparation and crop production decision-makers

Farmers

Farm managers

Why is a PMP being done?

PMP Objectives:

Prevent or reduce pest damage risk to agricultural production or health

Protect the health of farmers, farm family members, laborers and community members from pesticide risks

Maintain economically sound practices

Reduce environmental pollution and degradation risks

Enhance the overall quality and quantity of biodiversity on the sustainable farm work environment

Respond to foreign market demand for the use of agriculture sector best management practice standards, also called Good Agriculture Practices (GAPs) which include IPM measures, to achieve farm and produce certification

Comply with local, regional, donor and international laws, conventions, and regulations

Organization of the PMP

The following pieces of crop- or livestock-specific background information are used to build a PMP base

General information on the crop/livestock/sector

Crop/livestock common/species names:

Crop/livestock developmental stages:

Production regions and how they differ by soil type, pH, fertility, etc

Overall concerns and priorities for crop/livestock production

Crop/livestock cultural best practices

Crop/livestock Good Agriculture Practices (GAPs) including some IPM (see PERSUAP section on GAPS and IPM) recommendations

19 PMPs or Year-Round (seasonal) IPM Programs are state of the art in many developed countries, and they help institutionalize IPM in planning and practice. PMPs provide agriculture managers and farmers with a tool to predict and prevent many crop pests of each crop throughout a season. See examples of PMPs at http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/crops-agriculture.html, upper left corner under “Year-Round IPM Programs”.


Individual Pest Prevention and Management Sections for each of the following pest types:

Invertebrate (Insects, Mites, Slugs/Snails, Nematodes)

Diseases (Fungi, Bacteria, Viruses, Other)

Weeds (annual grasses, broadleaves, perennial grasses, broadleaves, sedges, others)

Vertebrates (birds, rodents, other)

For each pest type, first, identify overall priorities for pest prevention and management in the target crop or livestock.

Next, identify individual pest species noting the type of damage incurred; part of plant damaged: roots/rhizomes/tubers, stems/stalks, leaves, florescence, or seeds (field or stored); or if livestock, part of animal affected.

To best understand how to manage a pest, one needs to understand how, where, when and on what parts of the plant or animal the pest feeds. For field pests and stored grain/food pests, many PMPs are designed and outlined as follows, for each major species of pest (insects, mites, slugs/snails, nematodes):

Photographs of each pest, life stages

Photographs of plant or livestock damage

Description of the pest, life cycle and survival strategies20:

Description of damage symptoms

Best Prevention Practices o Use any and all of the above GAPs including IPM o Country or region-specific information

Best Management Practices o Focus on prevention (above) o Country or region-specific information

Information on PMP-recommended pesticides

Information needed for each pesticide referenced in the above PMP, by pest (so the farmer/farm manager has the information at their fingertips and do not need to refer to other documents and tables to find it):

Pesticide essential information needed

Active Ingredient (AI) name

Product Trade names (with EPA and WHO Acute Toxicity Classifications in parenthesis)

Amounts to use per hectare

Price

Pre-Harvest Interval (PHI)

Special comments on best application methods and frequency

Any resistance management strategies needed

Pesticide application record sheet

Guidelines for reducing spray drift

Re-entry interval (REI): field safe re-entry period after spraying

Maximum residue levels (MRL) permitted by markets

20 Survival strategies: All pests have survival strategies that allow them to live and breed in each crop’s farming systems. Knowing the survival strategies, including overwintering habit and alternate host plants, that are employed by the pest can help with decision making at the farming systems-level (e.g. choice of rotation crops) and also can help to anticipate pest outbreaks.


Pesticide precautions with use including

Reading the label

Legal responsibilities and permitted registration uses

Permit requirements for possession and use

Recommended and obligated use of PPE and best practices

First aid and antidotes

Transportation best practices

Storage best practices

Safe use best practices

Container disposal best practices

Leftover pesticide disposal best practices

Protection of non-pest animals, plants, endangered species and water body quality

Protect natural enemies & honeybees: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r584310111.html

Posting signage in treated fields

Some chemicals not permitted on processed crops

Potential for phytotoxicity (crop injury) on some crops

Documentation and record-keeping on farms

Information needed on Natural Enemies of Pests

Common Names of Predators and Parasitoids effective against above pests: For a list of common natural enemies of crop pests, see http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/NE/index.html. Genera will likely be the same around the world, with different species in different continents, filling similar niches.

Additional Information Needed:

Will there be an IPM Coordinator, an IPM Advisory Committee, Education and Licensing for Applicators, Currency and Approval of the PMP?


ANNEX 3. ELEMENTS OF INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) PROGRAM

IPM21

Although farmers are likely using numerous IPM tactics, without really calling them that, IPM philosophy or planning is not generally an active part of crop production in Tanzania plots; thus, a basic understanding of the steps or elements needed in an IPM program are addressed below.

Step 1: Learn and value farmers’ indigenous IPM tactics.

Most farmers are already using their own forms of GAPs and IPM, many of which are novel, self-created, adapted for local conditions, and many of which work well. These local tools and tactics need to be well understood and taken into account when making PMPs. Accurate assessments of these farmer’s GAP and IPM technologies, as well as an understanding of actual losses due to different constraints in farmers’ fields are required before designing a crop production and pest management program. Standards and Certification (S&C) farmers will have records of historical pesticide use and trends, as well as information on current use of artisanal or local IPM tactics.

Step 2: Identify key pests for each target crop.

Although perhaps up to ten species of pests may impact a crop and yields at different plant growth stages, generally only two or three are considered serious enough to spend money controlling. Farmers should be encouraged to monitor their population size, their life cycle, the kind of damage they cause and actual losses. Note that crop loss figures based on farmers’ perceptions of damage and loss are often overestimated.

Step 3: Evaluate all management options.

Use of best management practices, preventive measures, and “organic” options to control pest impacts may eliminate the need for synthetic pesticides.

Step 4: Choose IPM methods, identify Needs and Establish Priorities.

Continue dialog with project field staff, ministry extension staff and farmers when choosing methods to be used. Consider the feasibility of attractive methods, including the availability of resources needed, farmers’ perceptions of pest problems, their abilities to identify pests, their predators, diseases and parasitoids, and to act upon their observations.

Step 5: Do effective activities and training to promote IPM.

Next, identify strategies and mechanisms for fostering the transfer of the needed IPM technology under various project and institutional arrangements, mechanisms, and funding levels. Define what is available for immediate transfer and what may require more adaptation and validation research. Set up an initial planning workshop (with a COP-supported and signed Action Plan) to help define and orient implementation activities, and begin to assign individual responsibilities.

Learning-by-doing/discovery training programs

The adoption of new techniques by small-, medium- and large-holder farmers occurs most readily when program participants acquire knowledge and skills through personal experience, observation, analysis, experimentation, decision-making and practice. At first, frequent (usually weekly) sessions are conducted for 10–20 farmers during the cropping season in farmers’ fields by trained instructors or extension agents.

Smallholder support and discussion groups

Weekly meetings of smallholders, held during the cropping season, to discuss pest and related problems can be useful for sharing the success of various control methods. However, maintaining attendance is difficult except when there is a clear financial incentive (e.g., credit, advance knowledge of nearby infestations for early action leading to yield improvement).

Educational material

21 http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/ad487e/ad487e00.htm; http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/ad487e/ad487e02.htm; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmer_Field_School; http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/crops-agriculture.html


In many countries, basic written and photographic guides to pest identification and crop-specific management techniques are unavailable or out of date. Videos featuring graphic pictures of the effects of acute and chronic pesticide exposure, and interviews with poisoning victims can be particularly effective.

Youth education

Promoting and improving the quality of programs on IPM and the risks of synthetic pesticides has been effective at technical schools for rural youth. In addition to becoming future farmers, these students can bring informed views back to their communities.

Food market incentives (especially important in the last decade)

Promoting Organic, GlobalGAP, BRC, Fair Trade or other certification for access to the lucrative and rapidly growing S&C systems-driven international and regional food markets can be, and is, a strong incentive to adopt IPM.

Step 6: Partner successfully with other IPM implementers.

The following design steps are considered essential.

Articulate the partnership’s vision of IPM

Organizations may forge partnerships based on a common commitment to “IPM” – only to discover too late that that their visions of IPM differ considerably. It is therefore highly important that partners articulate a common, detailed vision of IPM, centered on the crops and conditions the project will encounter.

Confirm partner institutions’ commitment

The extent of commitment to IPM integration into project, design, and thus implementation depends strongly upon the following key variables:

IPM program integration into larger project.

The IPM program is likely to be part of a larger “sustainable agriculture” project. The IPM program must fit into a partner’s overall goals. The extent of this integration should be clearly expressed in the proposed annual work plan.

Cost sharing.

The extent of funds (or in-kind resources) is a good measure of a genuine partner commitment.

Participation of key IPM personnel.

Organizations should have staff with expertise in IPM. In strong partnerships, these staff members are actively involved in the partnership.

Step 7: Monitor the fields regularly.

At minimum twice a week, farmers should monitor their fields for pests, as some pest populations increase rapidly and unexpectedly; this increase is usually related closely to the stage of crop growth and weather conditions, but it is difficult to predict the severity of pest problems in advance.

Step 8: Select an appropriate blend of IPM tools.

A good IPM program draws from and integrates a variety of pest management techniques, like those presented in the above list. Flexibility to fit local needs is a key variable. Pesticides should be used only if no practical, effective, and economic non-chemical control methods are available. Once the pesticide has been carefully chosen for the pest, crop, and environment, it should be applied only to keep the pest population low, not necessarily eliminate it.

Step 9: Develop education, training, and demonstration programs for extension workers.

Implementation of IPM depends heavily on education, training, and demonstration to help farmers and extension workers develop and evaluate the IPM methods. Hands-on training conducted in farmers’ fields (as opposed to a classroom) is a must. Special training for extension workers and educational programs for government officials and the public are also important.


Step 10: Monitoring, Record-Keeping and Evaluation (M&E).

Develop data collection forms and checklists, collect baseline GAP/IPM data at the beginning of the project, and set targets.

For the use and maintenance of Good Agriculture Practices (that include safe pesticide storage, use and disposal), maintain farm or project files of: farmer and farm employee training records certification; farm soil, water, biodiversity, cropping and pesticide use maps; pesticide purchase and stock records; price increases or decreases, chemical application instructions including target pest, type of chemical applied, dosage, time of spray, rates at which pesticides were applied, harvest interval days, application machinery, PPE required and used, and any special instructions on mixing, exposure to children or dangers. Further, for project staff, beneficiaries, produce processing facilities, food warehouses, seed multipliers, or farmers that store seed or food and deal with stored seed and food pests, there are warehouse BMPs and monitoring reports that incorporate some IPM tactics. These monitoring forms track, by location or warehouse, use of pallets, stacking, general hygiene and sanitation, damaged packages, actual infestations or signs of rodents, molds, insects, drainage, locks and security measures, use of IPM tactics including least toxic chemicals and strict BMPs, including restricted access, for use of common but hazardous fumigants like aluminum phosphide.


ANNEX 4. BOTANICAL ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN PESTICIDES, REPELLENTS, AND BAITS REGULATED BY USEPA

Name Other Names Use Toxicity EPA Tracking Number

Allium sativum Garlic Repels insects Low 128827

Allyl isothiocyanate Oil of Mustard Kills & repels insects Questionable 004901

Anise Oil Repels vertebrates Low 004301

4-allyl anisole Estragole Kills beetles Low 062150

Azadirachtin Azadirachta indica Neem tree extract

Kills & repels insects Low, IV 121701

Bergamot Repels vertebrates 129029

Canola Oil Brassica Napus B. Campestris

Kills many insects Low 011332

Capsaicin Capsicum frutescans Repels vertebrates Low, III 070701

Castor Oil Repels vertebrates Low 031608

Cedarwood Oil Repels moth larvae Low 040505

Cinnamaldehyde Ceylon and Chinese cinnamon oils

Kills insects, fungi & repels vertebrates*

Low 040506

Citronella Oil Repels insects & vertebrates

Low 021901

Cloves, Crushed Low 128895

Dihydroazadirachtin Neem tree extract Azadirachta indica

Kills & repels insects III-IV 121702

Eucalyptus Oil Repels insects, mites fleas & mosquitoes

Low 040503

Eugenol Oil of cloves Kills insects** Low 102701

Geraniol Oil of rose isomeric w/ linalool

Repels vertebrates** Low 597501

Geranium Oil Low 597500

Indole from all plants Trap bait: corn rootworm beetles

Low 25000-

Jasmine Oil Low 040501

Jojoba Oil Kills & repels whitefly kills powdery mildew

Low 067200

Lavandin Oil Repels clothes moth Low 040500

Lemongrass Repels vertebrates Low 040502

Linalool Oil of Ceylon isomeric w/geraniol

Repels insects, ticks, mites & spiders

Low 128838

Maple lactone Roach trap bait Low 004049


Name Other Names Use Toxicity EPA Tracking Number

Methyl salicylate Oil of wintergreen Repels moths, beetle & vertebrates

May be Toxic in large quantity

76601-

Mint Herb Kills aphids Low 128892

Mint Oil Kills aphids Low 128800

Mustard Oil Repels insects, spiders & vertebrates

Low 004901

Neem Oil Kills whitefly, aphids Low 025006

1-Octen-3-ol From clover, alfalfa Trap bait: mosquitoes Low 69037-

Orange Repels vertebrates Low 040517

p-Methane-3,8 diol Eucalyptus sp. Repels biting flies, mosquitoes

Low

2-Phenylethyl-propionate

From peanuts Kills insects, ticks, mites & spiders

Low 102601

Pyrethrum Chrysanthemum sp. Stored products use III

NAFAKA pepper Chilli Repels insects Low 070703

Rosemary Herb Low 128893

Rotenone Derris sp., Tephrosia Controls ticks III

Ryania Ryania speciosa Kills thrips, codling moth, corn borers

Sabadilla Schoenocaulon sp. III

Sesame Oil Sesamum indicum Pyrethroid synergist Low

Soybean Oil Soja Kills insects, mites Low 031605

Thyme Herb Controls aphids Low 128894

1,2,4 Trimethoxy-benzene

From squash Trap bait: corn rootworm, cucumber beetles

Low 40515-

Verbenone From pine trees Repels bark beetles Low 128986

* attracts corn rootworm beetles, ** attracts Japanese beetles. Not all plant extracts are listed. More detailed information available for most oils: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm. Natural Source: Only one or a few sources are listed. Most of these chemicals are found in many different plants.

Since the time in the late 1990s when EPA did register biological ingredients listed above, it has since developed a list of botanical extracts (mostly essential oils) under “Minimum Risk Pesticides Exempted under FIFRA Section 25(b)22”. Some of the very same ingredients are in both lists. However, most US states and USAID consider botanical extracts and essential oils used to kill, destroy, mitigate, or repel pests to be analyzed and treated as pesticides.

22 http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/regtools/25b_list.htm


ANNEX 5. NATURAL PESTICIDES THAT HAVE BEEN COMMERCIALIZED Insecticides

azadirachtin—component in neem oil botanical extract Bacillus thuringiensis-BT microbial Beauveria basiana microbial cartap hydrochloride marine worm (Lumbriconereis heterodopa) extract chili pepper extract botanical (spice) emamectin benzoate botanical extract garlic extract/allicin botanical extract (spice) harpin protein plant induced resistance elicitor kaolin clay inorganic mineral d-limonene citrus extract (spice) Metarhizium anisopliae microbial narrow range dormant oil paraffin oil neem oil botanical extract nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) microbial Paecilomyces lilacinus microbial Paecilomyces fumosoroseus microbial pyrethrin botanical extract pyrethrum botanical extract pyriproxyfen IGR (Juvenile Hormone mimic) ryania botanical extract soap (insecticidal) fatty acids spinosad microbial extract buprofezin IGR (Chitin Synthesis inhibitor)

Fungicides

Bacillus subtilis microbial Bordeaux mix inorganic (Bordeaux ingredients EPA registered) copper inorganic copper hydroxide inorganic copper oxychloride inorganic copper sulfate inorganic harpin protein plant induced resistance elicitor sulfur inorganic Trichoderma spp. microbial

Nematocides

Myrothecium verrucaria microbial tomatillo oil + thyme oil extracts (Promax23) botanical + spice extracts—soil biopesticide

Molluscicide

iron phosphate inorganic

23 http://www.bhn.name/humagro/biopesticides.html


ANNEX 6. ACUTE TOXICITY OF PESTICIDES: EPA AND WHO CLASSIFICATIONS

General Toxicity

Pesticides, by necessity, are poisons, but the toxicity and hazards of different compounds vary greatly. Toxicity refers to the inherent intoxicating ability of a compound whereas hazard refers to the risk or danger of poisoning when the pesticide is used or applied. Pesticide hazard depends not only on toxicity but also on the chance of exposure to toxic amounts of the pesticide. Pesticides can enter the body through oral ingestion, through the skin or through inhalation. Once inside the body, they may produce poisoning symptoms, which are either acute (from a single exposure) or chronic (from repeated exposures or absorption of smaller amounts of toxicant).

EPA and WHO Toxicity Classifications

Basically, there are two systems of pesticide toxicity classification. These are the USEPA and the WHO systems of classification. It is important to note that the WHO classification is based on the active ingredient only, whereas USEPA uses product formulations to determine the toxicity class of pesticides. So, WHO classification shows relative toxicities of all pesticide active (or technical) ingredients, whereas EPA classification shows actual toxicity of the formulated products, which can be more or less toxic than the active ingredient alone and are more representative of actual dangers encountered in the field. The tables below show classification of pesticides according to the two systems.

a) USEPA classification (based on formulated product = active ingredient plus inert and other ingredients)

Class Descriptive term

Mammalian LD50

Mammalian

Inhalation

LC50

Irritation Aquatic invert/fish (LC50 or EC50)2

Honey bee acute oral (LD50)

Oral Dermal Eye1 Skin

I Extremely toxic

50 200 0.2 Corrosive Corrosive < 0.1

II Highly toxic 50-500 200-2000

0.2-2.0 Severe Severe 0.11-1.0 < 2 µg/bee

III Moderately toxic

500-5000

2000-20000

2.0-20 No corneal opacity

Moderate 1.1-10.0 2.1-11 µg/bee

IV Slightly toxic 5000 20000 20 None Moderate or slight

10.1-100

Relatively non-toxic

101-1000

Practically non-toxic

1001-10,000 > 11 µg/bee

Non-toxic > 10,000

1 Corneal opacity not reversible within 7 days for Class I pesticides; corneal opacity reversible within 7 days but irritation persists during that period for Class II pesticides; no corneal opacity and irritation is reversible within 7 days for Class III pesticides; and Class IV pesticides cause no irritation

2 Expressed in ppm or mg/l of water


b) WHO classification (based only on active or ‘technical’ ingredient)

Class Descriptive term

Oral LD50 for the rat (mg/kg body wt)

Dermal LD50 for the rat (mg/kg body wt)

Solids Liquids Solids Liquids

Ia Extremely hazardous 5 20 10 40

Ib Highly hazardous 5-50 20-200 10-100 40-400

II Moderately hazardous 50-500 20-2000 100-1000 400-4000

III Slightly hazardous 501 2001 1001 4001

U Unlikely to present acute hazard in normal use 2000 3000 - -


ANNEX 7: ANALYSES OF ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN PESTICIDES PROPOSED BY NAFAKA AND FOUND IN TANZANIA

Introduction to Annex 7

Annex 7 below compiles all of the AIs in pesticides (natural and synthetic) registered for use in Tanzania. Project decision-makers—especially those who interface at the field level with beneficiary farmers—are encouraged to look at the label of potential pesticide choices to determine the AIs contained in them and then use this Annex as a quick reference guide to attributes and issues with each chemical.

The pesticide attributes include pesticide class (to manage resistance by rotating chemicals from different classes), EPA registration and Restricted Use Pesticide (RUP) status (to comply with Regulation 216) and acute toxicity (judged by this document to be safe, or not, for small-holder farmers—most Class I chemicals are not considered safe for smallholder farmers to use). Annex 7 also presents chronic health issues, water pollution potential, and potential toxicities to important non-target organisms like fish, honeybee pollinators, birds and several aquatic organisms.

Further, Annex 7 contains basic pieces of human safety and environmental data needed for the various analyses required throughout the PER; ergo it is referred to throughout this document. It also provides data used to produce the project-critical information contained in Annexes 8 and 9. Thus, this PERSUAP provides useful tools for evaluating and choosing among IPM options, including natural and synthetic pesticides, while adhering to 22 CFR 216, as well as aiming at the market-driven best practices found in Standards and Certification (S&C) systems—the highest international standards available.

See Annex 7 Matrix, below.

Key to matrix:

Red shading: Do not use products containing AIs shaded in Red color on NAFAKA-supported farms

Yellow shading: Use with Caution due to toxicity, carcinogenicity or water pollution potential

Green shading: Can be proposed for use on NAFAKA-supported farms

RUP: Few = one or two products; Some = a third of products; Most = all or almost all products

EU Registration: Yes = registered; No = not registered; n.i. = no information; pend = pending registration

WHO Acute Toxicity Classes: O = Obsolete; Ia = Extremely Hazardous; Ib = Highly Hazardous;

II = Moderately Hazardous; III = Slightly Hazardous; U = Unlikely to present acute hazard in normal use

EPA Acute Toxicity Classes: I = Extremely Toxic; II = Highly Toxic; III = Moderately Toxic;

IV = Slightly Toxic

Chronic Human Toxicity: KC = Known Carcinogen; PC = Possible Carcinogen; ED = Potential Endocrine Disruptor; RD = Potential Reproductive & Development Toxin; P = Risk of Parkinson’s

Ecotoxicity: PNT = Practically Not Toxic; NAT = Not Acutely Toxic; ST = Slightly Toxic; MT = Moderately Toxic; HT = Highly Toxic; VHT = Very Highly Toxic

References used to find pieces of data contained in Annex 7: See references at the end of the report.


NAFAKA Requested Pesticides by Active Ingredient

Ecotoxicity

Active Ingredients Class

EP

A R

egis

tered

Restricted

Use P

esticide

WH

O A

cu

te To

xicity C

lass

EP

A A

cute T

oxicity C

lasses

Ch

ron

ic To

xicity

Gro

un

dw

ater co

nta

min

an

t

fish

bees

bird

s

amp

hib

ian

s

wo

rms

Mo

llusks

Cru

stacean

s

Aq

ua

tic Insects

Plan

kton

Insecticides

bifenthrin synthetic pyrethroid yes half II II, III PC, ED, RD no data VHT HT MT HT carbosulfan carbamate no II II NL no data HT HT HT HT HT chlorpyrifos (ethyl) organophosphate yes some II II, III ED no data HT HT HT MT PNT MT VHT HT MT cypermethrin synthetic pyrethroid yes all agr NL II, III PC, ED, RD no data HT HT PNT MT VHT VHT VHT deltamethrin/decamethrin synthetic pyrethroid yes cotton II I, II, III ED no data MT HT ST HT MT NAT VHT VHT VHT endosulfan organochlorine * most II I, II ED no data VHT MT MT MT MT MT HT HT HT fenitrothion organophosphate yes no II II, III ED no data MT HT HT MT MT MT VHT HT MT imidacloprid neonicotinoid yes no II II, III NL potential NAT HT MT NAT HT MT VHT ST lambda cyhalothrin synthetic pyrethroid yes some II II, III ED no data VHT HT ST MT VHT VHT VHT permethrin synthetic pyrethroid yes no II III PC, ED no data MT MT PNT MT ST ST VHT HT MT pyrimiphos methyl organophosphate yes no II, III I, III NL no data MT HT MT MT MT HT VHT VHT spinosad microbial extracts yes no U III NL no data ST HT MT MT MT HT MT thiamethoxam neonicotinoid yes no NL III PC potential PNT HT MT MT

Fungicides

carbendazim benzimidazole yes no U III PC, ED no data MT ST ST ST HT ST MT chlorothalonil chloronitrile yes no U I, II, III KC potential VHT NAT MT HT MT ST VHT MT VHT copper/cupric hydroxide inorganic yes no III I, II, III NL no data HT MT MT MT HT NAT HT difenoconazole azole yes no III III PC, ED no data ST MT ST MT MT MT HT metalaxyl benzanoid yes no III II, III NL potential ST ST MT MT MT ST tebuconazole azole yes no III II, III PC, ED potential MT MT MT MT MT MT HT thiophanate-methyl benzamidazole yes no U II, III PC, RD potential ST ST MT NAT NAT MT ST

Herbicides

2 4 D dimethyl amine chlorophenoxy acid yes no II I, II PC potential MT MT MT MT MT alachlor chloroacetanilide yes all III I, II, III KC, ED, RD known MT MT MT MT MT ST ST atrazine triazine yes most U III KC, ED known ST MT NAT ST ST ST ST ST ST bentazone, sodium salt benzothiazinone yes no III III NL known NAT ST MT MT ST MT ST NAT


bromoxynil octanoate, heptanoate hydroxybenzonitrile yes no II II, III PC, RD no data ST MT MT MT MT VHT glyphosate phosphonoglycine yes no U II, III NL potential ST ST NAT PNT MT ST halosulfuron methyl pyrazole yes no U II, III NL potential ST MT NAT MT NAT MT NAT MCPA chlorophenoxy acid yes no III II, IIII PC no data ST ST NAT ST MT ST NAT NAT ST oxadiazon oxidiazole yes no U II, III KC, RD no data MT MT NAT MT MT ST HT paraquat dichloride bipyridylium yes most II I ED, P potential ST NAT HT ST MT ST ST ST ST pendimethalin dinitroanaline yes no III III PC, ED no data MT NAT MT MT MT MT MT penoxsulam triazolopyrimidine yes no U II, III PC potential MT ST NAT MT MT NAT NAT s-metolachlor chloroacetanilide yes no III III PC, ED known MT ST MT MT MT triclopyr chloropyridinyl yes no III I, III NL no data ST MT MT NAT MT NAT ST NAT

Rodenticides

aluminum phosphide inorganic yes all NL I NL no data HT HT HT MT MT brodifacoum coumarin yes no Ia III NL no data MT HT MT MT bromadiolone coumarin yes no Ia III NL no data MT MT HT MT coumatetralyl coumarin no Ib NL NL no data MT MT diphacinone indandione yes no Ia II, III NL no data NAT ST ST flocoumafen coumarin no Ia NL NL no data HT MT MT zinc phosphide inorganic yes few Ib I, II, III RD no data MT HT MT ST

Vaccine

Newcastle Disease Vaccine I-2 biological ** no NL NL NL no data

Common Disinfectants/Microbiocides used in the Poultry Sector

chlorhexidine gluconate organic yes no NL III NL no data NAT chlorine inorganic yes no NL I NL no data HT MT MT HT HT HT HT citric acid organic acid yes no NL III NL no data NAT ethyl alcohol organic yes no NL II RD no data NAT NAT NAT NAT NAT NAT formaldehyde organic yes no NL I KC no data NAT NAT NAT ST dilute hydrochloric acid organic acid yes no NL I NL no data NAT NAT iodine inorganic yes no NL I NL no data MT HT phenol benzene yes no NL II, III NL no data ST ST NAT NAT ST NAT ST phosphoric acid inorganic yes no NL I NL no data ST potassium iodide inorganic yes no NL I NL no data NAT NAT sodium hydroxide organic base yes no NL II, III NL no data NAT triclosan chlorinated phenol yes no NL I, II, III PC no data HT

*endosulfan is registered and used in the cotton and tomato sectors in the USA; however it is on the POPs list and is being phased out by EPA.

**Animal vaccines are not regulated by EPA; they are regulated by USDA; NDV is registered for use in USA


ANNEX 8: LIST OF PESTICIDE AIS JUDGED BY REGULATION 216 TO HAVE ACCEPTABLE RISKS AND TO BE PERMISSIBLE FOR USE WITH NAFAKA ACTIVITIES Proposed Pesticides and a Vaccine that are Accepted by the PER analysis:

Fungicides & Seed Treatments Funguran-OH 50 WP (Cupric hydroxide 50%) Folicur EC 250 (Tebuconazole) Cruiser 350FS (Thiamethoxam 35 g/L) Apron star 42WS (Thiamethoxam20g/Kg + Metalaxyl–M 20g/Kg + Difenoconazole 2g/Kg) Seed plus 20 WS (Imidacloprid+ Metalaxyl + Carbendazim) Topsin M 70% WP (Thiophanate-Methyl70% w/w) Banko 500 SC (Chlorothalonil)

Herbicides

Touchdown Forte (Glyphosate 500g/L) Mamba 360 SL (Glyphosate 360g/L) Roundup 360 SC (Glyphosate) Servian 75 WG (Halosulfuronmethyl 750g/kg) Sanaphen 720SL (24-D Amine 720g/L) Ronstar 250EC (Oxidiazon 250g/l) Stomp 500 EC (Pendimethalin) Weedstop EC (Pendimethalin 500g/l) Basagran 480g/l (Bentazone) Buctril MC (Bromoxynil) Dual Gold 960EC (S-Metolactor-960 g/l) Rainbow 25 (Penoxsulam) Garil (Trichorpyr)

Insecticides

Gaucho 70WS (Imidacloprid)Dursban 4E (Chlorpyrifos 480g/l) Deltapaz 2.5 EC (Deltamethrin 25g/l) Banko 500 SC (Chlorothalonil) Actellic 50EC (Pirimiphos-Methyl 500g/L) Actellic super Dust (Pirimiphos-Methyl 1.6%+Permethrin 0.3%) Spintor Dust (Spinosad 1.25 g/kg) Stocal super Dust (Permethrin+Pirimiphos methyl) Shumba super Dust (Fenitrothion + Deltamethrin) Ex-Rat (Bromadiolone 0.005) Brodek (Brodifacoum) Rat-cide (Bromadiolone) Panyacide (Bromadiolone 0.005%) PanyaKill (Bromadiolone 0.005%) Lanirat Bait (Baramodiolone) Yasodion (Diphacinone)


Use only by Trained Certified Professional Pest Control Operators

Quickphos (Aluminum phosphide—registered as restricted in Tanzania) Commando 80% (Zinc phosphide—registered as experimental in Tanzania)

Proposed Vaccine for NVD

NVD I-2

ANNEX 9: LIST OF PESTICIDES JUDGED BY REGULATION 216 TO HAVE UNACCEPTABLE RISKS AND NOT TO BE PROMOTED, PAID FOR, FINANCED OR USED ON USAID-FUNDED ACTIVITIES NAFAKA Proposed Pesticides rejected by the PER analyses include:

Atranex 80WP (Atrazine);

Lasso GD Microtech (Alachlor 300g/l +Atrazine 180 g/l);

Gramoxone (Paraquat);

Thionex 35 EC (Endosulfan);

Sapa Cypermethrin 10EC (Cypermethrin);

Karate 5 EC (Lambdacyhalothrin 50g/l);

Marshall 250 EC (Carbosulfan);

Nurellel D50/500EC (Cypermethrin 50g/l + Chloropyrifos 500g/l);

Super Grain Dust (bifenthrin)


Storm (flocoumafen)



ANNEX 10. TRAINING TOPICS AND SAFE PESTICIDE USE WEB RESOURCES

GAP/IPM

Pest identification: How to recognize common important pests and diseases Monitoring: The importance of frequent crop monitoring for pests, diseases and weeds GAP and IPM concepts, tactics and tools found in Annex 1 that can reduce pesticide use and associated risks on

specific pests of Tanzania IP target crops PMPs—Pest Management Plans: Creating and using these farm crop-management tools

Pesticides

Understanding pesticides: Quality, types, classes and acute toxicities of common pesticides Regulations: US and Tanzania laws that guide pesticide registration and use Natural pesticides: Raise awareness of and promote the use of natural pesticides found in Annexes 1, 4, 5 and 7 as

well as green-label synthetic pesticides with relatively low risks Spot Treatments: The importance of spot treatments if needed (instead of crop-wide treatments) MSDS: How to use MSDSs for pesticide-specific information on risks and risk reduction measures REI—Re-Entry Intervals: Pesticide-specific risks associated with entering a sprayed field too soon after the spray

operation PHI—Pre-Harvest Interval: Pesticide-specific risks associated with harvesting a crop before pesticides have had a

chance to break down MRL—Maximum Residue Level: Risks associated with pesticide residues on human food Vulnerable individuals: The importance of keeping children, pregnant women, elderly and infirm away from the field

while spraying and kept out after spraying Human and environmental risks: Risks associated with more commonly-used pesticides (use information from

MSDSs and Annex 7) When to spray: Early in the morning, late in the afternoon, or night without wind or rain Use of recommended PPE: Why it is used (see product MSDSs, product labels and web reference below) Safe Use: How to transport, store and use pesticides safely Maintenance: of PPE and sprayers Monitoring for the development of pesticide resistance Proper collection and disposal of pesticide rinseate and packaging (see disposal web reference below and MSDSs) The use of pesticide spray buffer zones near schools, water resources, organic crop production, apiaries, bird

sanctuaries, biodiversity enclaves, national parks or other sensitive areas. How to reduce and mitigate risks to critical environmental resources and biodiversity (found in PER Factors E and G) Honeybees: Ensuring pesticide applicators notify beekeepers about spray activities, and spray early morning or late

afternoon when no heavy winds or rain are present Water Pollution: Raise awareness of pesticides (especially some herbicides) with high ground water contamination

potential where water tables are high or easy to reach (use Annex 7 and MSDSs) Exposure routes: Ways pesticides enter the body and ways to mitigate entry Basic first aid: Understanding how to treat pesticide poisonings (see first aid web reference and MSDSs) Record-keeping: Pesticide used, when used, which crop, how applied, who applied


Web Safe Pesticide Use Training Resources

General Mitigation of Potential Pesticide Dangers General Measures to Ensure Safe Use: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADK154.pdf, Chapter 13

EPA Recommended Worker Protection Standards: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/workers/equip.htm (all types of PPE)

http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d001701-d001800/d001797/d001797.html (respiratory PPE)

Routes of Pesticide Exposure and Mitigation of Risks:

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADK154.pdf, Chapter 13

Basic First Aid for Pesticide Overexposure:

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADK154.pdf, Chapter 13

International PIC & POPs Lists:

PIC Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals (http://www.pic.int)

POPs Pesticides and Chemicals (http://www.pops.int)

Pesticide Disposal Options:

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/labeling/lrm/chap-13.htm


ANNEX 11. FIELD MONITORING FORM FOR FARMER BEST PRACTICES INCLUDING GAP AND IPM OPTIONS Name of NAFAKA Staff Responsible for Monitoring Demonstration Farms:

Name of Demonstration Farmer: Crop: Date:

What are the major pests encountered by the farmer?:

Which of the attached Preventive and Curative GAP and IPM tools and tactics are used by farmer?

Are pesticides used by demo farmer? Yes__ No__

How are pesticides applied? backpack sprayer__ other__

What are the names of the pesticides used?:

Which PPE does farmer have and use? gloves___ overalls___ boots___

respirator___ goggles___

Has the farmer had IPM and Safe Pesticide Use training? Yes__ No__

Are there any empty pesticide containers scattered in the field? Yes__ No__

Are there signs that the backpack sprayer has leaks? Yes__ No__

Does the farmer understand the pesticide label information? Yes__ No__

Is the pesticide stored safely out of the house or away from kids? Yes__ No__

Does the farmer use gloves for mixing the pesticide with water? Yes__ No__

What times of the day are the pesticides applied? ________

Are pesticides applied during rain or windy conditions? Yes__ No__

Are women or children permitted to apply pesticides? Yes__ No__

Are empty pesticide containers are used to store water? Yes__ No__

Does the farmer rinse equipment away from streams and open water? Yes__ No__

Does the farmer wash clothes after applying pesticides? Yes__ No__

How does the farmer dispose of empty pesticide containers? puncture/bury__ burn__

Is there any evidence that pesticides are becoming less effective? Yes__ No__


Preventive and Curative GAP and IPM options:

Preventive Preventive Curative

Soil nutrient, texture and pH testing Farmer ability to correctly identify pest predators, parasitoids and diseases

Mechanical insect control by hand picking

Pest resistant/tolerant seed/plant variety Weekly field scouting to assess pest levels/damage

Farmers make & apply local artisanal plant extracts (neem, pyrethroid, garlic, chili, other)

Early/late plantings or harvestings to avoid pests

Use of trap crops to trap and destroy pests

Weed control by machine cultivation, hoe or hand

Seed treatment with pesticides Removal/pruning of diseased or heavily infested plants/tree branches

Purchase and release of predators or parasitoids to control major pests

Soil moisture testing Planting parasite-attracting plants on field margins

Use of pheromone traps to reduce overall pest levels

Raised-bed production or mounding Put baits and use other practices to encourage predator/parasite build-up

Use of pheromone inundation to confuse pest mating

Irrigation and drip irrigation Use of pheromone traps to monitor pest levels

Spot treatment of pest hotspots with insecticides, miticides or fungicides

Use of natural fertilizers (manure, compost)

Inter-planting crops with aromatic herbs (celery, cilantro, parsley, dill or local plants) that repel pests

Area spraying (complete field coverage) using synthetic and natural insecticides, miticides or nematocides

Use of purchased mineral fertilizers Mulching with organic materials or plastic to control weeds

Use of synthetic and natural fungicides or bactericides

Combinations of organic and mineral fertilizers

Plant living barriers or bamboo/tree barriers on windward edge of field

Use of herbicides for weed control

Crop rotation Exclude insect pests by using vegetable tunnels and micro-tunnels

Farm use of a locked storage building for pesticides

Use of green manure crops Use of biodiversity or energy conservation practices

Farmer use of pesticide in-ground compost trap for depositing and capturing spilled or leftover pesticides

Farmer ability to correctly identify pests and their damage

Crop stalks, residue and dropped fruit destruction or composting at end of season

Farmer use of receptacle for empty pesticide bottle disposal


ANNEX 12: FARM AND PROJECT RECORD KEEPING ASSOCIATED WITH PESTICIDE USE


ANNEX 13: PERSUAP REFERENCES Baker EL, Zack M, Miles JW, Alderman L, Warren M, Dobbins RD, Miller S, Teeters WR. 1978. Epidemic malathion poisoning in Pakistan malaria workers. The Lancet, January: 31–33.

Websites: Website references used to develop the PERSUAP

International Treaties and Conventions:

POPs website: http://www.pops.int

PIC Website: http://www.pic.int

Basel Convention: http://www.basel.int/

Montreal Protocol: http://www.unep.org/OZONE/pdfs/Montreal-Protocol2000.pdf

Pakistan malaria poisonings: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACQ047.pdf. Pesticide poisonings:

http://www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20080403

http://magazine.panna.org/spring2006/inDepthGlobalPoisoning.html IPM and PMP websites:

http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pg058

http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmsp/index.cfm

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/154769/Cotton-pest-management-guide-1.pdf Pesticide Research Websites:

http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ghindex.html (Extoxnet Oregon State database with ecotox)

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/pesticides/f_2.htm (all types of application equipment)

http://www.greenbook.net/Search/AdvancedSearch (pesticide Material Safety Data Sheets)

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm (EPA Registration Eligibility Decisions) Ecotoxicity:

http://www.ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2161.html (pesticide toxicity to honeybees)

http://wihort.uwex.edu/turf/Earthworms.htm (pesticide toxicity to earthworms) Safety:

http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/ingredients/index.htm (EPA regulated biopesticides)

http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/index.html (IPM, PMPs and pesticide recommendations)

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/PI/PI07300.pdf (Restricted Use Pesticides)

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/ (EPA Health & Safety)

http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PPISdata/index.html (EPA pesticide product information) Personal Protection Equipment (PPE):

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/workers/equip.htm (all types of PPE)

http://www.cdc.gov/nasd/docs/d001701-d001800/d001797/d001797.html (respiratory PPE)


Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) for NAFAKA Project

Sector Environmental Risks & Impacts Mitigation Measures & BMPs (Best Management Practices)

Monitoring Indicators

Agriculture

Pesticide Activities: Subcontracts for training on, promotion to, and use by farmers

Pest Control

Mitigation of Pest Control Risks

Indicators of Improvement

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) preventive and curative (pesticides) tools and tactics not well known, understood or used

Training/Demonstrations on IPM and use of a set list of recommended preventive and curative IPM tools and tactics for each crop

Change in % of farms actively implementing a set list of IPM preventive and curative tools and tactics for each crop

Global-GAP (Good Agriculture Practices) not known, understood or used

Training/Demonstrations on GlobalGAP and use of GlobalGAP standards and recommendations

Change in % of farms actively implementing a set list of GlobalGAP standards and recommendations

Incorrect pest identification

Pest Management Plans (PMPs) not made or used

Training/Demonstrations on pests of each crop

Activities to make pest management tools, and make PMPs

Change in % of correct pest identifications

Change in % of PMPs made and used by NAFAKA for training and by each farmer

Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) not used by all farmers while applying pesticides

Acute human poisoning leading to death

Chronic human poisoning leading to future health issues

Training/Demonstrations on pesticide risks and use of PPE

Subsidize the purchase of quality PPE for beneficiary farmers

Change in % of quality recommended PPE present on demo farms

Change in % of PPE used by beneficiary farmers

Incorrect pesticide calibration Training/Demonstrations on proper Change in % of farmers who can


Spraying at wrong time

sprayer calibration

Training/Demonstrations on proper spray best practices and timing

calibrate a sprayer properly and understand spray best practices

Pesticide drift and waste

Training/Demonstrations on methods for reducing drift

Subsidize the purchase, demonstration and use of newer hand-held boom and electrostatic and sleeve-boom sprayers

Change in % of farmers who use new spray tools and implement pesticide drift management practices

Backpack sprayers leak at every parts junction

Training/Demonstrations on backpack sprayer maintenance

Change in % of backpack sprayers well maintained, not leaking

Groundwater & surface water contamination leading to aquatic ecotoxicity (fish kills)

Training/Demonstrations on methods for keeping pesticides out of ground and surface water

Training/Demonstrations on pesticides with low aquatic toxicity, low pollution potential and that break down quickly

Change in % of farmers who understand which pesticides have groundwater pollution potential & how to keep pesticides out of water

Toxic pesticides enter protected areas or harm protected species

Training/Demonstrations on methods for keeping pesticides out of protected areas and away from protected species

Change in % of farmers who understand how to keep pesticides out of parks and use less toxic pesticides

Significant death of pollinator honeybees

Training/Demonstrations on methods for protecting honeybees from spray

Change in % of farmers who understand how to reduce risks to honeybees

Significant deaths of local and migratory birds

Training/Demonstrations on pesticide choices, selection, formulations and use that protect birds

Change in % of interviewed farmers interviewed farmers understand choices & selection criteria

Use of non-EPA registered pesticides, certain RUP pesticides, internationally-banned pesticides, Class I

Training/Demonstrations on banned, prohibited and permitted pesticides

Training/Demonstrations on choosing least toxic pesticide alternatives

All pesticide Active Ingredients (AIs) EPA registered and not RUP

No internationally-banned pesticides used


pesticides, known carcinogens, known water pollutants

Incorrect or improper pesticide selection

No Class I pesticides used

No pesticides containing endosulfan used

Change in % of farmers who understand pesticide choices & selection criteria

Lack of pesticide regulatory controls and information

Monitor MAFSC for new pesticide regulations and registrations, and get them

Monitor EPA for newly registered pesticides

Monitor EU for newly registered pesticides

Update NAFAKA PERSUAP annually

Presence of new pesticide regulations

Presence of new pesticide registrations

Presence of updated NAFAKA PERSUAP each year with new MAFSC and EPA registration information

Lack of pesticide information at project sites and with subcontractors

Obtain and translate lists of pesticides contained in PERSUAP at each field site

Obtain and translate MSDSs for each regularly-used pesticide

Presence of PERSUAP and MSDS pesticide information in Swahili at all project sites

Lack of pesticide use reporting

Monitor subcontractors for collection of accurate pesticide use by farmers

Presence of pesticide use information at subcontractors

Use of pesticide information from subcontractors for reporting to USAID


U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20523 Tel: (202) 712-0000 Fax: (202) 216-3524

www.usaid.gov

CHAIN - NAFAKA PESTICIDE EVALUATION REPORT & · PDF fileapplication of poor technology, ......

Documents

Transcript of CHAIN - NAFAKA PESTICIDE EVALUATION REPORT & · PDF fileapplication of poor technology, ......