Tanzania Agri Research Report

1. Introduction

1.1. The Agro-ecology of Tanzania

Tanzania is one of the largest countries in Sub Saharan Africa. The country has 44 million hectares of arable land with a wide agro-ecological base. There are 9 major agro- ecological zones, supporting diverse farming systems.The Coastal Plains

This zone is predominantly of sandy soils. Rainfall ranges between 600-1600 mm per annum. Major crops are maize, sorghum, cassava, cashew, rice, coconut and grain legumes.Eastern Plateaux and Mountain Blocks

These are mainly medium altitude plains with low to moderate soil fertility. The predominant crops are maize, cassava, rice, beans, sorghum and sisal.High Plains and Plateaux

Moderate to medium soil fertility, with rainfall ranging from 500-2000mm. Major crops are maize, beans, tobacco, finger millet, sorghum, sunflower, groundnuts, cassava, rice, cocoa, banana, fruits, sweet potato, onions, tea and coffee.Volcanoes and Rift Depressions

Fertile organic soils supporting a diversity of crops including coffee, banana, finger millet, beans, yams, Irish and sweet potatoes.Central Plateau (Plains)

Mainly sandy soil, moderately fertile. Major crops are maize, sorghum, cotton, cassava and rice. Rainfall ranges from 550-1700mm.Rukwa - Ruaha Rift Zone - Alluvial Flats

The altitude ranges from 600-1600m and rainfall between 800-1400mm. Predominant crops are maize, wheat, potato, beans, cassava, rice, groundnuts, cotton and tobacco.Inland Sedimentary Sediments

Low altitude plains and plateaux zone, sandy soils of low fertility. Altitudes range from 400-1000 m a.s.l and rainfall from 800-1200mm. Major crops are maize, cassava, tobacco and rice.Ufipa Plateau

Mainly sandy- loamy soils of low fertility. Altitudes range from 800-2000m and rainfall between 800-1200. Crops include maize, beans, Irish potato and coffe

Western Highlands

This is a zone of low to medium fertility with rainfall ranging from 1000mm to over 1500mm. Important crops include maize, cassava, oil palm, beans, banana and coffee.Climate

The climate is predominantly tropical, with bimodal and uni-modal rainfall patterns (URT, 2004). Bi modal rainfall is experienced in the Lake Zone regions (Kagera, Kigoma, Mwanza) northern highlands (Kilimanjaro, Arusha, Manyara) and north-eastern coast (Tanga, Morogoro). Long rains falls from March to May and on the average ranges between 300 and 600mm. The short rains falls during September to December and ranges between 200 and 500 mm. Uni-modal areas receive rains from November to April, ranging between 500 and 1000m and cover most of the country (central regions of Dodoma and Singida, southern regions of Lindi and Mtwara, south western regions of Iringa, Mbeya, Ruvuma and Rukwa, and western regions of Tabora, Shinyanga and Kigoma.

2. Characteristics of the agricultural sector and policy

2.1. The role of the state in agricultural production

Agricultural production in Tanzania is now a private domain. Through a reform process, the government has changed to providing a few core functions, particularly regulatory, that are essential for facilitating the development of a market- based economy in which the private sector would play a key role. Agricultural Development is entrusted to the Agricultural Sector Lead Ministries (ASLM): the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Co-operatives (MAFC) and the Presidents Office-Regional Administration and Local Government (PORALG).MAFC is organised into 5 technical divisions and 4 administrative divisions. The technical divisions are the Crop Development (DCD), Research and Development (DRD), National Food Security (DNFS), Irrigation and Technical Services (DRTS) and Co-operative Development (DCoD). The Administrative divisions are Policy and Planning (DPP), Administration and Personnel (DAP), Finance and Accounts and Internal Audit.The DCD is divided into 4 sections, which are the Crop Promotion Services (CPS), Extension Services, Agricultural inputs Section and the Plant Health Services (PHS).

2.2. Research and extension services

Research and extension services in Tanzania are by large a public domain with only a few private research institutions. The research services comprise of a network of institutions forming the National Agricultural Research System (NARS) and comprises of the Department of Research and Development of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Co operatives, (MAFC) and the Department of Livestock Research and Training (DLRT) of the Ministry of Livestock Development (MLD) as lead institutions. These institutions function through seven focal agro-ecological zones. Other major NARS member institutions include the Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), the Tropical Pesticides Research Institute (TPRI), Tanzania Forestry Research Institute (TAFORI) and Tanzania Fisheries Research Institute (TAFIRI). Private Research Institutes include; Tea Research Institute of Tanzania, Tanzania Coffee Research Institute and Tobacco Research Institute of Tanzania (Sempeho, 2004

Extension services to farmers have been decentralised and now extension delivery is the responsibility of the Local Government Authorities (LGAs). Planning of and funds for extension delivery take place in the context of District Agricultural Development Plans.

2.3. Plant ProtectionPlant Protection services are a mandate of the Plant Health Services (PHS).

Based on its core functions, PHS is organized into the following units:-

• Migratory pest management

• Plant quarantine and phytosanitary services

• IPM

• Pesticide management

2.4.Market access, credit and subsidies

Tanzania exports a variety of crops, both organic and non-organic. However, it is faced with challenges of meeting international standards particularly for food crops due to limited capacity in enforcing the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement and the voluntary standards of international markets, e.g the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group on Good Agricultural Practice (EUREPGAP).Farmers can hardly access credits from the financial institutions due to the conditionality of collateral and high interest rates which currently range between 18 and 25 percent. However, there has been phenomenal development of micro-finance institutions in recent years. Savings and Credit Co-operatives and Savings (SACCOS) and Credit Associations are playing a key role in providing credits to farmers (URT 2006b). By the end of 2005, the loan portfolio of SACCOS was about Tshs.67 billion. These micro finance institutions are being encouraged and the government has this year, 2006, allocated Tshs1.0 billion to each region for farmers and entrepreneur groups to secure credits through their SACCOS and financial institutions (personal observation).Occasionally, the government provides subsidies on fertilizers, seed and farm implements and in the 2005/06 season the government provided a 30% subsidy on fertilizer, 3% on seed and 1.7% on cashew nut pesticides (H. Sadani, personal communication).

2.5. Importance of agriculture in the economy of Tanzania

Agriculture contributes 45-50% of GDP, provides full time employment to over 70 per cent of the population, provides about 75% of household incomes and 50% of exports. The sector also provides 70-80% of the food consumed in the country (URT not dated), URT, 2005b, URT 2006b, URT 2006c).

According to an economic survey of 2004, the GDP growth rate increased from 5.7 in 2003 to 6.7% in 2004. This increase has been attributed mainly to increase in growth of the agriculture sector, particularly due to increase in production in the crop sub sector (URT 2005e). This is the sub-sector absorbing 4,858,810 households out of 4,901,837 (99%) rural agriculture households in Tanzania (2006a). The contribution to the growth of GDP by the crop subsector was mainly a result of increased export volumes of 3 major traditional crops; cotton 46,900 tons in 2003 to

Pesticide Action Network UK 2007 100

Tanzania/ W. H. Riwa

71,300 tons in 2004; tobacco, 18,300 tons in 2003 to 27,000 tons in 2004 and cashew nuts, 65,100 tons in 2003 to 83,700 tons in 2004 9 (URT 2005e). Other crops, which declined in volumes but had higher prices and hence contributed to economic growth, are coffee, sisal and tea.With regard to agriculture providing food to the nation, cereals are most important, with maize taking the lead with an annual production of 2,613,970 tons in 2002/2003(URT 2006a). Other crops are cassava, fruits and vegetables.

2.6. Major crops

Major cash crops are cotton, coffee, sisal, tea, pyrethrum, cashew and flowers. Food crops are maize, sorghum, cassava, rice and a variety of pulses and vegetables. Cereals, and in particular maize, is the staple food of many Tanzanians, with the country producing about 3 million tons per annum. Cotton is the leading export. Vegetables and flowers are gaining importance as export crops while coffee is declining. Production of important crops is as indicated in annex 1a-1c.

2.7. The role of agricultural production in the poverty reduction strategy policies

Agriculture is the main rural activity absorbing about 80% of the population. Therefore, poverty in Tanzania is a rural phenomenon. It is estimated that 60% of the rural population is poor compared to 39% of the urban population (URT 1998). Because of this and the fact that sale of agricultural products accounts for about 70% of rural household incomes (URT 2006a), the National Poverty Eradication Strategy identifies agricultural development as one of the strategies for creating an environment for poverty alleviation.Furthermore, a recent review of the agricultural sector indicates that the agricultural sector has been expanding at an annual rate of 5% over the last 5 years a rate substantially higher than the average annual population growth rate, implying positive income and hence improvement in rural income poverty (URT 2006b). The 2006 report refers to household surveys of 1991/92 and 2000/01 that indicated overall poverty rates of 39% and 36% respectively, indicating a 3 percent improvement over 1991/92.

2.8. The Stockholm Convention on POPs.

Tanzania ratified the Stockholm Convention on 30th April 2004 (URT 2005d). The National Implementation Plan (NIP) is in place. The NIP recognises inadequacies in government policies and legislative framework relevant to implementation of the Stockholm Convention and lack of mechanisms of coordination and monitoring of POPs. The NIP has an action plan which consists of a set of activities focused towards achieving the following objectives;

To improve coordination mechanism and information exchange among institutions involved in monitoring of POPs releases by 2012. These institutes include TPRI, Government Chemical Laboratory Agency, National Environmental Management Council, Tanzania Bureau of Standards and training and research development institutions including universities of Dar es Salaam and Sokoine University of Agriculture.

• To strengthen monitoring capacity by 2011.

• To study and generate information on behaviour of POPs and their alternatives by 2009.


With regard to POPs, the milestones for the specified set of activities is clean up and remediation of contaminated sites and disposal of pesticides by 2008

2.9. How IPM can be linked in with “prevention” of pesticide hazards

(obsolete stockpiles)

IPM can be linked to prevention of pesticide hazards by demonstrating the potential of non chemical pest control options and facilitating their wide adoption. Non synthetic chemical control particularly, cultural and physical methods, use of botanicals and biological control should take precedence where it is feasible, to capitalise on their readily availability, ease of application, self-sustaining and less demands on farmer investment. Whenever pesticide use is necessary, appropriate decision making tools and decision support systems, particularly the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (FAO 2005) and support systems like pegboards, booklets, mass media etc must be used. It has been widely demonstrated that training farmers on IPM reduces pesticide use (Nyambo, 2001; Nyambo et al. 2003, NRI 1994, Lwambuka 2003). Reduction in pesticide use is likely to reduce health risks.Furthermore, IPM should be accommodative to capitalise on the increasing interest of a wide range of stakeholders in health, environmental conservation and sustainable agriculture, to include but not limited to NGOs, CBOs, private sector organisations and individuals.As a policy instrument, IPM integration with other sectors and linkage with local and international pesticide industry can amplify the concern on human and environment hazards of pesticides and hence reverse the trend towards injudicious management of pesticides. When IPM wins a good market share, it will win the interest of many farmers and other stakeholders, driving their attitudes and practices away from pesticides. However, this needs to be supported by training and sensitization of policy makers and all stakeholders, including stockists, distributors, retailers etc.

3. Pesticides

3.1. Current pesticide policy and regulatory framework

All agricultural production systems deal with plant protection problems. In Tanzania, as indeed in many other developing countries, pests account for more than 40% of crop losses annually. Migratory pests i.e. Quelea birds, armyworms, locusts, rodents and the larger grain borer (LGB) are amongst the most destructive. If left unchecked, migratory pests are capable of emptying the entire national crop of cereals at pre-harvest. A pest like the LGB is capable of destroying a whole harvest of grain maize or cassava at post-harvest if uncontrolled. Use of pesticides is one of the most common crop protection practices. However, the main concerns about pesticide use are the impacts on the health of farmers and workers handling and applying them as well as negative environmental impacts.

Safe use with low ill effects on humans and the environment may be possible under the following conditions:

• A functioning legal system and control mechanism

• Well-informed farmers and other stakeholders with high responsibility for their own health and that of their workers.


• Resources to invest in well functioning application equipment and in personal protective equipment.

• Compliance to relevant international agreements, e.g. Stockholm and Rotterdam conventions, International Code of Conduct on the distribution and Use of Pesticides, Prior Informed Consent (PIC), International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) etc.

The current pesticide policy in Tanzania is to provide improved extension services regarding the safe handling and use of agrochemical and other plant protection inputs (URT, 1997b). In line with the policy directions, the Government reviewed and updated existing legislations, which led to the enactment of the Plant Protection Act in 1997 (URT 1997a), followed by its regulations of 1999 (URT 1999). Likewise, a National Environmental Policy (NEP) was formulated in 1997 to provide a framework for environmental consideration by different sectors into the mainstream of decision making (URT 1997c). For the Agricultural sector, the NEP among others, requires the sector to ensure food security and eradication of rural poverty through the promotion of production systems, technologies and practices that are environmentally sound, specifically strengthening of environmentally sound use, monitoring, registration and management of agro-chemicals.The Plant Protection Act and its regulations is the tool for regulating plant protection substances, in respect of manufacturing, importation, sale, use etc., and institutional arrangement for this regulation is in place. This institutional arrangement provides for testing, registration, use and monitoring of pesticides in the country.A functional National Plant Protection Advisory Committee (NPPAC) is in place since 2000. The committee comprises of 4 Sub committees, one of which is the Pesticide Approval and Registration Technical Committee (PARTS) directly responsible for the regulation of pesticides. The other sub committees are Outbreak Pest Sub Committee (OPS), Plant Quarantine and Phytosanitary Sub Committee (PQPS), Biological Control Agents Sub Committee (BCAS) (URT 1999).The functions of the NPPAC as provided for under Section 4 of the Plant Protection Regulations 1999 are:

(a) To co-ordinate plant protection activities of the technical sub -committees.

(b) To collaborate with national and international bodies specialised in plant protection

(c) To consider and endorse reports and recommendations from the sub- committees

(d) To propose to the Minister of Agriculture areas of the PPA requiring review.

The functions of the PARTS as provided for under Section 17 of the regulations include;

(a) To advise the registrar on pesticide regulation

(b) To approve pesticides

(c) To advise NPPAC on pesticide management and control.

The Plant Health Services of the MAFC and the Tropical Pesticides Research Institute (TPRI) are the primary regulatory bodies, the former assuming the role of the National Plant Protection Organisation as required by IPPC and TPRI appointed under Section 32 to provide the following services:

(a) Conduct pesticide research and analysis

(b) Plant quarantine, research and co-ordination

(c) Participate in monitoring pesticides

(d) Monitor plant protection equipment types

(e) Test plant protection equipment

(f) Test and develop plant protection methods

(g) Test plant protection devices/equipment

(h) Conduct specialist training in plant protection.

3.2. Main pesticides in use on major crops

The main pesticides in use in Tanzania on major crops are as indicated in table 1

Table 1 Main pesticides in use in Tanzania on major crops

Name of pesticide Types ofTarget crop

pesticidesActive ingredient Trade name

Inse

ctic

ide

Her

bic

ide

Fu

ngi

cid

eFenitrothion Sumithion 50 EC X Cashew nut, cereals, vegetablesChloropyrifos Dursban X Coffee, beans, vegetablesPirimiphos methyl Actellic 50% EC X Vegetables, cerealsDeltamethrin Decis 0.5% ULV X Cotton, vegetables, cerealsDimethoate Rogor L 40 X Coffee, vegetables, cerealsCypermethrin Ripcord, X Cotton, coffee, beans, vegetables

Cymbush 0.5 DDiazinon Sapa diazinon 60 X Coffee, rice, tobacco

ECEndosulfan Thiodan, Thionex X Cotton, coffee, maize, riceFenvalerate Sumicidin 20 EC X CottonLambda Karate5 EC, X Cottoncyhalothrin Karate 2ED,

Karate 0.6 ULVProfenofos Selecron 720 EC X Coffee, vegetablesProfenofos + Fenom C X CottonCypermethrin

continued


Table 1 Main pesticides in use in Tanzania on major crops (continued)Name of pesticide Types of

Target croppesticidesActive ingredient Trade name

Inse

ctic

ide

Her

bici

de

Fun

gici

de

Phosphamidon Dimecron 50 X Maize, rice, vegetablesSCW

Carbofuran Furadan 5 G Nematicide Banana,coffee, tobacco, sugarcane

Dazomet Basamid granular Nematicide Tobacco, coffee, tomato, bananaIsazophos Miral 10 G Nematicide Banana, cotton, sugar caneGlyphosate Roundup 360 g/l X Coffee, banana, orchardsGlyphosate Tuchdown X Coffee, banana+Trimesium)Fluometuron Cotran 500 FLW X CottonAtrazine Atred 80 WP X Maize, Sorghum, sugar caneOxidizon Ronstar 25 EC X Rice,Bronopol Bronocot 10 P X Cotton seed dressingCuprous oxide Nordox X CoffeeChlorothalon Bravo 500 X Coffee, tomatoes, round potatoesCopper hydroxide Kocide 101 X Coffee, beans, tomatoesHexaconazole Anvil 5 SC X Coffee, grapes, vegetablesDithane M-45 Mancozeb X Tomatoes, potatoes, beansMetalaxy Ridomil MZ 63.5 X Tomatoes, potatoes+Mancozeb WPPropineb Antracol 70% X Coffee, round potatoes

WPTriadimefon Bayleton 25% X Coffee, wheat

WPPirimiphos methyl Actellic super X Storage pests+Permethrin dustFenitrothion Fenitrothion 96% X Red locust

TechnicalFenthion Queletox X Quelea birdsBromodiolone Rat-cide RodentsCopper Cobox X Coffee, cotton seed dressingoxychlorideSource: TPRI


3.3. Crops using most pesticides

Cotton

Cotton is an important cash crop in Tanzania. The crop is grown in two major zones based on agro-ecological difference (Nyambo 2001). The western cotton growing area [WCGA] include Mwanza, Shinyanga, Mara, Kigoma, Tabora, parts of Kagera, Singida and Kigoma regions, while the eastern cotton growing areas [ECGA] cover Morogoro, parts of Kilimanjaro, Coast and Iringa regions. Cotton is extremely vulnerable to wide range of pests that if not controlled would lead to substantial losses in yield. The problem is complex because the potential of infestation lasts throughout the growing cycle. Various pests attack different parts of plant; roots, leaves and fruiting organs (bolls and buds). Crop scouting (regular crop inspection) was recommended in the late 1980s as one of IPM components to optimise insecticide cotton spraying in the WCGA (Nyambo 2001). Many farmers in the WCGA are scouting their crops before spraying, particularly in Shinyanga, Kagera, Mara, Mwanza, and Tabora regions (Nyambo 2001, Nyambo et al. 2003) and M. Katua, (personal communication). These are the farmers who were involved in the Tanzania/GTZ IPM project, their immediate neighbours and those trained by Ukiriguru Research Institute.Despite of elaborate scouting guidelines and recommended pest management practices cotton is one of the cash crops using large quantities of different pesticides, About 1,293,922 litres of assorted insecticides are used annually (TCB 2002 -2005). The major pesticides registered and pesticides used for the control of cotton pests in Tanzania are indicated in Tables 2 and 3 respectively. Out of the 45 types of insecticides registered for the control of cotton pests 6 types are commonly used.

Table 2 List of pesticides registered for cotton pests control

Name of insecticide Formulation Target pest

Active ingredient Trade name

1. Endosulfan Thiodan 25% ULV American bollworm (ABW) Spinybollworm (SBW), aphids jassids,

2. Endosulfan Thionex 25% ULV Lygus and Helopeltis.3. Permethrin Ambush 6% ULV ABW,SBW aphids, jassids, Lygus

Helopeltis, cotton stainers,4. Permethrin Ambush 26% EC Dysdercus spp, Calidea dregii.5. Cypermethrin Ripcord 1.8% ULV* ABW, SBW, aphids, cotton stainers -6. Cypermethrin Polyterin 1.8% ULV** , calidea , jassids, Lygus, Helopeltis -7. Cypermethrin Polytrin 1.8% ULV* moderate control.8. Cypermethrin Cypaz 1.8% ULV***9. Cypermethrin Sherpa 1.8% ULV*10. Cypermethrin Pyrexcel 1.8% ULV***11. Cypermethrin Nurelle 1.8% ULV**12. Cypermethrin Cymbush 1.8% ULV*13. Cypermethrin Cymbush 1.8% ULV*14. Fenvalerate Sumicidin 3%ULV* ABW, SBW, aphids, jassids, Lygus,15. Fenvalerate Sumicidin 20%EC٭٭ Dysdercus, Calidea.

continued


Table 2 List of pesticides registered for cotton pests control (continued).



16. Flucythrinate Cybolt 1.7% ULV٭ Pink bollworm, American17. Flucythrinate Cybolt 10% EC٭٭ bollworm, aphids, Lygus, jassids,

Calidea, Dysdercus.18. Lambda cyhalothrin A Karate 0.6% ULV٭ American bollworm, Pink19. Lambda cyhalothrin A. Karate 5% EC٭٭ bollworm, aphids, Lygus, jassids,20. Lambda cyhalothrin A. Karate 2% ED٭ cotton stainers.21. Esfenvalerate Sumi-alpha 0.5% ULV٭٭٭ Spiny bollworm, American22. Esfenvalerate Sumi-alpha 2.6% EC٭٭ Bollworm, jassids, Lygus, aphids.

(Fenpa)23. Alpha cypermethrin Fastac 0.8% ULV٭٭٭ American bollworm, aphids, Lygus,

Calidea, jassids, stainers.24. Delamethrin Decis 0.3% ULV٭٭ American bollworm, spiny25. Deltamethrin Decis 0.5% ULV٭٭ bollworm, pink bollworm, white26. Deltamethrin Decis 2.5%EC٭٭ flies, cotton stainers, aphids, Lygus.

27. Fluvalinate Mourik 2% EC٭٭ American bollworm, spiny28. Fluvalinate Sandoz 2% EC٭٭ bollworm, aphids, jassids.29. Biphenthrin Talstar 2%ULV٭٭٭ American bollworm, jassids,

aphids, Calidea, Lygus.30. Betacyfluthrin Bulldog 0.5%ULV٭٭٭ American bollworm, jassids,

aphids, Calidea, Lygus31. Cypermethrin + Fenom C 1%,16%ULV٭٭٭ American bollworm, spiny

Profenofos bollworm, aphids, jassids, Calidea,Lygus, Red spider mites.

32. Deltamethrin + Decis D 3%,,12% ULV٭٭٭ American bollworm, spinyDimethoate bollworm, aphids, jassids, Calidea,

Lygus, Dysdercus.33. Flucythrinate Cybolt 1.33% ULV٭٭٭ American bollworm, (spiny

bollworm), jassids, aphids, Lygus,Calidea, Dysdercus.

34. Cypermethrin + Cypercal D ULV٭ American bollworm, aphids,dimethoate jassids, Calidea, Lygus.

35. Cypermethrin Cypercal ULV٭ American bollworm, aphids,jassids, Calidea, Lygus.

36. Endosulfan Calisulfan ULV٭ American bollworm, aphids,jassids, Calidea, Lygus.

37. Deltamethrin Deltapaz EC٭ American bollworm, aphids,jassids, Calidea, Lygus.

38. Zetamethrin Fury 0.6 % ULV٭٭٭ American bollworm, aphids,jassids, Calidea, Lygus.

39. Zetamethrin Fury 0.8 % ULV٭٭٭ American bollworm, aphids,jassids, Calidea, Lygus.

40. Lambda cyhalothrin Lambdacal 5% EC٭ American bollworm, aphids,jassids, Calidea, Lygus.

continued


Table 2 List of pesticides registered for cotton pests control (continued).



41. Lambda cyhalothrin Helarat 5%EC American bollworm, aphids,jassids, Calidea, Lygus.

42. Cypermethrin + Polytrin P 40% , 400% EC American bollworm, spinyProfenofos bollworm, aphids, jassids,

Calidea, Lygus, Red spider mites.43. Lambda cyhalothrin Karate CS 5 % CS American bollworm, aphids,

jassids, Calidea, Lygus.44.Cypermethrin+Imidachlopri Cypercal I 344 SE American bollworm, aphids,d jassids, Calidea, Lygus.45. Gama Cyhalothrin Vantex 60SC American bollworm, aphids,

jassids, Calidea, Lygus.

Recommended for the Eastern and Western Cotton Growing٭Area ٭٭Recommended for the Eastern Cotton Growing Area only Recommended for the Western Cotton Growing Area٭٭٭Only Source; Ukiriguru Research Institute.

Table3 Major pesticides used for the control of cotton pests

Name of pesticide Types of pesticides

Target pestActive ingredient Trade name

Inse

ctic

ide

Her

bic

ide

Fun

gici

de

Lambda Helerat X American bollworm (Helicoverpacyhalothrin amigera), Spiny bollworm (Earis spp)

Jassids, Lygus, HelopeltisDeltamethrin Decis X ABW (Helicoverpa amigera), (Spiny

bollworm(Earis spp),, Aphids (Aphisgossypii), Jassids, Lygus, Helopeltis,Dysdercus, Calidae

Cypermethrin + Fenom C X ABM (Helicoverpa amigera), SBW,profenofos Aphids (Aphis gossypii), Stainers,

Calidae, Jassids, Lygus, HelopeltisLambda – Karate X American bollworm (Helicoverpacyhalothrin CS 5% amigera), Aphids (Aphis gossypii),,

Lygus, Jassids (Empoasca spp), Calidae,Dysdercus spp

continued


Table3 Major pesticides used for the control of cotton pests (continued).Name of pesticide Types of pesticides

Target pestActive Trade name

Inse

ctic

ide

Her

bic

ide

ingredient

Fun

gici

de

Lambda - Lambdacal X Pink bollworm, American bollwormcyhalothrin 5% (Helicoverpa amigera), Aphids (Aphis

gossypii),, Lygus, Jassids (Empoasca spp),Calidae, Dysdercus spp.

Esfenvalerate Fenkill X Spiny bollworm (Earis spp), Americanbollworm (Helicoverpa armigera), Jassids(Empoasca spp), Lygus and Aphids

Bronopol Bronocot X Seed dressing10 P

Cuprous Nordox 75 X Seed dressingoxide WP

Source: Tanzania Cotton Board reports 2000-2005

IPM is documented to have reduced the number of sprays in the WCGA from six calendar sprays to three (Nyambo et al. 2003, Lwambuka 2003). However, there is no data available to indicate that the reduction in rounds of sprays resulted in reduced quantities of pesticides used. On one hand there has not been effective monitoring and data management system on pesticide requirement, supply and use for specific crops in the country and therefore difficult to provide empirical evidence on the success of IPM in terms of reduced quantities of pesticides in cotton. On the other hand there are problems of pesticides being diverted to other crops and alternative uses. Furthermore, there are a number of other official and non official stockists and distributors of pesticides, parallel with the Cotton Board system. Where illegal pesticides are intercepted by regulatory authorities they are likely to constitute to stockpiles. This situation exists for the other cash crops and could be a major cause for pesticide stockpiles in the country.The quantities of pesticides imported by the Cotton Board from 1999/2000 season to 2004/05 as indicated under table 4 shows an increasing trend from 100,000 litres in 1999/00 to 1,427,439 litres in 2005/06. The importation in 2005/06 is 600% of the average importation of 235,885 litres in the previous six seasons being explained that the supply for previous seasons was far less than requirement due to financial constraint by the Board and the Cotton Development Fund (I.Marenge, personal communication). Since the establishment of the Development Fund, quantities of pesticides imported has been dependent on the funds available in the fund and not according to estimated requirement (H. Munuo, personal communication). The National Cotton Input Scheme established in 2002/03 trained and sensitized cotton stakeholders to contribute to the development fund through a passbook system, resulting into increased capacity to procure more and more pesticides as indicated in table 4.


Table 4 Insecticides imported for cotton pests control from 1999/2000-2005/06 cotton season.

Insecticide AmountSeason Active ingredients Trade name (LTS)

Cypermethrin + Profenofos Fenom C 170 25,000

1990/00Betacyfluthrin Bulldog 25,000Cypermethrin +Dimethoate Cypercal D 25,000Cypermethrin Ripcord 25,000

TOTAL 100,000Lambdacyhalothrin 5% Karate 2,000Cypermethrin +Dimethoate Cypercal D 104,000Betacyfluthrin Buldog 16,000Cypermethrin + Profenofos Fenom C 170 108,000

2000/01Lambdacyhalothrin 5% Karate ULV 18,000Deltamethrin Decis 0.3 ULV 8,000Cypermethrin Ripcord 47,000

TOTAL 257,813Betacyfluthrin Buldog 200,000Deltamethrin Decis 2.5 EC 44,000

2001/02Lambdacyhalothrin 5% Karate EC 45,000Cypermethrin + Profenofos Fenom C 170 196,160Lambdacyhalothrin 5% Karate 5EC 28,000

TOTAL 514,846

2002/03Deltamethrin Decis 2.5 EC 6,500Cypermethrin + Profenofos Fenom C 170 50,000Lambdacyhalothrin 5% Karate 5EC 70,000

TOTAL 131,5002003/04 Lambdacyhalothrin 5% Karate 5EC 35,000

Deltamethrin Decis 2.5 EC 16,000Lambdacyhalothrin 5% Helerat 5EC 20,000

TOTAL 71,250

2004/05Deltamethrin Decis 2.5EC 33,500Lambdacyhalothrin 5% Helerat5EC 57,000Cypermethrin +Dimethoate Cypercal D 100,000Deltamethrin Deltapaz 100,000Lambdacyhalothrin 5% Karate 5EC 49,000

TOTAL 339,9002005/06 Deltamethrin Decis 290,000

Lambdacyhalothrin Helarat 371,350Lambda -cyhalothrin Karate 204,792Lambda -cyhalothrin Lambdacal 330,500Esfenvalerate Fenkill 97,480Cypermethrin + profenofos Fenom C 133,317

TOTAL 1,427,439Source: Tanzania Cotton Board


CoffeeCoffee is an important cash crop for many farmers. However, coffee is generally confronted with a multitude of insect pests and diseases. The key insect pests include Coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei), coffee leaf miner (Leucoptera spp.), stem borer (Anthores spp ), scales, mealy bugs, and coffee bugs (Antestiopsis spp ). Diseases include coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix), coffee berry disease (Colletotrichum kahawae), black rot (Corticium koleroga), brown eye-spot (Cercospora coffeicola), and coffee wilt (Gibberella xylariodes).

Table 5 Pesticides registered for use in coffee and key target pests

Name of pesticide Type of pesticide

ActiveTrade name

Inse

ctic

ide Her

bici

de

Fun

gici

de

Target pestingredient

Carbofuran Furadan 35% EC X Leaf miner, mealy bugEndosulfan Thiodan 25% ULV X Leaf miner, Coffee berry borer

Thionex 25% ULVChlopyrifos Dursban X Leaf miner, coffee berry borer,

stem borers, coffee bugsCypermethrin Cymbush X Leaf miner

RipcordDiazinon Dizinon X Leaf minerDimethoate Rogor L 40 X Leaf miner, mealybugsFenthion Lebaycide X Leaf miner, mealybugs, Coffee

berry borer, coffee bugsChorothalonil BRAVO 720 FW X CBD, CCCCyproconazole Alto 100 SL X CLRCopper sulfate Snow Cem X Foliar diseaseCuprous oxide Nordox 75 WP X CCC, CLR CBDPropoconazole Tilt 250 EC X CCC, CLRPropineb Antracol WP 70 X CCCCopper Cobox, Red and Blue X CLR, CBDoxychloride copperCopper Kocide 101 WP X CBDhydroxideDazomet Basamid X NurseryDithiarum Delan 75 WP X CBD, CLRTriadimefon Bayleton X CLR2,4-D Amine Twiga Amine 720g/l X Post emergenceGlufosinate Glufosinate X

Ammonium 200g/lGlyphosate Roundup 360g/l X Various weedsSource: Plant Protection in Coffee, recommendations for the Common Code for the Coffee Community- Initiative. Final version, July 2005.


CashewnutThis is the main cash crop of the southern zone and along the coast in the eastern zone. List of pesticides recommended for use in cashewnut is indicated in Table 6.

Table 6 List of pesticides recommended for use in cashewnut and target pest

Name of pesticide Type of pesticides


Inse

ctic

ide H

erbi

cide

Fun

gici

de

Target pest

Endosulfan Thiodan, Thionex X thripsFenitrothion Sumithion 50 EC X thripsProfenofos Curacron ulvair X Cashew mealybugslambda cyhalothrin Helerat X Helopeltis & Coreid bugsSulphur Sulfur, Thiovit X powdery mildewHexaconazole X powdery mildewPenconazole Topas 100 EC X powdery mildewHexaconazole Anvil 5 SC X powdery mildewCopper hydroxide Kocide 101 WP X Anthracnose

Source: Naliendele Research Institute

Table 7 List of common pesticides used on Cereals, Vegetables and Flowers



Inse

ctic

ide

Her

bic

ide

Fu

ngi

cid

e

Target pest

Fenitrothion Fenitrithion 96% X Red locust, armywormTehnical, Sumithion

Fenthion Queletox X Quelea birdsBromadiolone Rat-cide Rodenticide rodentsDeltamethrin Decis X chewing insectsDimethoate Rogor X chewing insectsDiazinon Diazinon X chewing insectsPirimiphos methyl Actellic EC X chewing insectsAlachlor Lasso Microtech X Pre-emergency weeds in

maize, beans and vegetablesMancozeb Dithane M-45 X Late blight in tomatoesPropoxycarbaon e- Attribute WG 70 X Weeds in wheatsodium

continued


Table 7 List of common pesticides used on Cereals, Vegetables and Flowers (continued)



Inse

ctic

ide

Her

bici

de

Fun

gici

de

Target pest

Clorpyrifos Banko 720 SC X Late blight in tomatoesDiafenthiuron Pegasus 500 X Control of spider mites and

aphids in greenhouse rosesBenomyl Benomil X Control of powdery

mildew of roses ingreenhouse conditions

Source: Anon 1996, Internal reports MAFC

Active ingredients of most concern

The following are some of the ingredients of most concern (Jansen 2005)

Endosulfan: It is an organo- chlorine and a known endocrine disruptor. It is on the list to beincluded in the PIC.

Mancozeb: Evaluated by EPA as being carcinogenic

Paraquat: Among the dirty dozen. Currently under intensive controversial discussion due toits toxicity to animals and its serious and irreversible effect if absorbed

2, 4-D: Highly suspected to be an endocrine disruptor

3.4. Pesticides/active ingredients present in large amounts as obsolete stocks

Pesticides/active ingredients present in large amounts as obsolete stocks and their quantities are as indicated in table 8 below.

Table 8. Pesticides/active ingredients present in large amounts as obsolete stocks

Pesticide Active ingredients Quantity(Trade name)

Solids Liquids(kilograms) (litres)

DDT 229,290 2,626Endosulfan 4,897 21,800Atrazine 645 18,097

Cotran Fluometuron 1,060 17,807Sumithion 50 EC Fenutrothion 15,840

Ethydan TT 15 18,462Sumicidin Fenvalerate 8,403

Aldrin 3,807continued


Table 8. Pesticides/active ingredients present in large amounts as obsolete stocks

Pesticide Active ingredients Quantity(Trade name)

Solids Liquids(kilograms) (litres)

Actellic 50 EC Pyrimiphos methyl 3,238Kynakil Malathion 3,597 10Rogor Dimethoate 1,730

Sulphur dust 4,000Methylene thiocyn 2, 650Sodium hydroxide 2,250Copper oxide 1,650

Fenom C 170 ULV Prefenophos/cypermethrin 1,5582-4-D 160 1,095Copper oxychloride 775

Quletox Fenthion 657Diazinon Phosphorothiolate 600

Ethylene dibromide 500Gamalin Lindane 438Phostoxin Aluminium phosphine 102Source: Obsolete Pesticides & Veterinary Wastes in Tanzania: Results of inventory covering mainland Tanzania 1997 – 1998, VolII ( Annex 6 – 11 C), July 1998

3.5. Training and capacity building to farmers/stockists

Safe use of pesticides is one of the most important preconditions for avoiding negative impacts on human health. This requires specific knowledge and access to equipment and financial means to follow the recommendations for personal protection. Numerically, Tanzanian agriculture is dominated by small farmers cultivating between 0.5-2.0 ha. With some exceptions, they have little access to knowledge and inputs. They have limited knowledge on how to handle the different products and how to access the necessities and possibilities for safe use. Programmes to train these farmers and other stakeholders require a considerable amount of time and financial resources. Training programmes for the safe use of pesticides at different levels are in place but not enough considering the size and diversity of the pesticide stakeholder complex. The Tropical Pesticide Research Institute (TPRI) conducts training on safe use of pesticides to stockists and fumigators. The Ministry through the extension services conducts training to farmers. The industries, stockists/retailers are also expected by law to have capacity to provide information to farmers on pesticide use. Industries through their marketing and promotion services provide training. Most of stockists and retailers do not have the necessary knowledge and in many cases they depend on their customers to be knowledgeable on what they require.(personal observation). There are other training programmes by projects like Pesticide Stewardship in Developing Countries. GIFAP has conducted a training programme in the northern coffee growing regions of Moshi and Arusha. NGOs like AGENDA have a programme for sensitization of pesticide stakeholders on safe handling and use.


3.6. Pesticide quality assurance

The Plant Protection Act (1997) and its Regulations (1999) provide for every pesticide submitted for registration to be analysed by the research institute appointed in accordance with the Act. TPRI is the appointed research institute and carries out field tests and laboratory analyses as necessary to determine the quality of the pesticide. Inspectors have been legally appointed and are doing pesticides inspections and monitoring, taking samples and submitting for analysis whenever need arises. Facilities available for these services are not adequate. However, a number of other institutions provide support e.g. the Government Chemist Laboratory Agency, Tanzania Bureau of Standards, Tanzania Food and Nutrition Centre and the Universities. Laboratory equipments available in these institutions include High Performance Liquid Chromatography, Gas Chromatography, and Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometer (URT 2005d).

3.7. Limitations on enforcement of pesticide laws and regulations

Lack of awareness by stakeholders on the policy and regulations is a serious constraint in their enforcement. There are institutional weaknesses including inadequate number of inspectors, inadequate training, inadequately equipped laboratories, lack of collaboration with other sectors, the legislation not been widely popularised and hence many stakeholders are unaware of its provisions. Quite often, review of laws does not match the speed with which ecological changes and hence pest behaviour takes place, as a result outdated policies and laws are enforced, sometimes conflicting with current thinking. Some deficiencies in some of the provisions of the PPA (1997) has resulted to many complaints from stakeholders and recommendations for its review are already being addressed but at a very slow pace because of financial constraints (A. Rutabazibwa, personal communication). Pesticides donations have been accepted without much regard of existing pesticide regulations. This has resulted to use of unregistered pesticides, sometimes of low potency and dangerous to human health and environment. The Vikuge stockpile of 1986, which has been cited to be the most serious case concerning environmental pollution, is a result of donations without regard to in-country regulations (Msangi 2006).

3.8. Information on illegal/ unauthorised pesticide trading

Illegal/ unauthorized pesticide trading, diversion of products between crops (e.g. cotton pesticides used on vegetable) is practised and information is obtained during inspections. A recent inspection done at the major market complex of Kariakoo in Dar Es Salaam (16 th May-

13th July2006) revealed a number of unregistered pesticides being sold (Twiga gamma 20 EC (Lindane), Decis 25 EC (Deltamethrin), Agita 10 WG (Thiamexothan), Fly bait (a.i not known), Bayleton 25% WP (Triadimefon), Anvil 5Sc (Hexaconazole), Pyretox (Pyrethrum), Vortrical25 EC (a.i. not known) and Degor 40EC (a.i. not known). Sixteen unauthorised retailers and a number of expired pesticides were also found.Diversion of pesticide use is common but data is not available. Information as to how wide is unauthorised pesticide trade is difficult to assess but is very significant. Pesticides are sold in local markets in the villages by unauthorised and untrained persons and in many other non-designated places.Rodenticides and public health pesticides are a common feature in the streets and in most cases unauthorised pesticides are sold repacked in small containers without the required label (personal observation).


4. Plant Protection and IPM Extension Services

4.1. Main providers of pest management advice to farmers

In Tanzania, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Co -operative has the widest network of extension service mandated to provide advisory services to farmers including pest management advice. NGOs provide about 5% of the extension services including pest management, but their impact tends to be localised in small areas (URT 2006b). On the other hand, the pesticide manufacturing and distributor companies have outreach extension services advising farmers and other pesticide users on pesticides. It is on record that the pesticide industry invests far greater financial and human resources in plant protection extension work than do public agricultural extension and plant protection services although they often down play the negative aspects of pesticides, including hazards. (Daxl et al. 1994).Many NGOs in Tanzania subscribe to environmental protection and sustainable agriculture, and are providing pest management training to trainers, policy makers and farmers. AGENDA is such an organisation networking with a number of other NGOs advocating environmental protection against pesticides. It has conducted multi-stakeholder workshops for different professionals who in turn train and sensitize policy makers and pesticide users on safe and environmentally friendly use of pesticides. In 2006, AGENDA conducted a course on eco-toxicological monitoring and community- based pesticide action monitoring. Participants attended both from different NGOs, CBOs and CSOs.The current government reforms of extension services, among others, are intended to create environment for the service to be demand driven to ensure that stakeholders are receiving relevant advice specific to their needs. This will ensure rational use of limited resources by disseminating meaningful and applicable advice that is to the needs of farmers. The reforms include decentralisation to local government authorities. The local government authorities can outsource the provision of extension services to NGOs, CBOs, private agribusiness, religious organisations, etc. The privatisation of extension and mechanisms for cost sharing with beneficiaries has been incorporated in the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (URT 2003).

4.2.The role of agricultural extension service providers in the promotion

of IPM and pesticide use Traditionally extension has been perceived as the linkage between research and farmers. These perceptions make extension passive recipients of research recommendations to transfer them to farmers in a top down approach. Although these perceptions may still be there and practised, it has been challenged. Extension should be viewed as interface with research and farmers in the process of technology development, adaptation and dissemination. The service is part of an interdisciplinary team involving research and plant protection, interacting with other disciplines in the production system in a participatory manner. With regard to IPM, the extension service has a role of sensitization of farmers, policy makers and other stakeholders to win their support in the introduction and popularisation of IPM in their areas of work. This sensitization involves training, which may take the form of demonstrations, exchange visits and providing the necessary guidance in FFS. At the District level, the extension is part of the district planning team and should be able to sensitize policy makers to secure “IPM buy- in” by the District to win a share of the district budget through having IPM included in the district development plans.


In the promotion of IPM, agricultural extension service providers conduct trainings to farmers on good cultural practices, scouting for pests, beneficial organisms, judicious and safe use of pesticides and botanicals. They train farmers on how to initiate FFS, group dynamics and backstop FFS; identify and recommend pest management option for testing and adaptation, development and distribution of information materials etc.With an exception of outbreak pest control, the government extension service providers do not directly engage themselves in the sale and distribution of pesticides. They advise stockists on the types and estimated requirements of pesticides in their areas. Private extension services are by law allowed to sale and distribute pesticides if they have received required training, a precondition for being licensed. TPRI organises such courses and has an inventory of authorised pesticide dealers. However, all extension service providers are obliged to advise farmers and other pesticide handlers on judicious and safe use of pesticides.

4.3. Limitations and opportunities on enforcement of pesticide policy and regulations

Lack of awareness by stakeholders on the provisions of the policy and regulations is a serious constraint in their enforcement. Some provisions of the policy and regulations are outdated. For instance the extension approach prescribed is the top-down approach, whereby farmers are recipients of technology from researchers through the extension service, in a linear relationship between the three parties. Furthermore the policy is advocating the Training and Visit system which has already been abandoned for more participatory approaches. With respect to POPs, the policy and plant protection regulations are outdated in that they do not provide specific guide on POPs pesticides which today are of serious health and environmental concern. Some crucial issues are also not addressed e.g procedures for registration of natural plant protection substances like neem and pyrethrum- based products. Biotechnology, for instance plant genetic modification is not mentioned although the need for bio-safety guidelines and policy is wanting as a result of our participation in international trade. There are institutional weaknesses including inadequate number of pesticide inspectors, inadequate training at different levels, inadequately equipped laboratories, lack of collaboration with other sectors and poor infrastructure, especially roads and pesticide stores. Lack of clarity in policy and regulations results to overlapping mandates between institutions. This is likely to result to conflicting decisions. Enforcement to a large extent is also constrained by a lack of adequate and sustainable funding.

Despite the above mentioned constraints, there are opportunities for enforcement of pesticide policy and regulations which includes

• Most of the framework issues for enforcement of pesticide policy and regulations are in place. The Agricultural and Livestock Policy of 1997 advocates for safe use and handling of agrochemicals (URT 1997b)

• National Environmental Policy (1997) (URT 1997c) and the Environmental Management Act of 2004 which came into effect in July 2005 emphasises minimum environmental hazards from pesticides.

• A Plant Protection Act of 1997 and regulations are also in place. The Act has provisions for the control of importation and use of pesticides to ensure sustainable plant and environmental protection (URT 1997a).

• Complementary policy enforcement synergies are also available from a wide range of stakeholder groups, development projects, NGOs, CBOs, Faith Organisations, etc


4.4. Focus crops for IPM programme awareness and commitment

IPM awareness and commitment will depend very much on the returns to investment. If the advantages are not obvious from other pest management options, no amount of persuasion will convince farmers to adopt. From this scenario, high value crops with immediate returns e.g. fruits, ornamentals/flowers and vegetable crops have a better chance to popularise IPM. Export crops, particularly cotton, cashewnut and coffee, which are in big demand but with high cost of crop protection, coupled with increasing consumer demand for minimum residue limits, are also potential candidate for IPM awareness and commitment, both from policymakers and farmers. Recommended pest management practices for a variety of crops (cotton, coffee, cashew, coconut, maize, beans, cassava, banana, pearl millet, rice and sorghum) are already in place as elaborated by Nyambo (2001) and Nyambo et al. (2003) and provide a good starting point for an IPM programme. These management practices are a combination of host plant resistance to major pests, cultural practices, use of synthetic pesticides, use of botanicals, conservation of natural enemies, crop scouting and use of exotic biological agents.The experience from past IPM projects, for instance the demonstration of significant reduction of pesticide use in IPM and hence reduced cost of production in cotton in western Tanzania and coffee in the northern regions should also be capitalised on to inform and win support and commitment from IPM stakeholders.

4.5. Problems relating to active ingredients, pesticide cocktails and spraying advice

Pesticide inspection and monitoring services are intended to ensure that pesticide users are accessing quality pesticides (registration status, expiring dates, labelling and information contained therein, proper storage etc). However, there are cases where farmers apply insecticides not recommended for that crop either for lack of recommended insecticides, lack of knowledge and the price difference among pesticides. Pesticide cocktails have also been observed especially under high pest pressure and where it is observed that a recommended active ingredient is not as effective to the target pest as expected (R. Magoma, personal communication). Some farmers use expired pesticides they have stored sometimes for very long as a way of disposing them regardless of their level of potency and are on many occasions mixed with “new” pesticides to form cocktails. This especially happens in vegetable production when they have different stored active ingredients and none of which is sufficient for the intended purpose (W. Mwaiko, personal communication). The best example cited is onion production at Mangola in Karatu, Arusha. Calendar spraying is also common in high insect pressure environment, particularly by farmers who have no knowledge of scouting. A scouting technology and tool introduced in cotton systems in western Tanzania to support pest management decisions including spraying regimes (Nyambo et al. 2003) are yet to be embraced within the extension system and hence not known by many farmers.

5. National IPM Issues and Activities

5.1. Government policy on IPM

Pest problems in agriculture have a long history as pesticide use has been traced by historians way back to 1000BC. However, records of synthetic pesticides start from the time of world war 11 with the introduction of DDT. Progressively a wide range of chemicals appeared and were used to complement other indigenous pest control techniques (cultural practices [early planting, early picking, weeding, manuring, close season etc.] although this approach was not named. The


coining of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as an approach of pest management with its basic

principals is of recent, in the late 20th century. In Tanzania, synthetic pesticides started to gain ground in the 1940s with policies and regulations facilitating wide use. For instance, under the 1937 Ordinance, pesticide subsidies were introduced to facilitate wider use at farm level. Nyambo (2001) and Nyambo et al. (2003), making reference to various records has documented the far reaching consequences of intensive use of pesticides in a number of farming systems and crops.The need for regulations and alternative options (strategies) for crop pest management to enhance sustainable and viable production and to reduce potential health and environmental risks was apparent, and in 1992 the government entered into agreement with the government of the Federal Republic of Germany to implement a pilot IPM project in those areas were pesticides were excessively in use and in particular the cotton and coffee farming systems. The project became instrumental in reviewing the agricultural and livestock policy that came into effect in 1997 and also the Plant Protection Act (1997) and Regulations, which were operationalised in 2000.The government policy on IPM is to promote integrated pest management through its plant protection and agricultural extension services to provide improved messages regarding safe handling and use of agro chemicals and other plant protection inputs. This policy is embedded in the Agricultural and Livestock Policy 1997.IPM is not directly defined in the policy document as is the case with other terminologies. However, its definition is implied in the elaboration of the plant protection services, where it is stated that “the Ministry’s’ responsibility will be to ensure that plant protection services are ecologically and economically sound by advocating integrated pest management measures to be disseminated to the farmers through the agricultural extension services”(URT 1997b). This implies that IPM is defined as an ecologically and economically sound plant protection measure. Furthermore, the Plant Protection Act 1997 which is the instrument or tool to enforce the agricultural policy, defines IPM as one or a combination of plant protection methods in which particular attention is paid to biological, biotechnological, plant breeding and other related measures, while limiting the use of chemical plant protection substances to the necessary minimum.

5.2. Status of the national IPM policy framework, constraints and opportunities for its national wide promotion and use.

The national IPM policy framework is embedded primarily in the Agricultural and Livestock Policy (1997b), the National Environmental Policy (URT 1997c) and their instruments of enforcement. The framework includes plant protection and extension services as the core instruments for achieving the policy objectives. Other instruments of the agricultural policy those are relevant to IPM have been identified as; Research, Quality control and sanitary standards, Legal and regulatory framework, taxes and subsidies, environmental legislation, Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Council.Constrains for nationwide promotion and use of the IPM policy framework includes;

• The framework is fragmented and without a national co ordination mechanisms

• Lack of clarity in policy directive. The policy statements do not elaborate on how the objectives will be met.


• The framework is not as dynamic as is agriculture. For instance, it took more than 60 years before a new plant protection act was put into operation.

• Some of the recent government reforms are antagonistic, e.g market liberalisation, tax and subsidies. For instance cashew nut industry some pesticides are subsidized to promote production (H. Sadani, personal communication). Pesticide subsidies would contradict the IPM philosophy while unrealistic taxes on inputs and outputs will be dis-incentives to IPM stakeholders.

• Decentralisation has created a gap between sectoral ministries that would have otherwise interfaced among each other.

• Weak and inappropriate legal framework

• Lack of adequate and sustainable government budgetary allocations

• There is institutional weaknesses including inadequate number of pesticide inspectors, inadequate training at different levels, inadequately equipped laboratories, lack of infrastructure

5.3. Opportunities for nationwide promotion and use of the IPM framework

• There is adequate institutional arrangement for research, training and extension. • The Policy framework is elaborate, with fundamental operational framework consisting

of the following core services; o A functional Sanitary and Phytosanitary Services which addresses itself to

standards for both local and export trade, and in particular implements the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) of the WTO. Quarantine is the frontline defence against introduction and spread of exotic pests and as such fundamental to IPM

o The Plant Protection Act which is one of the core instruments in the IPM framework is IPM friendly. One of its stated objectives is to ensure sustainable plant and environmental protection, and to that effect, it provides for making rules for the protection of animals, plants or micro organisms and natural environment against dangers arising from the use of pesticides.

o The pesticide regulations do not provide for subsidies and pesticide subsidies in the crop sub sector is not common. However, it has been mentioned earlier that due to fragmented policy framework, lack of adequate regulation enforcement mechanism and co ordination, conflicting policy decisions have been made. The aforementioned subsidy on pesticides for the cashew industry is a good example.

o An Environmental Management Act of 2004 which came into effect in July 2005 provides guidance for sectoral legislations to be designed in a way to factor environmental policy objectives in their areas of coverage (URT 2004).

o Environmental Impact Assessment is the planning tool for use to integrate environmental considerations in the decision making process, in order to ensure that unnecessary damage to the environment is avoided.

o National Environmental Management Council as an advisory body on issues of environment.


5.4. Policy towards organic agriculture in the country

There is yet to be a policy or legislation towards organic agriculture in Tanzania. However, the National Agricultural and Livestock Policy of 1997, has only one policy statement which is found under 'clause 5 d. on Environmental issues (v) stating that, “the ministry will promote agro-forestry and organic farming”. There are a number of agricultural companies, farmers and organic agriculture bodies operating in different parts of the country for different crops. Standards are being developed by the industry to facilitate certification for compliance with international market requirements (Mwasha, 2004). Export Promotion of Organic Products from Africa (EPOPA) is the leading promotional programme on organic agriculture. In its survey of October 2004, EPOPA identified 17 certified organic producers in Tanzania. The list and their area of operation and types of crop is indicated in Annex 2.There are several crops under organic programmes but many are “organic by default”. Major crops under organic farming are cotton, coffee, black tea, cocoa, spices and selected vegetables (Annex 2). A policy and supporting legislation is not likely to be a priority in the immediate as organic farming is a “private voluntary standard” (G. Kirenga, personal communication). Probably this is explained by the fact that to date, all except one, certification bodies in Tanzania are from foreign countries. The only national certifier of organic production is TanCert, a Non Governmental Organisation. However, organic – agriculture stakeholders have put requests for including provisions in the agricultural policy during its revision.There is already a significant land area (about15, 000 ha,) certified organic (Mwasha 2004) and significant tonnages of organic produce being exported (1,594 metric tones in 2004.) Worldwide export market for organic products is growing (had a world market share of 25b US $ p.a in 2003 with growth rate of 5-20% per annum (Twarog S. (not dated) and hence providing wider opportunity for developing countries to improve their economies through exports. It is therefore optimistic that Tanzania will take up to develop a policy and relevant regulations to exploit this opportunity. Currently foreign standards are being used but the Tanzania Bureau of Standards is developing guidelines on organic standards.

5.5. Main IPM strategy in use in the country and its adoption

The main IPM strategy in the country can be summarised as: “SENSITIZE-CAPACITATE-ADAPT- SCALEOUT. Policy makers and other stakeholders are sensitized on the benefits of IPM, and the necessary capacity provided at different levels. This is training, provision of resources and logistic support. Technological options are then tested in collaboration with Research Extension and farmers and those proven to work are adopted and spread by farmers among themselves. As the process becomes dynamic and self-propelling, the technical team continues into new areas and the extension agents continue to backstop. Participatory approaches and tools (IPM working groups, Farmer Field Schools, PRAs P-AESA, PRE, and RRA etc) are the hub of the strategy, and where necessary, the strategy avoids duplication of efforts by consolidating outputs and experiences from the previous pilot IPM Tanzania/GTZ project and other IPM/ FFS projects.However, the IPM strategy has not been widely adopted. The strategy has not been adequately mainstreamed mainly due to inadequate policy directions and absence of a national coordination platform. As a result, there are other non-government IPM initiatives (NGOs and development projects) whose approaches and strategies are not integrated into the national strategy. For some reasons of lack of adequate and sustainable resource allocation, popularisation of IPM strategy


outside the pilot area has been slow, and therefore use of technologies and experiences from previous projects has not been fully exploited. However, project initiatives and operational procedures remain to be the fundamental process through which IPM can be popularised. The strategies and operational procedures could also be complemented by strategies from elsewhere, including those proposed for IPM on vegetables in Africa (FAO 1992).

5.6. Advice to farmers on IPM practices and strategies

Farmers practising IPM are regularly advised by the ward agricultural extensionists (WEO) who received training on IPM from projects and elsewhere. This is part of their day-to-day activities but due to problems of transport and other logistic support, advice to farmers throughout the cropping cycle cannot be guaranteed.WEOs normally organise field days for IPM farmer groups where many farmers are advised at a time. Funds allowing, printed materials are also provided. Other avenues for disseminating information include use of mass media, particularly the radio and annual agricultural shows at district and regional headquarters. There is a special unit within the extension service providing for farmers education and is self sufficient in developing printing and dissemination of knowledge based material.District Plant Protection Officers (DPPOs) and District Extension Officers (DEOs) make unscheduled follow-up and backstopping visits. The current reforms of extension services, among others, are intended to create the environment for the service to be demand driven to ensure that stakeholders are receiving relevant advice specific to their needs. This will ensure rational use of limited resources by disseminating meaningful and applicable advice that addresses farmers’ needs. The reforms provides also for pluralism, in that extension services would be provided by other stakeholders, e.g. NGOs, CBO, private agribusiness, religious organisations, etc.

5.7. IPM training in Research and Training institutes

In the curriculum of MAFC agricultural colleges, IPM is a subtopic under a major topic of Insect Pest Control Methods, and it is the last on the list of these subtopics. Other topics include methods of controlling field and storage pests, physical and mechanical control, biological control, legislative control, cultural control, host plant resistance and chemical control. According to the head of the curriculum development unit in MAFC (B.Yongolo, personal communication), students are only made aware of IPM but nothing detailed. The learning objective in the curriculum states that students should be able to explain the importance of IPM in conserving biodiversity.Sokoine University of Agriculture has a pest management centre. The centre provides tailor made training on IPM on request. In the faculty of agriculture, IPM is a subject in pathology, entomology and weed science. At master’s degree, IPM is one of the optional research subjects (P. Sibuga, personal communication). Generally, there is not a common understanding of IPM among training institutes at different levels due to misconceptions reflected in some of the curricula.Lack of policy direction with regard IPM research and training is a limitation in integrating IPM training in academic and research institutions. However, the aforementioned inclusion of IPM in the curricula at different levels of training and research institutions is an opportunity to capitalise on in capacity building and mainstreaming of IPM training.


5.8. IPM/ FFS training and national policy

Farmer Field Schools (FFS) has been embraced within the extension service as participatory approach of choice. In support of this, MAFC has designated four farmer training centres in the country (Mkindu- Morogoro, Bihawana- Dodoma, Inyala- Mbeya, and Ichenga- Iringa). However, to date, it is only Mkindu that is well established and functional for the purpose. This centre started in 1999 and is supported by the government and FAO in collaboration with the government of Indonesia. The centre has residential facilities. Farmers are trained at the centre and in the field where they acquire practical and theoretical skills in identifying problems that affect their environment, especially in crops and livestock. Between 1999 and 2002, the centre trained 750 farmers and extension agents from different districts.IPM is seen as one of the participatory tools like FFSs. IPM is implied in FFS. The pioneer FFS facilitators were well trained on how to form FFS but not as well on the different topics the farmers may wish to be addressed including IPM. The facilitators have been functioning as jack of all trade but not masters of IPM. As a result, at farmers’ level, there is a conception that IPM is only about conserving natural enemies and a lot of their time is spent scouting and recording natural enemies. Some of their facilitators believe IPM is covered in the Agro Eco System Analysis. The term Integrated Plant Pest Management (IPPM) is being widely used in FFSs interchangeably with IPM.MAFC through its extension service is putting a lot of efforts to have as many FFSs established. Between 2003 and 2005/06, MAFC facilitated establishment of 875 FFSs involving 21,875 farmers in 11 regions. This is in addition to FFSs established under different projects, particularly the FAO supported Special Programme for food Security (SPFS) with 314 FFSs (Mero 2006) and the Eastern African Sub Regional Project for IPPM Farmers Field Schools in Kagera with several FFSs (Julianus, 2002). This project is also an initiative supported by FAO. Furthermore, a Danish supported project (District Agricultural Development Support, DADS) operating in Mbeya and Iringa has trained all District Extension Officers (DEO) as trainers of FFSs.However, there is no evidence of corresponding government efforts to facilitate development of sustainable capacity to research and disseminate different options for testing/ validation and adoption by farmers in the different agro ecological settings. This is partly due to limited budgets allocated to the sector, resulting to inadequate and intermittent funding to research and extension services.In the FFSs, farmers are very enthusiastic on the concept of biological control. They are good at scouting to identify the beneficial organisms but they cannot tell why they are beneficial nor which pests the natural organisms can control. In part this interest in biological control stems from their experience of various national biological control programmes. The notable one is the classical biological control of cassava mealybug (Phenacoccus manihoti) by use of a wasp (Apoanagrus lopezi), an experience known by almost every Tanzania cassava farmer. Others include control of water hyacinth (Eichhorniae crassipes) using Neochetina bruchi and N. Eichhorniae and citrus woolly white fly using Encarsia haipiaensis.

5.9. Main advocates or ‘friends’ of IPM

Although the government through its policies and regulations would appear to be the main advocates of IPM, this status is increasingly changing as consumers demand for healthier products, both crop and livestock. Organic products are a choice but with education and wide


sensitization, IPM products are likely to gain recognition, and possibly take up a bigger share of the market because of a likely flexibility in price compared to organic products, which are very high and affordable only by the rich. Lack of market incentives for IPM produced products is a cause for the lower profile of IPM compared to organic. Other advocates of IPM are NGOs and individuals, particularly those informed and knowledgeable on IPM. NGOs promoting IPM include the World Vision through its programmes in Kagera and Shinyanga, Care International through its TUMA-UMA project in Kigoma (Julianus 2002), Farm Africa through its plant protection programme of botanicals in Babati, Manyara, Catholic Church through its agricultural programme in Peramiho Ruvuma and Shinyanga; Africare through its health programme in Mlali Dodoma.AGENDA, an NGO in partnership with PAN UK, are implementing a project “Pesticides and Poverty: Implementing Chemical Conventions for Safe and Just Development”. The project target groups include NGOs, policy makers, pesticides regulators and customers, research institutions and academia, industries and media. Project activities include building multi-stakeholder involvement; community monitoring of health hazards; Eco-toxicological Monitoring - Documenting and communicating environmental impacts; African Stockpiles Programme – Opportunities and actions; Development of the Consolidated guide and checklist for implementation of conventions; Conducting Case Studies: to document gaps between regulation and the field – risk and mitigation; Integrated Pest Management - organise field visits for policy makers to demonstrate the benefits and appropriateness of sustainable strategies; and Communicating results- communication strategy ( Bashiru 2005). No IPM activity has taken place so far (R. Bashiru, personal communication). The African Insect Science for Food and Health-icipe has been promoting biocontrol-based IPM for brassica pests in the highlands of Tanzania since 2002 and vegetable IPM in western Usambara through FFS since the beginning of 2006.

5.10. How IPM can contribute to the objective of Africa Stockpiles Programme of preventing pesticide stockpiles

A good IPM programme is usually focused to developing effective alternative pest management options, which are environmentally friendly. Pesticides are used as the last resort. Consequently, IPM directly addresses one of the ASP objectives of preventing future stockpiles of pesticides if validated options are considered when making bulk pesticide orders. Experience from the West African cotton growing systems has shown that IPM can cut down pesticide use by 50% (Glin et al. not dated). In Tanzania, for the above to happen requires consolidation, adaptation and scaling up use of previous IPM research outputs, including non chemical pest management strategies and more importantly, a change in the tradition of pesticide bulk purchase which ignores all existing IPM-technical know-how. The Plant Protection Act must effectively be used to regulate use of pesticides, and in particular, co-ordinated efforts should be focused to registration of appropriate pesticides, their procurement, distribution, safe use and storage. Weaknesses in the enforcement of regulations must foremost be addressed, particularly training and deploying adequate pesticide inspectors in areas of great concern and eventually throughout the country. Training should also be focused towards a systematic monitoring of pesticides at different levels of supply and use, and an information management system developed that can be shared with stakeholders including the ASP.


5.11. Main blockages to the wide implementation of IPM in agricultural production systems

The major blockages include:

• Lack of policy direction with regard to IPM in the other sectors advocating pesticides.

• Limited technical capacity to match the demands for technology in a highly diverse agro ecological zone (68 discrete AEZs) and multiple farming systems. This is more of a challenge than blockage, but worth taking into account for decision-making purposes.

• Fragmented institutional set up, leading to conflicting decisions and duplication among players. The case of importations of pesticides by crop boards particularly cotton without reference to developed IPM options is a good example.

• Weak linkage between research and extension and the other IPM stakeholder complex including Crop Boards and NGOs.

• Lack of incentives for IPM practitioners (extensionists and farmers). Low morale by extensionists due to poor working conditions and lack of market incentives to IPM practising farmers.

• Undeveloped biotechnology base to support modern technologies like genetic engineering.

• Participatory approaches in research and extension are not institutionalised and mainstreamed in the sector and hence their operationalisation by different projects cannot be harmonised.

• Although decentralisation policy has provided a link between ministries and local governments, it has created a gap between ministries depriving the opportunity for collaboration. Linkage mechanisms and memorandum on communication between ministries and the local governments are well defined and in place but not between ministries.

• Limited multidisciplinary approach to IPM research and development as a result of (c) and (h) above resulting to ambiguous definition of roles and conflicting decisions.

5.12. Policy opportunities for promoting IPM

The agricultural and livestock policy and regulations are IPM friendly. Tanzania has accumulated basic expertise and has the basic infrastructure that can be used as springboard for further promotion of IPM. Conducive policy, regulations and the instruments for their enforcement are in place. They need to be reviewed and improved accordingly. Participatory group approaches, and in particular FFSs are in place through which farmers are empowered with the necessary knowledge and skills. The FFS approach provides a good starting point for lesson learning and scope for improvement and wide scale promotion of IPM.

5.13. IPM projects / pilots that have been done in the last five years

In 1992 the then Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, in collaboration with GTZ, FAO and IFAD, implemented IPM pilot projects to promote farmer participatory integrated pest management approaches in different parts of the country and cropping systems. Later other projects came up; The Kagera Environmental Management Project (KAEMP), Mara Region Farmers Initiative Project (MARAFIP), FAO Special Programme for Food Security and the


Southern Highlands Extension & Rural Financial Services Project (SHERFSP) These projects had many things in common and they shared experiences.The GTZ funded project started in the lake zone in 1992 and later in 1998 started in the northern zone to cover Arusha and Kilimanjaro regions. In the lake zone, the main focus was on the cotton cropping system, which includes cotton, sweet potato, maize, and sorghum. The focus in the northern zone was coffee systems, with emphasis on coffee, banana, vegetables, maize and beans. The project coordination centres were PHS headquarters in Dar es Salaam and for Lake and Northern zone was their respective Zonal centre headquarters, Shinyanga and Arusha.The project used a modified farming systems approach for planning, development and field evaluation of IPM options (Nyambo 2001) and this has continued to be the cornerstone of IPM implementation in Tanzania. This approach is a mixture of participatory and exploratory methods, as deemed appropriate depending on the level of training of the extension workers and the problem to be addressed. The key elements in the approach include socio-economic baseline (knowledge, attitude & practices) and diagnostic technical plant protection surveys done by experts. These surveys generate a wide range of background information and a basis for M&E. This is followed by participatory technology development and transfer through farmer groups, referred to as IPM Working Groups, in different agro-ecological areas in respective regions. The baseline information is later used in the extrapolation of data and options to other areas in the project areas. In this approach, the IPM Working Groups are equivalent to the Farmers Research Groups used in the farming systems approach.The role of the groups is testing and fine-tuning of IPM options and other extension recommendations. Once the IPM Working Groups have approved a technology, the group results are disseminated to other farmers in other similar agro-ecological areas.After several seasons of training, the IPM Working Group is transformed to an IPM Farmer Training Group and a new IPM Working Group is initiated in another village and the process continues.The project established continuous internal M & E to assess project impact and spill-over. Monitoring tools were quarterly coordination meetings and annual review meetings. Evaluations of success or achievements were done at activity level and by verification of the indicators for the project purpose and outputs. Coordinators presented their reports in a pre-designed format that provides for recording and rating the extent of implementation of specified activities and milestones for achievement of desired outputs. The presentations were mainly focused on the extent to which the planned activities had been accomplished, the lessons and experiences gained thereof as well as the bottlenecks. The assessment for each activity was rated from A, B, C signifying a full accomplishment, partial and non-accomplishment, respectively (Lwambuka 2002). In case of activities partially achieved or not undertaken completely, reasons for these deviations were explained and a discussion on corrective measures was proposed which included a decision to abandon if deemed necessary. The final annual review workshop was conducted

from 10th- 12th December 2002 in which proposal for evaluation was tabled. With respect to evaluating the success of the project in terms verifying the indicators for the project purpose and outputs, workshop participants discussed required data to verify each indicator and the methodology through which the data could be obtained as well as the responsible for the data collection.

Data collected was synthesized and presented in a final project workshop in April 2003. The workshop consolidated the IPM experiences and proposed the way forward after donor funding.


Participants had a field tour to two IPM villages to get first hand information about farmers’ feelings and their achievements in IPM.The extent of impact achievements with regard to the benefits of IPM such as environmental conservation, restoration of beneficial organisms etc was not evaluated. However, there was consensus that part of this was implied in reduction of pesticide use in the cotton farming system.

(a) Use of conventional pesticides in cotton in the WCGZ was reduced from 6 calendar sprays to a maximum of 3 sprays without negatively affecting production. The evidence of this was the increased cotton production in the zone, from 38,000 tons in 1994/95 to 69,900 tons in 2000/01. However as was mentioned before, there is no supporting data that this has a corresponding decrease in overall quantities of pesticides used in the WCGZ or purchased for use in the WCGA.

(b) However, despite the above observations, the supply of pesticides by the Cotton Board through the Cotton Development Fund through a system of “passbook” and “acre packs” forces farmers to secure quantities of pesticides according to acreage, and totally ignores the benefit of crop scouting as a decision in pesticide application The passbook system is such that farmers are deducted Tsh.20 per kilo of cotton sold and this amount is credited to his/her passbook to enable him/her buy pesticides in the following season from stockists. Pesticides are supplied in “acre packs” which is a special unit pack of pesticide enough for an acre. With this system, it is reasonable to think that there is less chance of accumulated leftovers (stockpiles) because the farmers are paying for the pesticides (hence their responsible management) and that the supplier know more or less how much money to expect from passbooks and hence how much to procure for the coming season (I. Marenge, personal communication). However, and on the contrary, those farmers knowledgeable and practising scouting will still be part of the acre pack system, foremost because it is a government imposed system. In addition they will accept the pesticides because of different motives and attitudes, including the “just in case there comes a need to spray” attitude, or “you never know what will happen tomorrow, the system might collapse or prices go up”, or “may use it for other purposes”. These motives and attitudes will be a cause for major stockpiles as the scouting technology gains ground and is scaled out while the passbook/acre pack system continues to operate.

(c) Safety of users against use of conventional pesticides was implied in the reduction of times of exposure by applicants and the number of people who did not find it necessary to use pesticides.

(d) The Plant Protection Ordinance of 1937 was reviewed and a new Plant Protection Act enacted and operationalised in 1997. Its regulations were operationalised in 2000, instituting a National Plant Protection Advisory Committee which is actively guiding and monitoring implementation of plant protection activities in the country.

(e) A cost recovery system for services rendered under the PPA is in place with which to support strengthening the phytosanitary and quarantine measures.

(f) IPM options for cotton, coffee, maize, sorghum, cassava, sweet potatoes, beans, onions and cabbage were developed, disseminated and adopted by farmers. Some achievement recorded include; increase in size of cabbage from 1kg to 6kgs in Kware village, increased coffee yield from 3 bags (270kgs) in 1998 before IPM to more than 10 bags (900kgs) at Roo village.


Recommendations by the project include a strategy for a way forward to scaling up IPM in the country (Lwambuka 2003). The recommendations were based on a number of issues:(a) That donor funding was ending and that there was a need for an IPM development fund

from the government. The counterpart funding continued only for half a year after the project and no specific development fund for IPM todate.

(b) There was a general demand to extend IPM interventions to other regions outside the pilot area. Some regions had started to put up requests for technical support to initiate IPM interventions. Local governments in the western cotton-growing zone have continued to support IPM activities and collaborate with the Plant Protection Centre in Shinyanga. The government intention to extend IPM nationally has been reiterated in subsequent parliament budget speeches but no specific budget has been allocated.

(c) Rationalise functions taking consideration of future implementation framework

(d) Modalities for soliciting contributions from the districts towards implementation of IPM in their respective districts. Some districts were already contributing up to 25% of the IPM activities, particularly to finance training.

(e) The need for sensitizing policy makers in the non-project districts. A plan and budget was developed (Lwambuka 2003), and later, the Participatory Agricultural Development and Empowerment Project provided additional funds to support sensitization seminars to district policy makers in selected districts (Riwa et al. 2005). The policy makers involved were Members of Parliament, Regional Administrative Secretaries, District Administrative Secretaries, District Executive Directors, Mayors and Council Chairmen. Key agricultural officers involved in the seminars were the Regional Agricultural Advisors, District Agricultural and Livestock Development Officers, District Extension Officers and District Plant Protection Officers. Regions involved were Tanga, Morogoro, Mbeya, Rukwa, Lindi, Mtwara and Dodoma and resource persons were the IPM technical staff from the IPM project.


Recommended core functions, responsibilities and cost sharing modules are as follows:

Core function and responsability Financing module1. The MAFC will continue to develop IPM MAFC will finance this activity except where

technologies. In so doing, a participatory research has been privatised

The farmers will buy the necessary farm inputs from input dealers, while the district councils will monitor the efficiency of input supply and progress in IPM implementation

approach will be employed through theinvolvement of farmers and otherstakeholders. This will also make use ofindigenous knowledge

2. MAFC jointly with PO-RALG will The district councils jointly with its affiliatedundertake to sensitize the district projects and NGOs will organise theauthorities on the nature and effectiveness sensitization forums. The MAFC and PO-of IPM as a plant protection measure. RALG will meet trainers expenses while the

districts will meet the trainees expenses.3. The districts jointly with its affiliated The district councils jointly with its affiliated

projects and NGOs will organised projects and NGOs will finance the workshop,stakeholders workshops to debate on the while MAFC will provide the technical inputsupport to IPM activities in their and meet the facilitators expensesrespective districts

4. MAFC, PHS and Zonal research centres The District councils will finance the training will undertake to build capacities of courses for their DPPOs while MAFC will District Plant Protection Officers finance the PHS and research trainers(DPPOs) to train the village extensionofficers (VEO) and Subject MatterSpecialists (SMS) in promoting IPMactivities in respective districtsThe district councils and stakeholder will develop a plan with budget to supportimplementation of IPM activities in their respective districts

1 The DPPOs will train the SMSs and the The district councils will finance the trainingVEOs in IPM technologies courses for their VEOs and SMS

2. The VEO and SMSs will train the farmers in IPM technologies and facilitate formation of FFS

3 The farmers will apply the IPM technologies

Collaboration and sharing of experiences between projects was key to the success of new initiatives in different parts of the country. The GTZ/PPS-IPM project played a major role in the set up and organisation of KAEMP and MARAFIP, whereas the SPFS initiative benefited from the experiences of the SHERFSP (Nyambo 2001).

• All projects had adequate funding and released fund timely. Where counterpart contribution by government was required, release of such funds was not timely nor guaranteed (personal experience).

• Projects had local political support, which was crucial in the implementation and sustainability of group approach to IPM promotion.

• Arrangement for credit facilities (to facilitate input availability) was a common factor in all the projects. However, marketing of produce was not addressed in all the projects although it was a felt need.

Weaknesses

None of the projects addressed marketing aspects and hence the incentive for IPM producers has not been evident to date.

• Social-economic aspects which are useful for assessing acceptability and applicability of IPM (NRI 1994) were not taken into account and may have been the reason for farmers to

“drop out” after the project. • Top-down approaches in technology development undermined the wealth of indigenous

knowledge, particularly use of local botanicals. • FAO sponsored projects paid for Staff and Farmer run FFS, an arrangement that could

not be sustained by the local governments. For instance FAO paid grants of US$ 400 per banana cycle of 18-20 months for staff run FFS and US$ 300 for Farmer run FFS. As a result, scaling out of the pilot areas has been very slow.

• The projects did not share a common understanding of the IPM/FFS concept and implementation processes as a result does not provide a common platform for scaling up.

• None of the projects focussed on post harvest technologies despite documented high post harvest losses

• They lacked interdisciplinary structures, which would have provided for a more holistic approach to the pest problems, to include social economic issues, gender, marketing etc.

5.14. Market opportunities/ threats that could contribute to or obstruct wide scale take up of IPM

There is neither IPM marketing board for any crop nor IPM labelling/certification. Organic crops produced in the country are produced by companies, under crop boards and co-operatives and are certified by local and international certification bodies. There are five foreign certification bodies; IMO of Switzerland, Naturland of Germany, SACert of UK, EcoCert of France/Germany and Bio inspecta. TanCert is a local certification body, which was recently inaugurated. TanCert like other organic agriculture certification bodies certifies farmers, wholesalers, processors, importers and cooperatives. With regard to IPM, market opportunities and threats are:


Opportunities• Organic certification and marketing processes are in place and provides a model for IPM

• The increasing awareness and consciousness to health hazards from pesticide use in crops could provide an opportunity to influence the market in favour of IPM produce. Like in Europe, local consumers can be sensitized to demand better agricultural practices including IPM for their better health. IPM will be a springboard for Organic farming because farmers who have practised IPM can easily go organic (Mwaiko, personal communication). In the Northern Zone an initiative to issue certificates to IPM farmers and special stands in the market did not last long after the project. This could be explored with a vision of giving farmers collective price bargain.

• Liberalized market economy. Marketing and price regulation is no longer the monopoly of the government. In such environment, IPM products stand a chance of a better market by having a quality tag.

Threats• Weak co-operatives and other forms of farmer associations, hence weak collective voice

and bargaining power. • Poor infrastructure, particularly roads and market stalls.

• Product competition from subsidized imports

• Lack of IPM market policy

• Frequent changes in ministry mandates such that domain for marketing changes hands between ministries leading to lack of consistency in market policy formulation and implementation.

References

Anon 1996. Madawa ya Kilimo: Matumizi, tahadhari na athari zake.Kilimo/GTZ Plant Protection Division, P. O. Box 9071 Dar es Salaam-TanzaniaAnon (not dated) Integrated Pest Management. The way forward for the crop protection industry. Global Crop Protection Federation, Avenue Louise 143, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.Basiru A. 2005. Pesticides and Poverty. Implementing Chemical conventions for Safe and Just Development. Proceedings of the multistakeholder workshop; Centre for Continuing Education, University of Dar es Salaam, 03-05/08/2005. Organised by AGENDA in collaboration with PAN UK, PAN Africa and supported by the European Commission.Daxil R. Kayserlingk N. Klein-Koch C. Link R. Waiber H. 1994. Integrated Pest Management. Guidelines. GTZ GmbH, Postfach 5180, D-65726 Eschborn, Federal Republic of Germany Postfach 5180, D-65726 Eschborn, Federal Republic of GermanyFAO 1992. Report. Regional Seminar on the Development and Application of Integrated Pest Management on Vegetables in Africa, Dakar, Senegal. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Regional Office for Africa, Accra, Ghana.FAO 2005. International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides


Glin L. Kuiseu J. Thiam A. Vodouhe D. Dinham B. Ferrigno S. (not dated). Living with Poisons. Problems of endosulfan in West African cotton growing systems. Pesticide Action Network, U.K. Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London, EC2R 4LT.Jansen A. 2005. Plant Protection in Coffee; Recommendations for the Common Code for the Coffee Community- Initiative. Final Version.Julianus T. 2002. East African sub Region Pilot Project for IPPM Farmers’ Field Schools Kagera. Proceedings of a workshop on Participatory Approaches in Agricultural Extension Service Delivery, TANESCO Training Centre, Morogoro 2002.Lwambuka L. 2001. Integrated Pest Management. Annual Review Workshop Report. A workshop held at the Paradise Holiday Resort in Bagamoyo from 4th – 6th December 2001, Commissioned by GTZ Dar es Salaam (unpublished).Lwambuka L. 2002. Integrated Pest Management. Annual Review Workshop Report. A workshop held at the Paradise Holiday Resort in Bagamoyo from 10-12 December 2002, Commissioned by the GTZ Dar es Salaam (unpublished).Lwambuka L. 2003. Workshop Proceedings on Experience and Way Forward for the Integrated Pest Management, Arusha, 15th -16th April 2003. Ministry of Agriculture and Food security in collaboration with German agency for Technical Co operation (GTZ) (unpublished).Mero A. 2006. Experience with FFS in Tanzania: Shift from Subsistence Farming to Agri-Business. Paper presented at the TOT Workshop on Adult Farmer Field Life Skills and Junior

Farmer Field Life Skills, Kigoma, 13th June 2006 (unpublished).Msangi Y. 2006. Africa Stockpiles Programme. Status of Implementation of the Africa Stockpiles Programme: The Role of CSOs and NGOs. Presentation made at Stakeholders meeting, Ubungo Plaza. September-October, 2006.Mwasha A. 2004. Basic data on Certified Organic Production and Export inTanzania 2003: Export Promotion of Organic Products from Africa (EPOPA)NRI 1994. IPM Implementation Workshop for East /Central/Southern Africa.Workshop Proceedings, Harare, Zimbabwe,1993.Chatham,UK:Natural Resources Institute.Nyambo B. 2001. Integrated Pest Management Plan for SOFRAIP, Ministryof Agriculture and Food Security. Soil Fertility Recapitalization and Agricultural IntensificationProjectNyambo B.T. Varela, A. M. Seguni Z. and Kirenga G. 2003. Integrated Pest Management in Tanzania. In Integrated Pest Management in the Global Arena (eds. K.M Maredia, D.Dakono and D.Mota-Sanchez, 145-155. CAB International 2003.Riwa W.H. Kitandu L.W. Mkalanga H.S. 2005. Report on Sensitization Training on Input Supply, PPA1997 and IPM to District Functionaries under Participatory Agricultural Development and Empowerment Project (unpublished internal reports)Sempeho G. 2004. Reforms of Agricultural Research and Technology Dissemination Systems in Eastern Africa: Tanzanian Experience. Paper presented during ASARECA/NARS/World Bank Retreat. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 26-28 February 2004.Tanzania Cotton Board, (2002-2005) Internal Reports (various) unpublished.

Twarog S. (not dated) Organic agriculture: A Trade and Sustainable Development Opportunity for Developing Countries. UNCTAD.


United Republic of Tanzania, (not dated). Agriculture in Tanzania; Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (unpublished internal report).United Republic of Tanzania 1997a. The Plant Protection Act, 1997. Government Printer, Dar es SalaamUnited Republic of Tanzania 1997b. Agricultural and Livestock Policy,1997. Government Printer, Dar es Salaam.United Republic of Tanzania 1997c. National Environmental Policy. Vice Presidents Office, Dar es Salaam. December, 1997.United Republic of Tanzania 1998. The National Poverty Eradication Strategy. Vice Presidents Office, Dar es Salaam. Printed by the Government Printer, Dare s Salaam, Tanzania. June, 1998.

United Republic of Tanzania 1999. Regulations. The Plant Protection Act no.13 of 1997. Government Printer, Dar es Salaam.United Republic of Tanzania 2003. Agricultural Sector Development Programme. Framework and Process Document. Final Draft, March, 2003.United Republic of Tanzania 2004a. AGSTATS for Food Security. Volume 1: The

2003/04 Preliminary Food Crop Production Forecast for 2004/2005 Food Security Showing Vulnerable Areas. Crop Monitoring and Early Warning. National Food Security Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, P.O Box 9192 Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. June, 2004United Republic of Tanzania 2004b. Environmental Management Act no. 20. Vice Presidents Office. Government Printer, Dar es SalaaamUnited Republic of Tanzania 2005a. United Republic of Tanzania. National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty. Vice Presidents Office. June,2005.United Republic of Tanzania 2005b. Basic Data for Agriculture Sector 1995/96-2002/2003. Tanzania Mainland. Statistics Unit, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, P.O Box 9192, Dar es Salaam.United Republic of Tanzania 2005c Medium Term Strategic Plan2004-2005. Ministry

of Agriculture and Food Security.

United Republic of Tanzania 2005d. National Implementation Plan (NIP) for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. UNIDO, GEF. GF/URT/02/006. Draft. Vice Presidents Office, Division of Environment, February 2005.United Republic of Tanzania 2005e. The Economic Survey, 2004. The Presidents Office-Planning and Privatization, Dar es Salaam-Tanzania. June, 2005.United Republic of Tanzania 2006a. National Sample Census of Agriculture 2002/2003, Small Holder Agriculture, Volume 11: crop sector, National Report. National Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Food security, Ministry of Water and livestock Development, Ministry of Co operatives and Marketing, Presidents Office, Regional Administration and local government, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs- Zanzibar.United Republic of Tanzania 2006b. Agriculture Sector Review: Performance, Issues and Options. Main report volume1.United Republic of Tanzania 2006c. Agricultural Sector Public Expenditure Review. Alignment of Agriculture Sector Expenditure for Growth and Poverty Reduction. Draft Main Report,

Annexes

Annex 1a. Major food and cash crops grown in TanzaniaZone Regions Major crops Horticultural

Food Cash cropsCentral Dodoma Sorghum & millet Cotton (Singida) Tomatoes

Singida Maize Sunflower OnionsCassava (Singida) VinesSweet potato

Eastern Morogoro Maize Coffee (Tanga & Citrus fruitsTanga Banana Morogoro) PineapplesCoast Rice Cotton BrassicasDar es Beans Cashew TomatoesSalaam Cassava Sisal Mangoes

CoconutsLake Mwanza Rice Coffee (Kagera & Mara) Pineapples

Shinyanga Sorghum Rice TomatoesKagera (Shinyanga, Cotton Citrus fruitsMara Mwanza & Mara) Vanilla (Kagera)

MaizeBananas (Kagera)Beans (Kagera)Cassava

Northern Arusha Maize Coffee TomatoesKilimanjaro Banana Rice Onions

Rice Cotton BrassicasBeans Wheat PotatoesWheat Mangoes

PeasFlowers

Southern Iringa Maize Coffee TomatoesHighlands Mbeya Bananas (Mbeya, Rice Mangoes

Ruvuma Iringa & Ruvuma) Cotton (Iringa) PineapplesRukwa Rice Wheat (Mbeya & Iringa) Potatoes

Beans Cashew (Ruvuma) PeasCassava Pyrethrum (Iringa) Brassicas

Southern Mtwara Sorghum Cashew CoconutsLindi Maize

CassavaWestern Tabora Maize Coffee (Kigoma) Potatoes

Kigoma Bananas (Kigoma) Rice (Kigoma)Rice Oil palms MangoesCassava (Tabora)

Source: adapted from Nyambo (2001)


Annex 1b: Production trend (in ‘000 tons) of major food crops 1996/97-2004/05

Year Maize Rice Wheat Sorghum Beans Cassava Banana SweetPotatoes

1996/7 1,831.2 549.7 78.5 538.2 166 1426.5 604.1 477.71997/8 2,684.6 849.1 111.5 563.4 19614 1,758.3 835.8 637.8

71998/9 2,451.7 782.3 82.4 561.2 592 1795.4 751.6 569.61999/00 2,009.6 323.7 32.7 598.2 528 1,780.7 702.7 798.02000/01 2,693.4 1515 72.03 691.7 584 1,698.9 752.1 950.12001/02 4,408.4 1293.8 47.95 635.7 560.4 3,420.6 2204.6 1,4662002/03 3,444.3 562 45.1 461.4 448.7 2,843.5 1899.8 989.12003/04 3,232 586 74 820 906 1,538 737 7912004/05 3,288 957 115 890 871 1,566 861 872Source: Basic data for agriculture sector 1995/96-2002/03, Internal records, Crop Promotion services.

Annex 1c: Production trend of major cash crops (tons)

Year Cotton Coffee Sisal٭ Pyrethrum Sugar Tea Cashewnut Tobacco(Raw nuts)

1995/96 221.3 52.3 0.61 112,003.0 25.5 28.51996/97 251.8 43.6 0.61 116,300.0 20.5 65.4 35.31997/98 202.5 37.8 0.10 79,922.0 19.8 93.2 50.31998/99 105.8 46.7 0.7 113,633.0 26.3 103.3 37.91999/00 100.7 47.8 17.95 1.9 116,927.0 24.2 121.2 26.32000/01 124.9 58.2 19.66 1.85 135,535.0 26.3 122.0 24.52001/02 148.5 37.9 24.7 3.50 163,188.0 24.7 67.4 27.42002/03 188.2 49.4 23.45 3.01 30.1 91.3Data from 2 estates not available ٭Source: Basic data for Agricultural sector 1995/96-2002/03


Annex 1d: Production trend for fruits, 1999/00-2004/051999/00" 2000/01 2001/02 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/05

Oranges 140,000 139,500 145,000 155,865 168,854 170,542

Mangoes 142,300 14,000 146,000 154,302 255,000 257,550Pawpaw 2,500 2,300 3,000 4,320 4,680 4,727

Pineapples 218,400 218,000 200,000 181,629 196,765 198,733

Banana 554 450 550 80,593 500,000 505,000Guavas 500 400 600 2,000 2,166 2,188Lemon 1,000 700 1,200 3,155 7,200 7,272Passion 1,500 1,200 1,700 1,391 3,000 3,030Tangerines 1,200 1,000 1,300 2,310 2,502 2,527Avocado 5,100 4,800 5,500 5,366 5,813 5,871Custard 3,700 3,200 3,800 4,685 5,076 5,127Plums 17,300 16,000 18,000 16,818 18,219 18,401Pears 1,700 1,500 1,750 116,162 2,800 2,828Apples 4,000 3,900 4,020 3,860 5,070 5,121Loquats 150 135 170 91 920 929Jackfruit 120 100 150 74 1,200 1,212

Total 1,191,286Source: Regional Agricultural Advisors- internal records

Annex 1e: Production trend of vegetables 1999/02- 2004/051999/00" 2000/01 2001/02 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/05

Tomatoes 130,000 120,000 130,500 132,801 342,000 345,420Cabbages 221,114 220,000 222,700 183,619 255,000 257,550Onions 174,025 170,000 170,500 126,132 136,643 138,010Amaranthus 14,000 13,500 14,600 10,877 18,520 18,705Leafy cabbage 850 700 850 2,213 4,300 4,343Okra 150 120 200 342 560 566Carrots 1,900 1,500 2,000 1,365 2,700 2,727Garden peas 250 230 280 2,673 2,896 2,925Swisschad 559 580 570 576 624 630Brinjals 1,870 1,880 1,900 1,750 3,400 3,434Sweet paper 3,000 3,100 3,300 2,973 4,470 4,515Caulflower 20 21 30 9 1,235 1,247Green beans 1,700 1,710 1,750 836 3,450 3,485Total 549,348 533,341 549,180 466,165 775,798 783,556

Source: Regional Agricultural Advisors- internal records


Annex2: Certified Organic Producers in Tanzania

Name of the Firm Organic Production Productsarea

1 Kilimanjaro Native Moshi/Kilimanjaro Arabica coffee (Certified inCooperative Union 2004)(KNCU)

2 Tanzania Organic Products Zanzibar, Tanga, Kigoma herbs and spicesLtd (TAZOP)

3 Mufindi Tea Company Ltd Njombe black tea and herb teas(MTC)Luponde

4 Tanzania Tea Packers Mafinga/Dar es Salaam black tea and herb teas(TATEPA) (tea from MTC, Njombe)

5 Zanz-Germ Enterprises Ltd Zanzibar, Tanga, Kigoma Herbs and spices (ginger,pepper, turmeric, chilli andlemon grass)

6 Premier Cashew Industry Coast, Mkuranga Cashew nutsLtd (PCI)

7 Clove Stem Oil Distillery Pemba Essential oils: lemon grass(CSOD) oil, cinnamon leaf oil,

eucalyptus oil and sweetbasil oil

8 Kagera Cooperative Union Kagera Robusta coffee(1990) Ltd (KCU)

9 Biolands International Ltd Kyera (Mbeya region) cocoa10 Dabaga Vegetable Can Iringa region / Njombe canned pineapple

Company Ltd11 Kimango Farm Enterprise Morogoro herbs and spices

Ltd12 Tanganyika Instant Coffee Kagera Instant coffee

Company Ltd (TANICA)13 Biore Tanzania Ltd Shinyanga / Meatu Cotton14 Matunda mema / Kipepeo Karagwe Dried fruits

Source: Mwasha 2004

Tanzania Agri Research Report

Documents

Transcript of Tanzania Agri Research Report