Documents & Reports - All Documents | The World Bank
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK
LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND ANIMAL HEALTH PROJECT
PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Volume III
(without ESMF and RPF)
FINAL REPORT
DECEMBER 2011
Contents
LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND ANIMAL HEALTH PROJECT 1
(I) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
1.0 INTRODUCTION 14
1.1 Objectives of PMP 14
1.2 Purpose 16
1.3 Expected outputs 16
2.0 METHODOLOGY 17
2.1 Field Work 17
3.0 PEST AND VECTOR MANAGEMENT APPROACHES 18
3.1 Current and anticipated pest or disease problems 18
3.2 Poultry Production 24
3.3 Relevant IPM/IVM experiences within the project area 24
4.0 USE OF PESTICIDES, VETERINARY DRUGS AND MANAGEMENT 27
4.1 Review of present, proposed and/ or envisaged pesticide use 27
4.6. Principles in Selecting Insecticides. 39
4.6.1 Pesticides to be procured by the Project 39
4.6.2 Proper Use of Pesticides 40
4.6.3 Environmental and Health Risks 46
4.6.4 Mitigation Measures 48
5.0 POLICY, REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY 50
5.1 Policies on Plant and Animal Protection 50
5.1.2 Existence of a National IPM/IVM Policy 50
5.2 Description and assessment of the national capacity to develop and Implement ecologically-based IPM 52
5.3 Assessment of the country’s regulatory framework for the control of the distribution and use of pesticides 52
5.4 Assessment of the institutional capacity to enforce the above mentioned legislation 52
6.0 STRENGTHENING OF NATIONAL CAPACITIES. 54
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PMP 56
8.0 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget 59
8.1 Monitoring and Evaluation 59
8.2 Local Monitoring Activities during the Project Implementation 59
8.2 External supervision monitoring activities during the implementation period. 59
8.3. Budget (Tentative only to be upgraded in the next draft report after finalising the costs) 60
9.0 REFERENCES 62
10.0 ANNEXES 64
10.1 ANNEX 1 Terms of Reference 64
10.2 Annex 2 Environmental Risk Assessment Matrix 75
10.3 Annex 3 List of Stakeholders Consulted/or earmarked for consultations 77
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLE 1: Breakdown of the major cattle diseases in Zambia
TABLE 2: Relevant IPM/IVM experiences within the project area
TABLE 3: WHO hazard classification schedule for pesticides
TABLE 4: Pesticides registered for use on livestock pests/vectors
TABLE 5: Pesticide and Environmental legislation in Zambia
TABLE 6: Assessment of Institutional and Financial capacity to enforce pesticide legislation
TABLE 7.1: Action plan to strengthen the national capacities to improve pesticide regulatory system and implement IPM/IVM
TABLE 7.2: Action plan to strengthen the national capacities to promote implementation of IPM/IVM in the project
TABLE 8: Budget summary for implementation of PMP
FIGURE 1: Livestock diseases distribution map
FIGURE 2: Current distribution pattern of Rhipicephalus appendiculatus, the main vector ECF
ACRONYMS
|AU |African Union |
|CBPP |Contagious Bovine Pleuro Pneumonia |
|CSO |Central Statistical Office |
|CVRI |Central veterinary Research Institute. |
|ECF |East Coast Fever |
|EPPCA |Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act |
|ESMF |Environmental and Social Management Framework |
|FAO |Food Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations |
|FGDs |Focus Group Discussions |
|FMD |Foot and Mouth Disease |
|GIFAP |International Federation of National Associations of Pesticide Manufactures |
|GRZ |Government of the Republic of Zambia |
|IPM |Integrated Pest Management |
|IVM |Integrated Vector Management |
|KATI |Kasisi Agricultural Training Institute |
|LDAHP |Livestock Development and Animal Health Project |
|M&E |Monitoring and Evaluation |
|MACO |Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives |
|MoH |Ministry of Health |
|MOAL |MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK |
|MoLGH |Ministry of Local government and Housing |
|MoLSS |Ministry of Labour and Social services |
|MTENR |Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources |
|NALEIC |National Livestock, Epidemiology and Information Centre |
|NEPAD |New Partnerships for Africa’s Development |
|NGO |Non-Governmental Organisation |
|NIPs |National Implementation Plans for the Management of Persistent Organic Pollutants |
| |(POPs)in Zambia |
|NRDC |Natural Resources Development College |
|OIE |Office International des Epizooties |
|OP 4.09 |Operational policy of World Bank on Pest Management |
|PATTEC |Pan African Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Eradication Campaign |
|PMP |Pest Management Plan |
|PPE |Personal Protection Equipment |
|SANBIO |Southern Africa Network on Biosciences |
|TOR |Terms Of Reference |
|UNZA |University of Zambia |
|US$ |United States Dollar |
|WB |World Bank |
|WHO |World Health Organisation |
|ZARI |Zambia Agricultural Research Institute |
|ZEMA |Zambia Environmental Management Agency |
|ZIAH |Zambia Institute of Animal Health |
|ZNFU |Zambia National Farmers Union |
|ZRA |Zambia Revenue Authority |
PMP
(I) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ) through the MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK (MOAL) is seeking a concessionary credit from the International Development Association (IDA) for implementing the Livestock Development and Animal Health Project (LDAHP). The Pest Management Plan (PMP) addresses the following major issues, namely:
i) Pest and Vector Management approaches;
ii) Pesticide use and management;
iii) Policy, regulatory Framework and institutional capacity; and
iv) Monitoring and Evaluation
As a result of the potential negative impacts anticipated the World Bank Safeguard Policy OP 4.09 for Pest Management has been triggered by the project.
The Pest Management Plan (PMP) has been prepared to provide guidance for the management of (the) major livestock pests and diseases. The Plan will contribute to improved pest management, personal safety and environmental sustainability. The PMP has been prepared to meet the demands of the World Bank Operational Policy 4.09. The policy supports an integrated approach to pest management and the content has been guided by the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the PMP assignment (See Annex1.1).
(II) Methodology
Preparation of the Pest Management Plan has involved review of relevant literature and interaction with key stakeholders (Government, NGOs, farmers‘organisations and Research institutions) using structured and open-ended interviews. The process also involved field visits to the main chemical companies supplying pesticides in Zambia. Farmers in selected provinces and districts were consulted. Questionnaires were used to gather baseline data on the farmers’experiences on the use of synthetic pesticides and nonchemical control methods used to protect their livestock from animal diseases and pests.
(III) Pest and Vector Management Approaches
1.3.1 The current livestock population in Zambia consists of 3 million herds of cattle, 82,281 sheep, 953,757 goats, 343,195 pigs and 12 million chickens. Ticks and tick-borne diseases were a major constraint to cattle production and included East Coast fever, Anaplasmosis, Babesiosis and Heartwater. Other cattle diseases included Foot and Mouth Disease(FMD), Contangious Bovine Pleuropneumonia(CBPP)(ECF) and Anthrax. Tsetse and trypanosomiasis in cattle and human was still a serious constraint to livestock production.
The soft tick, Ornithodorus moubata transmitted the serious viral disease the African Swine fever in pigs.
The major diseases for poultry, particulally in rural areas, are Newcastle Disease(ND), followed by worm infections, mycoplasmosis, mites, and coccidiosis.
(IV) Relevant IVM/IPM Experiences in Zambia
|Method |Details |Status/ scope for adoption |
|1.ECF vaccine |Developed using local isolates of ECF disease |Successful and should be taken up by the project as|
| | |an IPM approach |
|2.Strategic dipping of cattle |Method involves monitoring of populations of tick |Successful and cost effective, |
|with acaricides |vectors on the animals and in pasture and dipping |Scope for expansion as an IPM initiative |
| |of cattle only when set tick infestation thresholds| |
| |on cattle are met | |
|3.Dipping of cattle with |Cattle are sprayed or a pour-on formulation of |Successful and most ideal in tsetse infested area |
|deltamethrin |deltamethrin is applied along the back of the |to control both ticks and tsetse fly. The treated |
| |animal from head to the tail. The insecticide kills|cattle are the so called mobile target. Ideal for |
| |both ticks and tsetse fly. Biting flies are also |adoption as an IPM approach |
| |controlled | |
|4.Use of herbal water extracts of|Local plants such as Tephrosia Vogelii water |Approach has been proven to be effective in |
|local plants |extracts of leaves are used to spray cattle to |controlling ticks on cattle. The method is being |
| |control ticks |tested on a pilot scale in Zambia and the region. |
| |Many other plants have been documented as |Very ideal as an IPM approach already being pilot |
| |acaricides in Zambia |tested by NEPAD.SANBIO |
|5. Pasture spelling of cattle |Grazing of cattle controlled using pasture spelling|Method has been successful in Australia where there|
| |to starve ticks in the pasture to death by denying |is only one host tick. It is a big challenge in |
| |them the host cattle |Zambia because of the presence of multi host ticks |
| | |and that grazing areas are communal and not fenced.|
| | |Poses a big challenge because of the issue of |
| | |communal grazing land and the existence of |
| | |multi-host ticks |
|6. Breeding for host resistance |Tick resistant cattle are selected by breeding |Has been tried but the biggest challenge is again |
|in cattle against ticks |especially using the local breeds for resistance to|with the multi-host ticks in Zambia. The potential |
| |tick infestation |for further development as an IPM approach is good.|
|7. The use of village chickens to|The method involves using village chickens to |It was shown to be quite effective and with time |
|detick cattle |detick cattle by eating the ticks when the cattle |cattle got used to being deticked and would |
| |are at homesteads or in kraals. The method was |actually lie down to allow the chickens climb on |
| |tested by ICIPE |them. Method could be adopted at village levels. |
| | |Such animals should not be sprayed to safeguard the|
| | |chickens |
|8.0 Use of Targets for tsetse |Method involves the use of cloth material |The technique has been shown to be very effective |
|control |impregnated with a pyrethroid insecticide and |and has been used to create buffer zones between |
| |baiting it with a tsetse fly attractant odour to |tsetse infested areas and those earmarked for |
| |lure the tsetse flies to the target and then get |eradication. It can also be used to mop-up residual|
| |killed by the insecticide on the trap material. |populations of tsetse. Very ideal for use in the |
| |These targets are deployed in tsetse infested areas|project area |
| |to control tsetse. | |
|9. Aerial spray by selective ULV |Large tsetse infested areas were sprayed in the | Method was successful and environmental impact |
|formulation of deltamethrin |region involving Botswana, Namibia, Angola and |against non target organisms not significant. |
|against tsetse |Zambia using a ULV formulation of deltamethrin at | |
| |very low doses of 0.26 g/ha by aircrafts. Tsetse |Method is expensive and needs to be applied on an |
| |has been cleared from Botswana, Namibia and parts |area-wide basis and not targeting small populations|
| |of Zambia and Angola where spraying took place. |at a time. |
|10. Use of herbal extracts to |Several rural households have been documented to |Methods should be field tested in the project areas|
|control poultry diseases |use herbal extracts in drinking water to control |for the control of Newcaslte disease and others |
| |Newcastle disease and other poultry diseases. |because of the challenges of maintaining the cold |
| |Some plants are even smoked in poultry houses to |chain for vaccines in rural areas |
| |control mites | |
(V) Pesticide use and management
Several pesticides are registered for sale on the Zambian markert. However, most of the pesticides registered for use on livestock are classfied as class II ( moderately toxic, class III (slightly toxic) and others were in class IV (practically non-toxic in normal use) on the WHO classification of Pesticide hazards. Data of pesticide available on the market and the use pattern and the associated problems of handling, distribution, disposal and storage at the manufacturing companies and in the field are still being processed.
(VI) Policy, regulatory Framework and institutional capacity
(a) Policies on plant and animal protection
The Pest, Plant and Diseases Act of 1994 provides for the control of pests of locally grown crops and those likely to be brought through imported plant products. In the case of the Animal Health Act of 2010, serious outbreaks of diseases like CBPP, FMD, trypanosomiasis and Rinderpest among others are controlled by the Government. However, the Government has invited public-private partnership in the control of ticks and tick-borne diseases with the Government providing extension services and the private sector providing veterinary drugs and pesticides. Cattle farmers have also been given the responsibility to control ticks and tick –borne diseases on their own.
(b) Existence of a National IPM/IVM Policy
The LDAHP has triggered the World Bank safeguard policy OP/BP 4.09, for Pest Management. However, Zambia does not have an Integrated Pest Management Policy to which stakeholders can relate to. The legislative tools currently being used in the country are not related to any IPM policy even though several IPM initiatives are being undertaken by many research programs (Table below)
(VII) Pesticide and Environmental Legislation in Zambia
|Environmental component |Responsible Agency |Title and date of legislation |Purpose of the legislation |
|Agriculture |MACO/ZARI |Plant, Pests and Diseases control|Regulates the importation of plant products into|
| | |Act of 1994 |Zambia and the exportation of the same. It also |
| | | |regulates the use of pesticides in crop |
| | | |protection. |
|Livestock |MOAL/Veterinary Dept. |Animal Health Act of 2010 |Control of animal diseases |
| | |Veterinary and Para Veterinary |Registration of veterinary professionals and |
|Livestock | |Professions Act of 2010 |maintenance of code of ethics |
|Livestock |Herd Book Society/ Vet. Dept|The Livestock Identification, |Ensure identity and traceability of cattle in |
| | |Registration and Traceability Act|the country |
| | |of 2010 | |
|Livestock | |Cattle Slaughter Control Act of |Control of cattle slaughter |
| | |2010 | |
|Livestock | |The Dairy Industry Development | Development of the dairy industry |
| | |Act of 2010 | |
|Agric,Livestock and Health |ZARI/Vet Dept/NISIR/SCCI |Bio-Safety Act of 2007 |Protection of food safety and prevention of |
| | | |imports of GMO Food and Feeds |
|Health |Ministry of Health |Public Health Act No 22 of 1995 |Prevention and suppression of diseases |
| | | |pertaining to public health |
|Water Resources |Water Affairs |Water Resources Management Act of|Management of water resources through the |
| | |2010 |Councils |
|Environment, Livestock, |ECZ |Environmental Protection and |Protection and Conservation of the Environment |
|Agric, Health | |Pollution Control Act of 1990 | |
|Environment |ECZ |Pesticides and Toxic Substances |Registration of Pesticides and toxic substances |
| | |Regulation of 1994 | |
|Environment |ZEMA Act of 2011 | |environmental protection |
(VIII) Conclusions
➢ It is conclusive that the current pesticide legislation instruments in the Country are not consistent with the WBIPM/IVM policy.
➢ It is therefore important that these instruments are revisited in order to put in place supportive legislation to support the implementation of the IPM/IVM policy.
➢ Compliance with the safeguard policy OP 4.09 could be supported by research institutions.
➢ The Pesticides and toxic substances regulations of 1994 provide for a pesticide distributor and user licensing scheme which should be revisited to allow for licensing of only IPM/IVM compatible pesticides.
➢ The institutional and financial capacities to enforce the pesticide legislation is low and it is important that support is provided for infrastructure development and training of human resources.
➢ Local research institutions should be equipped to provide IPM technologies.
Implementation of the proposed PMP guidelines
(a) Measures to promote the implementation of the IPM/IVM policy:
➢ Reduce the use of chemical pesticides by strictly enforcing legal instruments by restricting the sale or use of Class I(a) and I(b) pesticides to licensed end users.
➢ Submitting proposals to Government for strict observance of FAO guides on pesticides.
➢ Mobilize resources to support research into IPM technologies.
➢ To amend the pesticide legislation in order to provide for the registration of IPM compatible pesticides.
➢ Upgrade the awareness of IPM policy implementation among farmers .
➢ Reinforce the construction of animal health protection facilities at grass-roots level.
➢ Measures should be taken to improve management capacity, training of staff on IPM
➢ Recruitment of more staff and enhance institutional arrangements to open up cooperation and collaboration.
➢ Train farmers on IPM, safe use and disposal of pesticides and biomedical waste.
Monitoring & Evaluation
➢ The main issues of the M&E are raised in the implementation plan so that IPM policy becomes a reality in Zambia.
➢ The M&E plan for local monitoring and external monitoring would ensure that implementation responsibilities facilitate action towards attainment of the objective for preparing the PMP namely, improving livestock production by adopting IPM friendly technologies, reducing health threats to human and environment and increasing farm level incomes and trade in livestock products.
➢ The tentative budget for all activities related to PMP are estimated at US $ 800,000 per province and for the seven provinces it comes to US$5.6 million, this budget will be adjusted after consultations with MOAL.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ) through the MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK (MOAL) is seeking a concessionary credit from the International Development Association (IDA) for implementing the Livestock Development and Animal Health Project (LDAHP).
The Livestock Development and Animal Health Project Component (1 Component 1: Livestock Services Provision (US$24.4 million). The objectives of this component are to: (i) strengthen the zoonotic and contagious animal diseases surveillance and control systems, including laboratory diagnostic capacities; (ii) build institutional capacity within the MoAL to improve service delivery; and (iii) improve the capacity to monitor food safety of facilities (slaughterhouses, milk collection centers, etc.) in the targeted project areas. These interventions will generate bio-medical waste and increased use of pesticides that could lead to adverse impacts on the environment and human health, if not properly managed. Component 2: Productive On-farm Investments (US$18 million): The objective of this component is to improve productivity of identified production systems through support to on-farm investments. In the smallholder sector, the priority would be to introduce technologies that reduce livestock mortality particularly in young stock, improve reproductive efficiency and enable animals to quickly reach optimum slaughter weight. Smallholder access to services and markets would be improved through group formation, provision of essential livestock infrastructure, and delivery of improved technology packages by Ministry field staff augmented by Community Livestock Workers and private service providers. More specialized advisory services and technical packages would be made available through producer organizations. Support would also be provided for range and pasture improvement and utilization and dry season feeding technologies. This component will support the following sub-components:
I) Support for the Livestock Improvement Grant Facility (US$16 million): A Livestock Improvement Grant Facility (LIGF) will be created to allow eligible smallholder producers (groups or cooperatives) and other livestock industry stakeholders to establish productive livestock investment packages (i.e., sub-projects). These packages would include, inter alia, essential infrastructure (e.g., communal cattle handling facilities, milk collection centers, feedlots, grass fodder production methods, etc.), enhanced genetic merit
II) Strengthening Capacities of Non-Public Service Providers (US$2 million): This sub-component will co-finance activities which will specifically contribute to improved advisory, advocacy and information services for small-scale producers by organizations such as the Poultry Association of Zambia (PAZ), the Dairy Association of Zambia (DAZ), and two Commodity Committees (beef and pigs) of the Zambian National Farmers Union (ZNFU). Farmers who are unable to be in formal groups but require access to more specialized farm management and business planning advisory services on an individual basis, as well as access to credit for on-farm investments, will be supported by the project through the funding of technical assistance to enhance agri-business and technical farming skills, as well as to prepare investment packages for submission to other credit agencies for funding. This sub-component will also support the establishment of an independent Veterinary Statutory Body aimed at regulating the veterinary profession.
. Component 3: Project Management (US$3 million). The objective of this component is to ensure efficient and timely delivery of project resources in accordance with its objectives. It will support the establishment, operation, equipment and training of project coordination offices at both national and provincial levels, as well as the operational costs of the national Project Steering Committee and the Technical Committee. This component will also finance: (i) implementation and administration of the LIGF; (ii) M&E activities including regular impact evaluation studies and audits; management and oversight of safeguards issues; and (iii) preparation and implementation of a communication strategy for the project. Project support for various components and activities would be included in the general project management.As a result of the potential negative impacts anticipated from the issues raised above, the following four World Bank safeguard Policies are triggered by the project:
I) Environmental Assessment OP4.01
II) Natural Habitats OP 4.04
III) Pest Management Safeguard OP 4.09
IV) Involuntary Resettlement OP 4.12.
However, the ones that directly apply to the PMP are OP 4.01 and OP 4.09
1.1 Objectives of PMP
The Pest Management Plan will therefore ensure that pest and vector management approaches, pesticides and veterinary drugs management including bio-medical waste management aspects are in conformity with an integrated pest/vector management policy (IPM/IVM). The plan will also focus on policy and institutional regulatory frameworks and their capacities including monitoring and evaluation.
Key definitions
i. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) means a decision-making, record-keeping process for managing pests that uses monitoring to determine pest injury levels and combines biological, cultural, mechanical, physical and least toxic pesticides to manage pests in a safe, cost effective and environmentally sound manner that contributes to the protection of public health and environmental sustainability. Pesticides are only applied when necessary, on an at-need basis.
ii. Pest in this report means any organism that adversely affects livestock production and includes insect and mite pests/disease vectors and animal diseases that place substantial constraints on livestock production.
iii. Veterinary drug is widely defined to include(FAO Legal papers,,2004) drugs, insecticides, vaccines and biological products used or presented as suitable for use to prevent, treat, control or eradicate pests or diseases, or to be given to animals to establish a veterinary diagnosis, or to restore, correct or modify organic functions.
The overall objective of the Pest Management Plan (PMP) is to provide guidance for the screening of pesticides, veterinary drugs, other chemicals and their safe handling and disposal. The specific objectives can be listed as follows:
(i) Promote ecologically based IPM and reduce reliance on synthetic pesticides
(ii) Reduce health and environmental risks from use of pesticides,(including parathyroid based pesticides), veterinary drugs and bio-medical waste.
(iii) Build in-country capacity for (a) regulatory framework for pesticide distribution and use (b) institutions to promote and implement safe, effective and environmentally sound pest management and (c) pesticide (dip) wash strength testing;
The Plan will also provide an improved biomedical waste management strategy to bring pest and vector management activities under the project in line with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) or Integrated Vector Management (IVM) and to avoid new infections from infectious bio-medical waste and ensure food security and higher incomes from livestock production at national and farm levels; the PMP will also ensure that risks to human health and the environment associated with biomedical waste and pesticide use are kept to an acceptable minimum level.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this Pest Management Plan is to provide guidance for the management of the major livestock pests and diseases and bio-medical wastes. The Plan will contribute to improved pest management, personal safety and environmental sustainability.
Under the policy for Pest Management, OP4.09, the Bank assesses pest management and supports Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and the safe use of pesticides. In Bank-financed agriculture operations, pest populations are normally controlled through IPM approaches, such as biological control, cultural practices, and the development and use of crop varieties that are resistant or tolerant to the pest.
1.3 Expected outputs
i) Contribute to updating the approved list of pesticides and veterinary drugs for the management of livestock pests and diseases
ii) IPM packages for the management of livestock pests and diseases
iii) Improved management of pesticides and veterinary drugs due to increase in knowledge, institutional capacities to enforce appropriate pesticide legislation and research into IPM technologies
iv) Improved Monitoring and Evaluation for IPM
v) Improved quality and output of livestock products due to reduced pest/disease burden and high food safety
vi) Increased livestock farm level incomes and safety of pesticide users at the community levels
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Field Work
The fieldwork included visits to key animal slaughter premises namely Zambeef in Chisamba, Country Chickens processing plant in Chongwe district and other slaughter houses in Lusaka. In addition, visits to the major agrochemical marketing companies in Lusaka were undertaken. Consultations with various key stakeholders such as MOAL staff, CVRI, Tsetse and Trypanosomosis Control Centre, Zambia Environmental Management Agency (ZEMA), Central Statistical office (CSO), Livestock Services Ltd, Kasisi Agricultural Training Center (KATC). In addition, site visits to selected provinces and districts namely Namwala and Kalomo districts in Southern Province, Senanga and Kaoma districts in Western Province, and Petauke and Chipata districts in Eastern Province.
2.1 Key Informant Interview Guide and Farmer interview questionnaire were specifically developed as data collection tools to gather the relevant primary data required for developing the PMP.
2.2 Structured, semi-structured and open-ended interviews with Key stakeholders such as farmers’ organisations/Communities/Unions and Agrochemical companies as the main methodologies used. Annex 3 gives a list of institutions and individuals identified as interviewees and visited. Most of these institutions will also be invited to attend the stakeholders’ workshop on PMP.
2.3 Literature review is being undertaken to identify priority concerns on livestock pests/diseases, the legislation, use of pesticides and veterinary drugs and IPM initiatives currently being undertaken or envisaged.
Various project, legislative, and policy documents have been reviewed including the following legal instruments:
a) Animal Health Act of 2010
b) The Veterinary and Para Veterinary Professions Act of 2010
c) The World Bank Safeguard Policy on Pest Management, O.P. 4.09
d) The Environmental Protection and Pollution control Act of 1990.
e) Environmental Management Act N0. 12 of 2011
f) The Cattle slaughter Control Act of 2010
g) FAO International code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, 2002 and
h) National profile on Chemicals Management Infrastructure in Zambia, ECZ, 2005
3.0 PEST AND VECTOR MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
3.1 Current and anticipated pest or disease problems
The current livestock population in Zambia is mainly constituted by 3 million herds of cattle, 82,281 sheep, 953,757 goats and 343,195 pigs (Sinyangwe and Fandamu, 2011). Poultry production is estimated at 12 million broiler birds of which 11 million are village chickens kept by smallholder farmers (Songolo and Katongo, 1999). Based on the interviews and literature review, the livestock industry experienced a variety of pest and disease problems in Zambia. The following tick-borne diseases constitute the major constraints to cattle production in Zambia (Sinyangwe and Fandamu, 2011):
• East Coast Fever(ECF)/Corridor is caused by the protozoan Theileria parva transmitted by Rhipicephalus appendiculatus and Rhipicephalus zambeziensis tick species.
• Anaplasmosis is caused by the rickettsia transmitted by Hyalomma tick species.
• Babesiosis caused by the protozoan Babesia which is transmitted by Boophilus tick species.
• Heartwater caused by rickettsia Cowdria ruminantium which is transmitted by Amblyomma variegatum.
The soft tick, Ornithodorus moutbata transmits the serious viral disease, the African swine fever in pigs especially in Eastern Province.
Table 1, figures 1 and 2 below give a breakdown of the major livestock diseases, figure 1 shows the distribution of the livestock diseases , figure 2 shows the current distribution pattern of Rhipicephalus appendiculatus, the main tick vector of ECF in the country . The major livestock disease in Southern Province was East Coast Fever (ECF) followed by Central, Eastern and Northern Provinces. Lusaka had the smallest outbreaks of ECF. Western Province showed the highest cases of CBPP followed by Southern Province. Contagious Bovine Pleuro Pneumonia (CBPP) is a very destructive cattle disease of the lungs that is caused by the Mycoplasma bacteria and is spread from cattle to cattle. Foot and Mouth disease (FMD) and Anthrax cause serious mortalities in Cattle especially in Western Province and some parts of southern Province. It is also clear from figure 2 that the main tick vector of ECF was absent from Western Province.
Ticks and tick-borne diseases are mainly controlled by dipping or spraying cattle with acaricidal solutions. Novel control methods currently used in Zambia include vaccination of cattle with live tick vaccines. The use of herbal aqueous extracts of indigenous plants such as Tephrosia vogelii are being piloted to spray cattle and control ticks and tick-borne diseases(Kaposhi, 1992, H. Chitambo, personal communication). The selective use of acaricides in strategic dipping/spraying of cattle targeting peak tick infestation periods are some of the IPM approaches that should be promoted. Tsetse and trypanosomosis also constitute a serious constraint to cattle production. Tsetse fly causes the disease known as Nagana in cattle and sleeping sickness in humans. A third of Zambia total area of 752,000 km2 is infested with tsetse fly (SEMG, 1993). The MOAL in conjunction with African Union (AU) through the Pan African Tsetse and Trypanosomosis Eradication Campaign(PATTEC) embarked on a tsetse eradication campaign using the deltamethrin ULV aerial spraying technique at very selective doses of 0.26g - 0.3g per hectare (Kaposhi et al, unpublished). The MOAL is also using target traps impregnated with a pyrethroid insecticide and baited with a tsetse attractant to lure the tsetse fly to the trap where it is subsequently killed by the insecticide on the trap. These traps were successfully used to control tsetse from Senanga West in Western Province and the MOAL has deployed these traps as a buffer between areas where tsetse has been cleared and those still infested (Mweempwa and Chilongo, personal Conversation).
Table 1: Breakdown of the major cattle diseases and recorded deaths in Zambia(Source: NALEIC,2008)
| | | | |Diseases |
|Province |District |Cattle population |Deaths | |
| | | | |CBPP |ECF |FMD |
|Central |Chibombo |221,026 |906 | |820 | |
| |Kabwe |56,637 |533 | |1587 | |
| |Kapiri Mposhi |98,869 |295 | |622 | |
| |Mkushi |249,002 |808 | |747 | |
| |Mumbwa |170,170 |1629 | |2413 | |
| |Serenje |9,346 |391 | |487 | |
|Copperbelt |Chngola |9,922 |82 | |0 | |
| |Kalulushi |1,194 |7 | |1 | |
| |Luanshya |1,526 |0 | |0 | |
| |Mufulira |1,097 |16 | |14 | |
|Eastern |Chadiza |63,095 |632 | |816 | |
| |Chipata | 57,823 | 242| |194 | |
| |Katete | 108,074 |388 | | 690 | |
| |Nyimba |31,338 |242 | |0 | |
|Lusaka |Lusaka |186,542 |203 |56 |432 | |
|Northern |Chinsali |11,180 |57 |0 |176 | |
| |Isoka |35,268 |220 |0 |1000 | |
| |Kasama | |12 |1 |3 | |
| |Nakonde |15,038 |189 |0 |150 | |
|Western |Kaoma |84,531 |532 |167 |0 | |
| |Lukulu |157,000 | 983|684 |0 | |
| |Mongu |123,000 | 605|237 |0 | |
| |Senanga | | 334|23 |0 | |
| |Sesheke |63,000 | |24 |0 | |
| | | |43,117 | | | |
|Southern |Choma |812,559 | 3,102 | - |4,572 | |
| |Gwembe |285,286 | 1,446 | - |1,482 | |
| |Itezhitezhi | 303,968 |690 | - |1,591 | |
| |Kalomo | 626,852 |2,612 |3 |3,283 | |
| |Livingstone | 416,322 | 49,239 |278 |1,344 | |
| |Mazabuka | 1,087,599 |1,685 | - |2,514 | |
| |Monze | 842,364 |1,290 | - |3,992 | |
| |Namwala | 873,117 |8,566 | - |3,059 | |
| |Siavonga | 320,064 |3,755 | - |728 | |
| | | | | | | |
[pic]
Figure 1: Livestock Diseases Distribution map(NALEIC, 1998)
[pic]
Figure 2: Current distribution pattern of Rhipicephalus appendiculus, the main tick vector of ECF in Zambia(Olwock et. al., 2008)
3.2 Poultry Production
The constraints to the production of village chickens include inadequate housing, nutritional deficiencies, predation and diseases. Newcastle disease (ND) has been identified in Zambia as the leading killer of village chickens, followed by Gumboro, worm infestation, mycoplasmosis, parasitic (external) infections and coccidiosis. The main treatment recommended for ND is by vaccination. However, the cold chain required to properly maintain the integrity of the ND vaccinate in rural areas reduces vaccination opportunities among village flocks.
Both conventional and traditional remedies are used in the treatment of ND at village level. During a survey carried out in 1991 by CVRI and the University of Zambia it was found that 39% of farmers used traditional medicine and 14% used conventional medicine, amprolium and tetracycline being the most common (Songolo and Katongo, 1999).
Almost all medicines were administered via drinking water. Traditional methods include the
following trees and plants (in general leaves and stalks are added to drinking water offered to chickens): Agave sisalana, Aloespecies, Apodytes dimidiata, Cassia obtusifolia,Cissus quadrangularis, Capanifera baumiana, Diplorhynchus condyocarpon, Droogmansia pteropus, Swartzia madagascariensis, Euphorbia tirucalli,Ficus species, Imulia glomerata, Isoberlinia anglonsis and Kigelia africana. Roots of Droogmansia pteropus and the bark of Swartzia madagascariensis were used occasionally and not the leaves. No work has been done to evaluate the efficacy of these remedies (Songolo and Katongo, 1999); Kaposhi and Phiri, 2001, Kaposhi, 1992).
3.3 Relevant IPM/IVM experiences within the project area
Table 2: Relevant IPM/IVM Experiences in the Country
|Method |Details |Status/ scope for adoption |
|1.ECF vaccine |Developed using local isolates of ECF disease |Successful and should be taken up by the project as|
| | |an IPM approach |
|2.Strategic dipping of cattle |Methods involve monitoring of populations of tick |Successful and cost effective, |
|with acaricides |vectors on the animals and in pasture and dipping |Scope for expansion as an IPM initiative |
| |of cattle only when set tick infestation thresholds| |
| |on cattle are met | |
|3.Dipping of cattle with |Cattle are sprayed or a pour-on formulation of |Successful and most ideal in tsetse infested area |
|deltamethrin |deltamethrin is applied along the back of the |to control both ticks and tsetse fly. The treated |
| |animal from head to the tail. The insecticide kills|cattle are the so called mobile target. Ideal for |
| |both ticks and tsetse fly. Biting flies are also |adoption as an IPM approach |
| |controlled | |
|4.Use of herbal water extracts of|Local plants such as Tephrosia Vogelii water |Approach has been proved to be effective in |
|local plants |extracts of leaves are used to spray cattle to |controlling ticks on cattle. The method is being |
| |control ticks |tested on a pilot scale in Zambia and the region. |
| |Many other plants have been documented as |Very ideal as an IPM approach already being pilot |
| |acaricides in Zambia |tested by NEPAD.SANBIO |
|5. Pasture spelling of cattle |Grazing of cattle controlled using pasture spelling|Method has been successful in Australia where there|
| |to starve ticks in the pasture to death by denying |is only one host tick. It is a big challenge in |
| |them the host cattle |Zambia because of the presence of multi host ticks |
| | |and that grazing areas are communal and not fenced.|
| | |Poses a big challenge because of the issue of |
| | |communal grazing land and the existence of |
| | |multi-host ticks |
|6. Breeding for host resistance |Tick resistant cattle are selected by breeding |Has been tried but the biggest challenge is again |
|in cattle against ticks |especially using the local breeds for resistance to|with the mult-host ticks in Zambia. The potential |
| |tick infestation |for further development as an IPM approach is good.|
|7. The use of village chickens to|The method involves using village chickens to |It was shown to be quite effective and with time |
|detick cattle |detick cattle by eating the ticks when the cattle |cattle got used to being deticked and would |
| |are at homesteads or in kraals. The method was |actually lie down to allow the chickens climb on |
| |tested by ICIPE |them. Method could be adopted at village levels. |
| | |Such animals should not be sprayed to safeguard the|
| | |chickens |
|8.0 Use of Target for tsetse |Method involves the use of cloth material |The technique has been shown to be very effective |
|control |impregnated with a pyrethroid insecticide and |and has been used to create buffer zones between |
| |baiting it with a tsetse fly attractant odour to |tsetse infested areas and those earmarked for |
| |lure the tsetse flies to the target and then get |eradication. It can also be used to mop-up residual|
| |killed by the insecticide on the trap material. |populations of tsetse. Very ideal for use in the |
| |These targets are deployed in tsetse infested areas|project area |
| |to control tsetse. | |
|9. Aerial spray by selective ULV |Large tsetse infested areas were sprayed in the | Method was successful and environmental impact |
|formulation of deltamethrin |region involving Botswana, Namibia, Angola and |against non- target organisms not significant. |
|against tsetse |Zambia using a ULV formulation of deltamethrin at | |
| |very low doses of 0.26 - 0.3g/ha by aircrafts. |Method is expensive and needs to be applied on an |
| |Tsetse has been cleared from Botswana, Namibia and |area-wide basis and not targeting small populations|
| |parts of Zambia and Angola where spraying took |at a time. |
| |place. | |
|10. Use of herbal extracts to |Several rural households have been documented to |Methods should be field tested in project areas for|
|control poultry diseases |use herbal extracts in drinking water to control |the control of Newcastle disease and others because|
| |Newcastle disease and other poultry diseases. |of the challenges of maintaining the cold chain for|
| |Some plants are even smoked in poultry houses to |vaccines in rural areas |
| |control mites | |
4.0 USE OF PESTICIDES, VETERINARY DRUGS AND MANAGEMENT
4.1 Review of present, proposed and/ or envisaged pesticide use
Tables 3 and 4 below give the WHO Classification of Pesticide hazards, 2009 and a list of pesticides registered for use on livestock Data from these tables will be used to screen and short list pesticides to be recommended for use by the project. In addition the screening will also be used as a Risk assessment matrix indicated in Annex 2. The list in table 3 is however not conclusive as registered products available on the market fluctuate on a yearly basis table 3 also shows that most pesticides used for the control of livestock pests and vectors ranged from class II to class IV on the WHO classification of pesticide hazards.
|Table 3: WHO Hazard classification schedule based on WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to |
|Classification 2009 |
|GROUP |LD50 for the Rat(mg/kg body mass) |Distinctive label marking |
| |Oral |Dermal |Hazard statement |Colour band |
| |Solids* |Liquids* |Solids * |Liquids* | | |
|Ia Extremely hazardous |5 or less |20 or less |10 or less |40 or less |VERY TOXIC |RED |
|Ib Highly hazardous |5-50 |20-200 |10-100 |40- 400 |TOXIC |RED |
|II Moderately hazardous |50-500 |200-2000 |100-1000 |400-4000 |HARMFUL |YELLOW |
|III slightly hazardous |Over 500 |Over 2000 |Over 1000 |Over 4000 |CAUTION |BLUE |
|IV Acute hazard unlikely in normal |Over 2000 |Over 3000 |- |- | |GREEN |
|use | | | | | | |
Notes:
- LD50 is the lethal dosage expressed in mg/kg body mass which will kill 50% of the population of test animals and is expressed as mg/kg of the body weight of the test animal.
*The term “solid” and “Liquid” refer to the physical state of the product or formulation.
The average values of the oral toxicities can be explained as: LD50 mg/kg(oral)
1. Extremely hazardous/toxic Class Ia - 2000
|Table 4: Pesticides Registered for use on pests/vectors (Classification of hazard is based on the WHO Recommended classification of |
|Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification, 2009) |
|Insecticide |
|Type |LD50(Oral,Rat) |Insecticide Name |Trade Name |WHO Hazard |Use and Type of |Status(Registered, |
| | | | |Classificatio|Livestock |banned or severely |
| | | | |n Class I-IV | |restricted) |
|Lactone | |Abamectin/Avermectin |Agricmec,Affirm, |IV |Tick and fly control| |
| | |Intermectin |Dynamec/Cleaver | |cattle and small | |
| | | | | |ruminants | |
| | | | | |Intestinal worms in | |
| | | | | |cattle and small | |
| | | | | |ruminants | |
|Carbamates |500 -850 mg/kg |Carbaryl, |Carbaryl, Sevin Carbax,|II |Poultry mite control| |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| |>4000 mg/kg |Butacarb |Butacarb ly/sheep |IV |Sheep dip, control | |
| | | |dipScomol | |of ticks and mites | |
| |90-128 mg/kg |Propoxur |Baygon |IV |Dog/cat (Collars) | |
| | | | | |control of | |
| | | | | |ectoparasites/ Baits| |
| | | | | |for control of flies| |
| | | | | |and cockroaches | |
| |35-100 mg/kg |Bendiocarb |Ficam |III |Poultry houses for | |
| | | | | |mites and fly | |
| | | | | |control | |
| | | | | | | |
|Organophosphates | |Benoxaphos |Batestan/Benaxafos | |Tick control on | |
| | | | | |cattle and small | |
| | | | | |ruminants | |
| | |Bromophos |Brofene |IV |Control of ticks and| |
| | | | | |mites on Poultry | |
| |52 mg/kg |Bromophos –ethyl |Nexagon/Nexagran |II |Control of Cattle | |
| | | | | |ticks / other | |
| | | | | |ectoparasites on | |
| | | | | |cattle and small | |
| | | | | |ruminants | |
| | |Chlorfernvinphos |Supona, Birlane, Supona|II |Control of ticks, | |
| | | |super,Supona aerosol | |mites and flies on | |
| | | | | |Cattle and sheep | |
| |163 mg/kg |Chlorpyrifos |Dursban |II |Control of ticks, | |
| | | | | |mites, fleas on | |
| | | | | |Cattle/Sheep/poultry| |
| |41 mg/kg |Coumaphos |Asunto/Baymix |II |Control of ticks on | |
| | | | | |Sheep/cattle | |
|Organophosphate |300-500 mg/kg |Diazinon |Basudin |III |Control of ticks, | |
| | | | | |mites and lice on | |
| | | | | |Cattle/ goats/pigs | |
| |80 mg/kg |Dichlorvos |Vapona/Dedevap/Nuvan |II |Control of Flies, | |
| | | | | |mites and lice in | |
| | | | | |animal houses | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| |43 mg/kg |Dioxathion |Delnav |II |Tick control on | |
| | | | | |cattle | |
| |65-200 mg/kg |Ethion |Bovinox |III |Tick control on | |
| | | | | |cattle | |
| |1746 mg/kg |Fenchlorphos |Ronnel/Lanokil |IV |Control of | |
| | | | | |Ectoparasites on | |
| | | | | |cattle/Sheep /Goats | |
| |250-500mg/kg |Fenitrothion |Sumithion/Dicofen |III |Control of | |
| | | | | |flies,fleas and lice | |
| | | | | |in Animal houses | |
| |190-315 mg/kg |Fenthion |Tiguvon/Baytex |III |Fly control and used | |
| | | | | |as Cattle ear-tags/ | |
| |150 mg/kg |Oxinthiophos |Bacdip/quintiophos |III |Cattle dip for | |
| | | | | |resistant ticks on | |
| | | | | |cattle | |
| |80-120 mg/kg |Phosalone |Benzphos/ |II |Tick and fly control | |
| | | |Ambacide | |on cattle and small | |
| | | | | |ruminants | |
| |2050 mg/kg |Pirimiphos-methyl |Actellic/Blex |IV | | |
| | | | | |Fly control on small | |
| | | | | |ruminants | |
| |500 – 2000 |Propoxur |Bayopet powder |iii |Control of ticks and | |
| | | | | |fleas on cattle, dogs| |
| | | | | |and cats | |
| |2000-4000 |Temephos |Abate/Biothion |IV |Control of Flies and | |
| | | | | |Fleas on cattle and | |
| | | | | |small ruminants | |
| |4000-5000 |Tetrachlorvinphos |Gardona |IV |Control of Dairy and | |
| | | | | |Barn fly | |
| | | | | |control/poultry mites| |
|Triazine |80 |Amitraz |Triatox/Mitac/Triatix/ |II |Tick and mange | |
|derivatives | | |Ecotraz/Milbitraz | |control on cattle | |
| | | | | |and small ruminants | |
|Natural Pyrethrum/|584-900 mg/kg |Pyrethrins |Pyrethrum |IV |Control of flies and| |
|Pyrethroids | | | | |other ectoparasites| |
| | | | | |on cattle and small | |
| | | | | |ruminants | |
| |303-4123mg/kg |Alphamethrin |Paracide |III |Tick and fly control| |
| | | | | |on cattle and small | |
| | | | | |ruminants | |
| |303-4123mg/ kg/|Cypermethrin |Cyrux,Cyperdip, |III |Tick and fly control| |
| | | |Cypernel, Sectar | |on cattle and small | |
| | | | | |ruminants | |
| |135-140 mg/kg |Deltamethrin |Decis, Butox,Deltanex, |II |Tick and tsetse fly| |
| | | |K-Orthrine, Decatix | |control on cattle | |
| |303 - 4123 |Flumethrin |Deadline |III |Tick and tsetse fly| |
| | | | | |control on cattle | |
| |132-1500 |Fenvalerate |Sumicidin/Fenkil |IV |Fly control | |
| |4000mg/kg |Permethrin, |Ambush/Coopex, |IV |Fly control | |
4.6. Principles in Selecting Insecticides.
Selection of pesticides under the project implementation will be guided by the principle that requires the consideration of several pest management approaches of cultural, physical, biological measures before the application of chemical pesticides is considered necessary. The use of pesticides must be guided by the principles of cost efficiency, safety to humans and the bio-physical environment and effectiveness in controlling the disease. The selection will be made in accordance with the World Bank guidelines for the selection of pesticides(World Bank Operational Manual, GP 4.03) as follows:
i) Selection of appropriate pesticides – pesticides requiring special precautions should not be used if the requirements are not likely to be met.
ii) Approved list of pesticides taking into consideration the following: toxicity, persistence, user experience, local regulatory capabilities, type of formulation, proposed use, and available alternatives.
iii) Type and degree of hazard and availability of alternatives and the following criteria will be used to restrict or disallow types of pesticides under Bank loans:
a. Toxicity: acute mammalian toxicity, chronic health effects, environmental persistence, and toxicity to non-target organisms;
b. Registration status in the country and capability to evaluate long-term health and environmental impacts of pesticides.
4.6.1 Pesticides to be Acceptable to the Project
The selection of pesticides to be acceptable under the project will be in line with (a) the World Bank Safeguard Policy OP 4.09 on pest management, (b) the hazards and risks associated with pesticide use, and (c) the availability of newer and less hazardous products and techniques such as bio-pesticides, tsetse targets and traps.
In addition to the toxic characteristics of the pesticide materials themselves, the hazards associated with pesticide use depend on how the pesticides are handled. Precautions to minimize environmental contamination and excess human exposure are needed at al stages, from manufacture, packaging and labelling, transportation, and storage to actual use and final disposal of unused and contaminated containers. The guidelines indicated below provide internationally accepted standards on pesticides to minimize the hazards associated with pesticide use.
4.6.2 Proper Use of Pesticides
The use of pesticides under the project will be guided by the following guidelines(FAO Publication International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, Rome, 1991; FAO Guidelines for the Packaging, Storage, Good Labelling Practice, Transportation and Disposal of Waste Pesticide and Pesticide Containers, Rome, 1985):
A. GUIDELINES ON USE OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT(PPE)
1. PPE must be kept separate (i.e. in different lockers) from
personal clothing.
2. Protective clothing must be thoroughly washed after each application or spray
operation before being worn again.
3. Contaminated protective clothing must under no circumstances be washed at
home and should not be removed from the store area.
4. Durable, light-weight and comfortable protective clothing that give splash and
droplet protection and are impervious to pesticide formulations must be
provided to workers handling pesticides.
5. Overalls can be two-piece (jacket with hood and trousers) or one-piece
hooded garments.
6. Hood must close around gas mask.
7. Sleeves must close at wrists with elasticized cuffs and the trousers must have elasticized closures around waist and ankles.
8. Jackets of two-piece suits should seal on the hips.
9. Overalls should preferably be light in colour so that contamination with
pesticides can be visible.
10. A clear transparent face shield, which is impervious to solvent and pesticide
vapours and which provides full face protection should be worn as indicated on the product label when preparing and applying spray mixtures.
11. Safety goggles are an acceptable alternative to a face shield.
12. Non-slippery gloves made of nitrile rubber, PVC, neoprene or butyl rubber that
are long enough to give cover to a minimum of 90 mm above the wrist must be
used.
13. Lined gloves are not recommended as pesticides can accumulate in the lining material.
14. Gloves should preferably be light in colour so that contamination with pesticides can be visible.
15. Before contaminated gloves are removed from the hands after use, they must first be washed with soap and water. They should again be washed inside out after removal.
16. Unlined, rubber boots that are at least calf-high must be used.
17. To prevent pesticide from entering boots, trousers must be worn outside/over the boots.
18. At the end of each day’s spraying boots should be washed inside and outside.
19. A cotton hat with brim should be used for protection against spray drift.
20. A waterproof hat and cape must be worn by operators during overhead spraying.
21. A hood that covers the head, neck and shoulders of workers should be worn
for total skin protection during the application of irritant powders (e.g. sulphur).
22. Respirators should be worn when indicated on the product label
23. Tractors with closed canopies and air conditioning are recommended for
maximum safety and comfort during application. This could improve the productivity of operators and the quality of pesticide application and coverage.
Ablution facilities
24. Facilities must be provided for operators to wash or shower at the end of each
spray operation or shift.
25. Contaminated washing water generated at the ablution facilities shall not be
disposed of into any water source, including rivers, ground water sources and
sewerage systems. This water can also be channelled into a mesh-covered
evaporation pit like the one for the filling area.
B. GUIDELINES FOR SAFE USE AND HANDLING/APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES
Preparation and mixing of spray formulations
1. Application of pesticides should be selective and targeted (in space and time).
2. Pesticides must be prepared and used in the prescribed manner as
indicated on the label(s). Any other way is a criminal offence and this must be
communicated to workers as such.
3. Only prepare the amount of spray mixture required for one specific application.
4. If containers with concentrated formulation are transported to filling points
further away from the agrochemical store, these containers must be locked into a secure metal or galvanized mesh trunk, which can be securely chained to the tractor and to the filling point during spray operations.
Filling points
5. The mixing and filling area for spray equipment must be well away from any
water sources.
6. The floor of the filling point must be of non-porous material (e.g. cement with
damp coursing) and must be bunded (retaining wall).
7. Rinse liquid from measuring vessels must be added to the spray tank.
8. Soil and water sources may not be contaminated by run-off and/or spillage.
Construct a non-permeable evaporation pit that is either filled with stones or
covered with a metal grid, into which contaminated run-off water can be
channelled. Add a handful of lime to increase the pH. Ultra-violet radiation
from the sun, combined with the high pH will break down active ingredients
and water will evaporate. Cover the pit when it rains, to prevent rainwater
from filling up the pit. Alternatively, install a tank for contaminated water that
can be emptied by a professional hazardous waste disposal company.
Worker health
9. Workers handling chemicals must be declared medically fit to work with
pesticides. This examination must be done by an Occupational Health
practitioner that is a general practitioner with a post-graduate diploma in
occupational medicine, and not by a clinic nurse or ordinary general
practitioner.
10. All workers exposed to and handling pesticides must undergo routine medical
examinations (mostly involving a blood test) to test for signs of pesticide
exposure. These should preferably be done annually at the end of the spraying season, but the interval between examinations may not exceed two
years.
11. Any incident of exposure to pesticides must be documented according to
occupational health and safety regulations and labour regulations.
12. All medical records and records of pesticide exposure must be kept for at least
30 years for every worker exposed to pesticides. The work-exposure records
should be sent to the regional labour representative if farming operations
cease.
Training
13. All farm workers shall undergo training in the meaning of the signs, warning
and labels on containers of pesticides.
14. Formal training (i.e. certificates awarded) in the meaning of signs, warning
notices and labels on chemical containers, as well as on the interpretation of
written instructions must be provided to all workers handling pesticides.
15. Spray operators must receive formal practical training in the safe handling and
application of pesticides and must understand the risks involved and
precautions to be taken.
16. At least two members of each team of spray operators must receive basic first
aid training, particularly relating to pesticide exposure.
C. GUIDELINES ON FORMULATION AND REPACKAGING OF PESTICIDES
1. Distribution and use of pesticides may require local formulation and/or repackaging. In such cases, industry should ensure that, in cooperation with the government, packaging or repackaging conforming to industry standards is carried out only on licensed premises.
2. ZEMA should ensure that the staff working in such premises are adequately protected against toxic hazards.
3. That the resulting pesticide products will be properly packaged and labelled, and that the contents will conform to the relevant quality standards.
4. Formulators should be registered, certified, and regulated.
5. National pesticide regulations should be strictly enforced.
D. GUIDELINES ON GOOD LABELLING PRACTICE FOR PESTICIDES
1. LABEL CONTENT : The purpose of the label is to provide the user with all the essential information about the product and how to use it safely and effectively. The minimum information on the label should THEREFORE tell the user:
• What is in the container,
• The Hazard it represents and
• Associated safety information Instructions for use.
2. 1 What is in the container?
The following information identifying the contents of the container should appear on all labels:
(a) Product or Trade name, associated with the product category (e.g. herbicide, insecticide, fungicide, etc.).
(b) Type of formulation -name and code, as per International Formulation Coding System .
c) Active ingredient, name (ISO) or other locally used common name or in the absence of either the chemical name as used by IUPAC and content. This should normally be expressed as "contains x g ai per kg" (for solids, viscous liquids, aerosols or volatile liquids) or "contains x g a.i. per liter" (for other liquids), or just "y%".
(d) Net contents of the pack. This should be expressed in metric units (e.g. liter, gram, kilogram, which can be abbreviated to l, g and kg.
.
2.2 Safety information
There should be a clear warning on the label in relation to:
* Reading the safety instructions before opening the pack.
* Handling, transport and storage warning symbols
* Hazard classification/symbol. There may be a necessity to classify the product
with relation to its toxicity.
2.3 The following safety precautions should appear on all labels - preferably in black print on a white background:
2.3.1 Safety Precautions
The safety text must cover the following product specific advice:
• good agricultural practice
• relevant protective clothing
• precautions when handling the concentrate (if applicable)
• precautions during and after application
• environmental safety during and after application
• safe storage
• safe disposal of product and used container
• how to clean equipment (if a potential risk exists)
2 .3.2 Safety Pictograms
Safety pictograms reinforcing the safety text should be included.
2.3.3 Warning
The following must appear on all labels:
• Keep locked up and out of reach of children
• Other warning phrases may be aimed at good agricultural practice and/or steps which need to be taken to avoid adverse environmental effects.
2.3.4 First Aid Advice and Medical Treatment
• Most labels should carry first aid and medical advice, where relevant.
• Additional information regarding symptoms, special tests and antidotal measures may be added, where appropriate, for particular products.
2.3.5 Leaflets
Any safety text on the label must also appear on any leaflets associated with it.
E. GUIDELINES ON STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION OF PESTICIDES
1. ZEMA is obliged to promulgate, update and enforce rules and regulations for safe,
responsible storage and transport. Areas covered by these rules include maintenance of the original product labels, spill prevention, container adequacy, proper marking in storage, facility specifications, product separation, protection from moisture and contamination by other products, restriction of access, and other measures to ensure product integrity and safety.
2. Pesticide stores must be located away from areas where people or animals are housed and away from water sources, wells, and canals.
3. Pesticide stores should be located on high ground and fenced, with access only for authorized persons.
4. There should be easy access for pesticide delivery vehicles and – ideally – access on at least three sides of the building for fire-fighting vehicles and equipment in case of emergency.
5. Pesticides must not be kept where they would be exposed to sunlight, water, or moisture, which could affect their stability.
6. Storehouses should be secure and well ventilated.
7. Pesticide stocks should be arranged such that the oldest are used first (“first in first out”[FIFO] principle), to avoid the accumulation of obsolete stock.
8. Containers should be arranged to minimize handling and thus avoid mechanical damage which could give rise to leaks.
9. Containers and cartons should be stacked safely, with the height of stacks limited to ensure stability.
10. Pesticides should not be transported in the same vehicle as items such as agricultural produce, food, clothing, drugs, toys, and cosmetics that could become hazardous if contaminated.
11. Pesticide containers should be loaded in such a way that they will not be damaged during transport, their labels will not be rubbed off, and they will not shift and fall off the transport vehicle onto rough road surfaces.
12. Vehicles transporting pesticides should carry prominently displayed warning
notices.
13. Pesticides should not be carried in the passenger compartments of transport vehicles and should be kept tightly secured and covered at all times during transport.
14. The pesticide load should be checked at intervals during transportation, and any leaks, spills, or other contamination should be cleaned up immediately using accepted standard procedures.
15. In the event of leakage while the transport vehicle is moving, the vehicle should be brought to a halt immediately so that the leak can be stopped and the leaked product cleaned up.
16. Containers should be inspected upon arrival at the receiving station.
17. WHO/FAO guidelines (FAO, 1995a) should be followed for handling pesticide-related products during storage, transport, fires, and spills;
18. There should be official reports to ZEMA and follow-up enquiries in the event of fires, spills, poisonings, and other hazardous events; and
19. Rules and regulations laid down in the Recommendations on the transport of dangerous goods: model regulations (United Nations, 2002) and by international organizations concerned with the specific modes of transport and ZEMA should be respected.
F. GUIDELINES ON DISTRIBUTION OF PESTICIDES
1. Distribution of pesticides should be carried by trained personnel or under proper supervision. Misdirection or mishandling can result in the product falling into the hands of uninformed recipients or causing human or environmental risk.
2. Proper packaging is also important to ensure the confinement of the product and its safe handling.
3. The original package is intended to ensure safe distribution; when repacking is necessary, the new packing should meet the specifications of the original packaging as well as complying with the ZEMA 2011 legislation.
4. Packaging (original or repackaging) should conform to ZEMA requirements to ensure safety in distribution and prevent unauthorized sale or distribution of vector control pesticides.
5. The distributor should be aware that the shipment is a hazardous product.
6. The distributor must provide a timely service to ensure that products are available on an agreed date that takes into consideration the time of the original order and other related shipment matters.
7. The procurement process should anticipate shipment and distribution schedules.
8. A distribution scheme for pesticide products should be developed that reduces hazards associated with multiple handling and transportation.
9. The distribution of pesticide products to the point(s) of storage by the supplier should therefore be included in tender documents; and
10. All distributors of pesticides should be licensed.
G. GUIDELINES ON DISPOSAL OF PESTICIDES
1. When pesticides have passed their expiry date, specific methods of disposal must be followed (FAO, 1995c; FAO/WHO/UNEP, 1999, ZEMA, 2011) to ensure compliance with international standards for disposal of hazardous materials.
2. Similarly, any equipment that is no longer serviceable should be removed from inventory, decontaminated and disassembled to ensure that it will not be subsequently diverted to other uses.
3. Adherence to International treaties such as the Basel Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their
Disposal (UNEP, 1989).
4. Avoid accumulation of obsolete pesticides by provision for phasing-out when pesticides are to be banned or deregistered, refusal of donations in excess of requirement; and spelling out of product specifications, including required
packaging and labelling (long-life label).
5. Adherence to WHO/FAO guidelines for handling pesticide-related products during storage, transport, fires, spills and disposal.
6. Consultation with ZEMA for disposal of obsolete pesticides.
7. Prevention of risk to human and environmental health from emptied packaging and containers, rinsates, and outdated products.
8. Ensure provision of instructions for disposal of pesticide containers as label requirements.
9. Leftover agrochemical formulations must not end up in rivers, streams,
ditches, storage dams, etc. and should not be emptied out on the ground.
10. Empty pesticide containers must not be re-used and must be disposed of in a
manner that avoids exposure to humans and contamination of the environment.
11. Relevant guidelines appearing on the label(s) should be followed.
12. Empty containers may not be burnt/incinerated on the farm.
13. Empty containers must be rinsed with integrated pressure rinsing devices on
the sprayer, or triple-rinsed (rinsed at least three times) with water, and the rinsate added to the spray/race tank/Diptank or kept secure until disposal is possible.
14. Triple-rinsed containers can be punctured (in the case of plastics), shattered
(in the case of glass) or otherwise rendered unserviceable so as to prevent reuse, whereafter it may be disposed of in a registered hazardous waste landfill site (operated by a registered hazardous waste removal company).
15. Empty triple-rinsed plastic containers can also be collected and removed for
recycling by a registered recycler.
16. Obsolete or unwanted chemicals should preferably be sent back to local
suppliers or alternatively be removed by certified or approved chemical waste
disposal companies.
17. Leftover formulations should never be combined or mixed while being stored
for later removal /disposal.
4.6.3 Environmental and Health Risks
(a) The risks of pesticide use on the bio-physical environment and human health in the Project mainly include:
I) Pesticide residues can deteriorate soil quality;
II) The pesticide residues in the soil can pollute the water body nearby, which will potentially increase the pesticide residues in the aquatic fauna and flora;
III) The overflow drain from spraying pesticides can pollute the drinking water resources nearby;
IV) Over-use of pesticides can reinforce drug resistance in pests;
V) The use of high-toxicity pesticides can generate adverse impact on non-target species, (particularly in honey bees, birds, livestock and natural enemies).
VI) Poisoning of operators without personal protective equipment;
VII) Pollution of water bodies from spraying of pesticides at places close to drinking water sources;
VIII) Eating or smoking when applying pesticides could poison operators;
IX) Upwind spraying of pesticides would poison the operator and pollute the environment; and
(XI) Treated animals marketed before the end of the withdrawal period could poison consumers of meat and animal products.
(b) Risks from Biomedical waste from livestock slaughterhouses
Most animal wastes from public slaughterhouses are commonly sold to informal sector recyclers who make animal feed, among other products, with minimum controls. While
washwater and unrecycled blood are discharged to sewers, usually with little or no wastewater treatment.
Non-recyclable solid wastes, carcasses from diseased rejected livestock, blood, hides, hones and viscera/manure are typically discharged to open dumps where domestic animals, rodents and some wildlife species like the Pied Crow scavenge for food.
(c) Risks from Bio-medical waste from laboratories and treatment of sick animals
Proper management of bio-medical waste from artificial insemination (AI), laboratories and animal diseases treatment to avoid pollution and new infections.
i) The main health risks from slaughter houses is from animal diseases, such as anthrax, brucellosis, acute and chronic respiratory syndrome, Avia influenza(AI), skin diseases and Q-fever.
ii) Feeding slaughter waste to animals and open dumping of livestock and slaughter wastes where wild birds and animals may forage poses a potential risk to health.
iii) The main environmental risks are from the wastewater from slaughter houses include: biochemical oxygen demand(BOD), pH, total suspended solids(TSS), and faecal coliform bacteria.
4.6.4 Mitigation Measures
a. Pesticide spraying will be properly applied according to the label and monitored.
b. No toxic chemicals will be sprayed at places close to water sources. In addition, the local community will be informed of such an operation;
c. The spraying equipments procured must be safe in operation;
d. Integrated Pest Management(IPM)approaches (i.e. cultural, farming, physical, biological and chemical measures) will be adopted to avoid environmental and health risks as well as pesticide resistance in pests;
e. The local communities will be sensitized on IPM technology. The chemical control measures should be demonstrated to farmers and the pesticide dealers;
f. The use of highly toxic substances should be avoided whenever possible(Class I WHO Classified list of Pesticide hazards restricted to licensed users);
g. The use of torn protective clothing should be avoided;
h. Pesticides should be stored away safely in locked boxes and kept in places where children have no access to;
i. The packaging materials of pesticides and other empty containers should be disposed of safely in accordance with FAO guidelines on disposal of pesticides; and
j. Sensitization of farmers on safe handling and application of pesticides should be strengthened.
k. Location of animal slaughter houses in rural areas should be sited away from water sources, wetlands, residential or other ecologically sensitive habitats and natural resource agencies should be involved in the review of siting alternatives.
l. Consideration of alternative site should aim at minimizing environmental effects and not preclude beneficial use of the water bodies by using the following siting guidelines:
i) On a watercourse having a maximum dilution and waste absorbing capacity
ii) In an area where wastewater can be reused with minimal treatment for agricultural or industrial purposes
iii) Within a municipality which can accept the animal wastes in their sewer treatment system
m. Wildlife access to infectious biomedical waste must be minimized by incorporating the following guidelines in site selection:
i) Plot size should be sufficient to provide for a landfill or on-site disposal where waste treatment technologies like incinerators could be installed in accordance with the public health regulations.
ii) Proximity to a suitable disposal site
iii) Convenient for public/private contractors to collect and haul solid wastes for final disposal.
n. Location of slaughter houses on a high elevation above topography to minimize air pollution.
o. Observe World Bank Effluent Guidelines for Slaughterhouses for liquid effluent parameters: Slaughterhouse Maximum Daily Effluent Limitations,
|Plant type |BOD /kg live weight |TSS/megagram live weight killed |O/G |pH |Fecal coliform count |
| |killed | | | | |
|Simple |0.12 |0.20 |0.06 |6 - 9 |< 400 per 100 ml |
|Complex |0.21 |0.25 |0.08 |6 - 9 |< 400/100ml |
Source: World Bank Technical Paper number 140.
p. Sensitizing consumers on livestock and slaughter waste management could lead to improved health, animal welfare, and environmental conditions at farms and slaughter facilities supplying local markets.
5.0 POLICY, REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY
5.1 Policies on Plant and Animal Protection
The Pest, Plant and Diseases Act of 1994 provide for the mandatory control of invasions of serious pests such as migratory insect pests like the Armyworm, Spodoptera Spp. In instances/circumstances where such invasions occur, the Government may source pesticides from the international Donor agencies like FAO for the supply of pesticides. In the case of the Animal Health Act of 2010, the control of serious outbreaks of diseases like CBPP, FMD, Rinderpest among others, the Government through the MOAL may source support from International Donor agencies to contain these emergencies. Furthermore, the control of tsetse fly is still a Government mandate and funded wholly by the MOAL. However, the control of ticks and tick-borne diseases has now been downgraded and government has invited the private sector to provide the services. Cattle farmers have also been given the responsibility to control ticks and tick –borne diseases on their own. The Government provides extension services to the farmers. These circumstances do not seem to distort market prices for pesticides because they do not involve the market forces. These measures are also meant to secure food security in the country.
The control of tsetse is also a Government policy because no farmer can manage to undertake such big scale operations. However, an IPM policy once put in place would give guidance on the type of pesticides or pest control approaches adopted when tsetse control operations are planned. In short these programmes should be integrated into the national agricultural development policy to ensure IPM initiatives like pest monitoring using sex pheromones traps to monitor populations of the pest are strengthened to provide an early warning mechanism. In the case of tsetse control, farmers in tsetse infested areas could be supported to use the targets and mobile targets(cattle treated with insecticides).
5.1.2 Existence of a National IPM/IVM Policy
The LDAHP has triggered the World Bank safeguard policy OP/BP 4.09, for Pest Management. However, Zambia does not have an Integrated Pest Management Policy to which stakeholders can relate to. The legislative tools currently being used in the country are not related to any IPM policy even though several IPM initiatives are being undertaken by many research programs. Table 5 below gives a catalogue of pieces of legislation on pesticide use but under different Ministries. Moreover, coordination in the enforcement of these different legislative pieces is weak. Zambia Environmental Management Agency(ZEMA) has not instituted any IPM policy to guide the registration of pesticides under the Pesticides and Toxic Substances Regulation of 1994. There are pesticides that are currently registered and yet according to the WHO classification of Pesticides hazards, Class Ia and Ib pesticides should be severely restricted (Table 3 and need to be registered and followed by conditionalities that severely restrict their use to licensed persons and regular monitoring of their use. Furthermore, the different pesticide legislation tools cited below were made to regularise and control the importation and use of pesticides in the country and do not reflect any IPM principle. They do not therefore mirror the World Bank Safeguard Policy on pest management (OP 4.09).
Table 5.0: Pesticide and Environmental Legislation in Zambia
|Environmental component |Responsible Agency |Title and date of legislation |Purpose of the legislation |
|Agriculture |MACO/ZARI |Plant, Pests and Diseases |Regulates the importation of plant products |
| | |control Act of 1994 |into Zambia and the exportation of the same. It|
| | | |also regulates the use of pesticides in crop |
| | | |protection. |
|Livestock |MOAL/Veterinary Dept. |Animal Health Act of 2010 |Control of animal diseases |
| | |Veterinary and Para Veterinary |Registration of veterinary professionals and |
|Livestock | |Professions Act of 2010 |maintenance of code of ethics |
|Livestock |Herd Book Society/ Vet. Dept|The Livestock Identification, |Ensure identity and traceability of cattle in |
| | |Registration and Traceability |the country |
| | |Act of 2010 | |
|Livestock | |Cattle Slaughter Control Act of |Control of cattle slaughter |
| | |2010 | |
|Livestock | |The Dairy Industry Development |Dairy industry promotion and control |
| | |Act of 2010 | |
|Agric,Livestock and Health |ZARI/Vet Dept/NISIR/SCCI |Bio-Safety Act of 2007 |Protection of food safety and prevention of GMO|
| | | |Food and Feeds |
|Health |Ministry of Health |Public Health Act No 22 of 1995 |Prevention and suppression of diseases |
| | | |pertaining to public health |
|Water Resources |Water Affairs |Water Resources Management Act |Management of water resources through the |
| | |of 2010 |Councils |
|Environment, Livestock, |ECZ |Environmental Protection and |Protection and Conservation of the Environment |
|Agric, Health | |Pollution Control Act of 1990 | |
| |ECZ |Pesticides and Toxic Substances |Registration of Pesticides and toxic substances|
| | |Regulation of 1994 | |
| |ZEMA |Environmental Management Act of |Conservation and environmental protection |
| | |2011 | |
5.2 Description and assessment of the national capacity to develop and Implement ecologically-based IPM
It is clear from Table 5 that the itemized legislation instruments in the Country are not consistent with the IPM/IVM policy. It is therefore important that these instruments are revisited in order to put in place supportive legislation for the implementation of the IPM/IVM policy.
Compliance by sub projects, pesticide suppliers and farmers on the ground to the safeguard policy OP 4.09 could easily be supported by the proposed vector control research centre, other national research institutions, the extension services and agricultural training institutions like the University of Zambia, ZIAH, Palabana Training Centre, NRDC and NGO training institutions like the Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre(KATC). These institutions will however need institutional capacity building support.
5.3 Assessment of the country’s regulatory framework for the control of the distribution and use of pesticides
Table 5 above indicates the existence of legal instruments to control the distribution and use of pesticides. The recent enactment of the Zambia Environmental Management Act of 2011 and the subsequent establishment of ZEMA are measures to seal loopholes observed in the previous EPPCA of 1990. The Pesticides and Toxic Substances regulation of 1994 provides for the registration of pesticides and puts in place a pesticide distributor and user licensing scheme.
However, a local policy mirroring the safeguard Operational policy 4.09 should be constituted to provide a common legal requirement which ZEMA would be obliged to promote and enforce.
Data on the scale of current local production of pesticides and formulation is being analysed and will be updated in the next draft report. However, the majority of pesticides on the market in Zambia are repacked into smaller quantities to suit local demand. The Companies importing, repackaging and distributing the pesticides are licensed. The problem is that no quality control on the formulations is done.
5.4 Assessment of the institutional capacity to enforce the above mentioned legislation
Environmental Protection and Pollution Control Act CAP 204 of the Laws of Zambia 1990 and the Pesticides and Toxic Substances Regulations, Statutory Instrument No. 20 of 1994 covers the registration of pesticides and toxic substances when manufacturing, importing, exporting, repackaging or processing them. Part III states that “No person shall sell any pesticide or toxic substance without a label that has been approved by the Inspectorate of ECZ and is securely fixed to the container”. Part IV sets out the requirements for the general handling, use and safety of pesticides and toxic substances and Part V covers the storage and disposal of these substances.
Table 6 below gives an assessment of the institutional and financial capacity to enforce the legislation. It is clear that both the institutional capacity in terms of trained personnel and infrastructure is low. There is need also to train staff involved in the distribution and use of pesticides.
The assessment of managing unwanted and obsolete pesticides is being carried out and an update will be included in the next draft report. It is however,not expected that that project activities will lead to the accumulation of obsolete pesticides because the requirements for pesticides both in type and quantities will be specified in accordance with IPM/IVM activities.
Table 6: Assessment of institutional and financial capacity to enforce pesticide legislation
|Category |Institutional capacity |Financial capacity|comment |
|Availability of trained staff for inspection |3 |2 |Needs support |
| | | | |
|And control tasks | | | |
|Government actively monitors pesticide |2 |1 |Support needed |
|Use and storage | | | |
|Pesticide products are properly packaged and labelled |7 |7 |Enforcement and awareness |
|Effective measures to limit access to class II |7 |6 |Enforcement through licensing |
|pesticides to licensed user | | | |
|Government monitors quality of imported/locally produced|1 |1 |Need for another laboratory facility |
|pesticides | | |to support ZBS |
|Pesticide residues are being monitored on crops and |1 |1 |Need a quality control laboratory |
|animal products (local & export) | | | |
|Poisoning statistics available, especially in rural |1 |1 | Need support |
|areas | | | |
|Medical staff at rural clinics trained to recognize and |3 |3 |Training required and more staff |
|treat pesticide poisoning cases | | | |
|Are antidotes available in rural areas |1 |1 |Need to supply rural clinics with |
| | | |antidotes |
Key: 1 = Available in one province, = Available in 2 provinces, 3=Available in three provinces, 4 = available in four provinces, 5 = available in five provinces, 6 = Available in six provinces and 7 = Available in all the 7 provinces. The Assessment is based on literature review and stakeholder consultations .
6.0 STRENGTHENING OF NATIONAL CAPACITIES.
Complete schedule of components/projects for funding will be updated after field visits to selected sites in study areas and after consultations with the MOAL and the Stakeholders workshop. However, table 7 .1 gives a catalogue of project areas where capacity building support could be targeted. The action plan presented in tables 7.1 & 7.2 provide a basis for support.
Table 7.1: Action plan to strengthen the national capacities to improve the regulatory system for pesticides and implement IPM/IVM
|Activity |Objectively verifiable |Means of verification |Critical assumptions |
| |indicators | | |
|1. Train staff for pesticide inspection and|Staff trained to carry |number of trained staff |LDAHP will be funded |
|control tasks |out IPM/IVM |Record of inspections carried out | |
|2. Establish a monitoring mechanism for |Monitoring mechanism |Records monitoring activities |Funding sourced |
|pesticide use and storage |established | | |
|3. Strengthening of pesticide legislation on |Legislation strengthened |Regulation enacted revised |Funding will be |
|packaging and labelling of pesticides in | | |available |
|accordance with OP 4.09 and WHO classification| | | |
|of pesticide hazards and GIFAP and FAO | | | |
|guidelines | | | |
|4. Strengthen measures to limit access to |Strengthen enforcement of |Number of licensed users of such products|Funding made |
|class II pesticides to licensed users in line |the law |and inspections carried out |available |
|with OP 4.09 | | | |
|5. Monitoring quality of imported /locally |Strengthen capacity |Procurement records for equipment |Funding made |
|produced pesticides |existing quality control |accessories, spares, solvents and |available |
| |laboratories |laboratory glassware. | |
| |Training of staff in |Analytical Record of pesticides analysed| |
| |pesticide analysis |Number of staff trained | |
|6. Monitor Pesticide residues on feed and |Strengthen capacity of | Number of samples analysed: |Funding made |
|meat products for the domestic market and |Food & Drug and ZBS Labs |Feed |available |
|pesticide levels in workers exposed to | |Meat products | |
|pesticides at work places | |Workers exposed | |
|7.Train medical personnel at rural clinics to |Medical staff at rural |Number of staff trained |Funding made |
|recognize and treat cases of pesticide |clinics trained | |available |
|poisoning at the rural centres. | | |Funding made |
| | | |available |
|9.Record keeping of poisoning statistics made |Poisoning statistics | | |
|available at rural clinics |available at clinics |Record of poisoning cases | |
|10.Supply antidotes for pesticides at clinics |Antidotes available at |Number of cases treated |Funding made |
|in rural areas to treat pesticide poisoning |local rural clinics | |available |
|cases | | | |
7.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PMP
Implementation of the IPM approach is often constrained by a lack of information or shortage of tested IPM packages and institutional, financial, legal and policy measures to facilitate and encourage adoption of IPM methods. Table 7.2.gives highlights of activities that are required in order to promote IPM in the project.
Table 7.2: Action plan to strengthen the national capacities to promote implementation of IPM/IVM in the project
|Activity |By Who |By When |
|1. Adoption of IPM as a National Policy for the management of livestock pests and vectors.|Government of Zambia and |1st quarter of |
| |MOAL |2012 |
|2. Amend the pesticide legislation in order to provide for the registration of IPM |ZEMA and MOAL |1st quarter of |
|compatible pesticides | |2012 |
|3. Enforce strict observance of FAO guidelines on pesticide use, packaging and storage, |ZEMA |1st quarter 2012 |
|labelling, handling, transportation, disposal and use of PPE | | |
|4. Enforce legal instruments to restrict use of extremely hazardous –Who class Ia & Ib in |ZEMA and MOAL |1st quarter 2012 |
|project area | | |
|5. Upgrading the awareness of IPM policy through the sensitization of IPM activities and |National Livestock IPM |2nd quarter of |
|safe use of pesticides by: |Coordinator and IPM |2012 |
|Making IPM the central focus of education and training in animal protection at all levels, |Safeguard specialist | |
|including agricultural schools and colleges, training of extension staff, and messages | | |
|relayed to livestock farmers | | |
|Development of appropriately tailored short courses, special workshops and training | | |
|/information materials on IPM and safe pesticide use, handling and disposal for | | |
|dissemination to all stakeholders including farmers, input suppliers/pesticide vendors and | | |
|shopkeepers | | |
|Training of doctors, medical staff at clinics and women’s groups on symptoms and treatment | | |
|of pesticide poisoning | | |
|6. Reinforce the construction of the Livestock Service Centres – the one-stop shop where |IPM Coordinator/ Safeguard |From 1st -3rd |
|livestock farmers will have access to services such as vaccinations, spraying, castrations,|specialist |quarter 2012 |
|de-horning, branding or artificial insemination | | |
|7. Improve Infrastructure, Management Capacity, Institutional Arrangement and Cooperation |MOAL/LDAHP |1st quarter 2012 |
|by: | | |
|Supporting IPM-related research to develop IPM packages through(a) technical assistance to | | |
|research programs, (b) training fellowships for researchers and technicians, (c) | | |
|improvement of research facilities, (d) grants for specific research projects, and (e) | | |
|institutional strengthening. | | |
|Recruitment of more staff and enhance institutional arrangements to open up cooperation and| | |
|collaboration in of the implementation of the PMP. | | |
|The Project Management Office will recruit a full-time staff responsible for supervising | | |
|the implementation of the PMP | | |
|The IPM Safeguard specialist will strengthen cooperation with national pest research | | |
|institutions in order to enrich pest control knowledge and upgrade IPM capacity | | |
|Cooperation among all levels of animal health protection stations will be strengthened in | | |
|favour of information exchange and resource sharing. | | |
|8. Technical Training and Human Resource Development to build capacity for intensifying |IPM Coordinator and |2nd – 4th quarter|
|IPM by: |Safeguard specialist |2012 |
|New pest management packages will be made available to district veterinary/livestock | | |
|officers and veterinary /livestock assistants at veterinary camps | | |
|All levels of veterinary/livestock extension and service staff will be regularly trained to| | |
|upgrade their higher professionalism to encourage the effective implementation of | | |
|regulations on pesticides; | | |
|Veterinary technical staff will provide the farmers with regular technical training and | | |
|service by means of Farmer Field schools, so that new measures of pest management will be | | |
|timely extended to the farmers. In case of need, IPM services will be contracted out to | | |
|Consultants to upgrade training in IPM | | |
|Training materials of practical technology will be supplemented with video materials and IT| | |
|devices necessary | | |
|9. Training of Farmers/Farmer Groups on IPM and safe use and disposal of pesticides |IPM Coordinator/IPM |2nd – 4th quarter|
|The course contents will include: |specialists |2012 |
|How to identify ordinary pests and diseases of livestock. | | |
|Biology and infestation patterns. | | |
|The natural enemies against pests. | | |
|Measures of field sampling for pests. | | |
|Thresholds of pest control. | | |
|Varieties of measures of pest control and IPM (including farming, physical, biological and | | |
|chemical measures). | | |
|Proper storage of pesticides, and appropriate pesticide packing materials. | | |
|Methods of pesticide application and the proper use of personal protective equipment | | |
|Pesticide disposal | | |
|Pesticide poisoning | | |
8.0 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget
The M&E plan for the PMP is with respect to activities identified under the strengthening of national capacities to improve the regulatory system for pesticides and implementation of ecologically sound management of pests and vectors that trigger safeguard policy 4.09 of the World Bank as highlighted in Tables 7.1 & 7.2 above and 8.0. Progress on the development and implementation of IPM will depend on the research base available to provide IPM packages and how soon the farmers will take to adopt IPM approaches. However, an audit of current IPM research in Zambia will be the starting point.
All levels of IPM project coordinating committee will be responsible to guide, supervise, monitor and train the integrated pest management cooperating farmers.
8.1 Monitoring and Evaluation
The M&E will encourage participatory monitoring in order to strengthen ownership and will utilise simple indicators. The local government authorities and traditional leaders as well as local input suppliers, farmers’ groups and NGOs at the District will be part of the M&E process
8.2 Local Monitoring Activities during the Project Implementation
1. IPM activities in the project area ;
2. Amount of pesticide usage;
3. Changes in livestock production;
4. Changes in the livestock production eco-system with identified indicators;
5. Changes in pest/vectors and disease dynamics
The above activities will be monitored by the local monitoring project staff:
District veterinary officer, District Livestock officer, District extension officer
Veterinary Camp assistants, Public Health officer(District council), Farmers’ representative, input suppliers’ representative and Local NGOs representative.
Monitoring frequency should be once a month.
8.2 External supervision monitoring activities during the implementation period.
• Registration of pesticides;
• Formulation and Publicity of IPM policy
• Implementation of the local monitoring activities and assistance in data analysis.
External supervision will require the following experts:
• IPM Specialist
• Safeguard Specialist
• Bio-statistician
• Provincial veterinary officer, Provincial Livestock office, and Provincial Biologist
Frequency of Monitoring will be Quarterly.
8.3. Budget
Pest management should be integrated into the daily management of the project. The budget thus required should be included in the overall budget of the project as indicated below in table 8.0. It also includes the cost element for the Monitoring and Evaluation.
The Workplan and budget amounts f US$1,279,000 per province will be required to implement the PMP over a six year period or US$8.953m.
|Table : 8.0 Budget summary for implementation of PMP/ province | | | |
|Sub-project components/Activities |1st year |2nd Year |3rd year |4th year |5th year |6th year |Total |
|Capacity building | | | | | | | |
|Training of Trainers(ToT) |45,,000 |25,000 |0 |0 |0 |0 |70,000 |
|Farmer Group training |24,000 |24,000 |24,000 |24,000 |24,000 |0 |96,000 |
|Study visits |15,000 |10,000 |10,000 |5,000 |0 |0 |30,000 |
|Sub-total |114,000 |74,000 |49,000 |29,000 |24,000 |0 |290,000 |
| | | | | | | | |
|Advisory services | | | | | | | |
|Field guides/IPM materials |3,000 |15,000 |15,000 |12,000 |0 |0 |30,000 |
|Public awareness/sensitization |8,000 |8,000 |8,000 |8,000 |5,000 |2,000 |31,000 |
|campaigns | | | | | | | |
|Pest/vector surveillance |5,000 |5,000 |5,000 |3,000 |2,000 |1,000 |18,000 |
|Sub-total |30,000 |38,000 |38,000 |33,000 |7,000 |3,000 |149,000 |
| | | | | | | | |
|3. Environmental management | | | | | | | |
|Support to IPM research and |150,000 |100,000 |100,000 |100,000 |100,000 |50,000 |600,000 |
|development | | | | | | | |
|Sub-total |155,000 |115,000 |105,000 |105,000 |105,000 |55,000 |640,000 |
|4. Project Management | | | | | | | |
|Monitoring and evaluation |15,000 |15,000 |10,000 |10,000 |10,000 |10,000 |55,000 |
|Sub-total |40,000 |40,000 |30,000 |30,000 |30,000 |30,000 |200,000 |
|Grand total |339,000 |267,000 |222,000 |197,000 |
| | |
| |Aquatic systems |Fish |
0 = No risk ; + = Low risk; ++ = Moderate risk; +++ = High risk | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
10.3 Annex 3 List of Stakeholders Consulted/or earmarked for consultations Appendix 2: List of Key Stakeholders
(i) Government Ministries, Research Institutions, Agrochemical Companies and NGOs concerned with sound management of pesticides and veterinary drugs
I. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK
II. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
III. Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Tourism
IV. Ministry of Health
V. Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce
VI. Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning
VII. Ministry of Foreign Affairs
VIII. Ministry of Transport and Communications
IX. Ministry of Science, Technology and vocational training
X. Ministry of Labour and Social services
XI. Ministry of Local Government and Housing – District councils/ Traditional Establishments
XII. Zambia Environmental Management Agency
XIII. National Institute for Scientific and Industrial Research
XIV. Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust
XV. Central Veterinary Research Institute
XVI. University of Zambia(Biology, Agriculture and Veterinary)
XVII. Zambia Agricultural Research Institute
XVIII. Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Research and Control Centre
XIX. Kasisi Agricultural Training Institute
XX. Zambia Agrochemicals Association
XXI. Zambia National Farmers’ Union
XXII. Zambia Natural Resources Development College
XXIII. Zambia Consumer Protection Association
XXIV. Entomological Society of Zambia
XXV. Zambia Agricultural Workers Union
XXVI. Agribusiness in Sustainable Natural African Plant Products
XXVII. Zambia Revenue Authority(Customs)
XXVIII. Veterinary Association of Zambia
XXIX. Pharmaceuticals and Poisons Board of Zambia
XXX. Food and Drug Laboratory
XXXI. Zambia Bureau of Standards
XXXII. Food and Agricultural Organisation(FAO)
XXXIII. Nchinchi Twaba Babili Agricultural Training Centre
0. Local Governments Stakeholders at the District level
i) MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK (MOAL)
ii) Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives(MACO)
iii) Ministry of Health(MoH)
iv) Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning(ZRA –Customs Division)
v) Ministry of Local Government and Housing (MoLGH)- District Council
vi) Ministry of Labour and Social Services(MoLSS)
vii) Ministry of Home Affairs
viii) Ministry of Education
ix) Ministry of information and Broadcasting
x) Ministry of Tourism, Environment, Natural Resources(MTENR)
xi) Traditional Leaders
xii) Private Sector
xiii) Farmers Organizations
xiv) NGO
xv) District Council Secretary
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- world bank unesco education
- the world without the internet
- world bank financial inclusion
- all the words in the world list
- important documents in world history
- all documents saved today
- documents needed for bank account
- all around the world synonym
- delete all documents from pc
- all documents in my computer
- all documents saved windows 10
- the world bank doing business