12. The livestock sector is growing in importance more rapidly than any other agricultural sector. Livestock are particularly important in the developing world, where they contribute to the livelihood of 70 percent of the world’s rural poor. Sustained livestock production depends on the maintenance of healthy animals which, in developing countries, means paying particular attention to the problems of both endemic and introduced animal diseases. FAO has been playing a well-established role in animal health work, increasingly as part of its broader objectives related to reducing poverty, ensuring food security and preserving natural resources. Since 1994, the Organization has given priority to transboundary animal diseases through the Emergency Prevention System for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and Diseases (EMPRES),4 while still continuing its work on parasitic diseases, particularly trypanosomiasis.
13. FAO’s animal health activities were evaluated for the first time in 2001. The present evaluation focuses on the animal health activities under Programme 2.1.3 (Livestock) that were ongoing between 1995 and 2001, with particular attention to country-level work carried out with Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) funding. Although the evaluation was carried out by the FAO Evaluation Service (PBEE), it received considerable external input through independent experts’ participation in field missions to 15 countries5 and a subsequent external peer review of the evaluation reports by an independent panel (see below).
14. Within the institutional architecture for international cooperation in animal health, the options for programme interventions by FAO are fairly broad. Since 1994, FAO’s animal health programme has focused on transboundary animal diseases (TADs) through EMPRES. Work has centred on four specific aspects of strengthening veterinary services at the country level.
15. Particular priority under EMPRES has been given to TADs of strategic importance, which may be subject to global or regional eradication programmes, such as rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP); those of tactical importance, which may cause very serious epidemics from time to time but are not at a stage at which they could be considered for global or regional eradication campaigns, such as Rift Valley fever (RVF), lumpy skin disease, peste des petits ruminants (PPR), African swine fever (ASF) and Newcastle disease; and emerging diseases, such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Efforts in the last two categories of diseases have largely been through field projects funded by TCP. In particular, the main focus has been on GREP, which has the goal of verified worldwide elimination of rinderpest by 2010.
16. In addition to EMPRES, FAO has continued its work on parasitic diseases, particularly trypanosomiasis, which are of concern as a major development issue in many parts of the world, especially Africa. Much of FAO’s work in this area is channelled through the Programme against African Trypanosomiasis (PAAT). Trypanosomiasis is a disease that renders large areas of Africa unsuitable for livestock and has emerged as a significant problem. FAO’s work on parasites has become increasingly oriented towards problems of drug resistance, particularly to anthelmintics and acaracides.
17. FAO work on animal health that falls under the responsibility of the Animal Health Service (AGAH) is divided into three distinct areas:
18. Regular Programme (RP) resources devoted to animal health work are estimated to account for about 45 percent of the Livestock Programme’s resources, where total allocations were US$18.8 million for 1996-97, US$17.2 million for 1998-99 and US$16.8 million for 2000-2001. In the context of declining resources for the programme as a whole, the share used for core work on transboundary diseases appears to have remained the same or increased slightly during the period. At the same time, resources for work on insect-borne diseases (tsetse and trypanosomiasis), parasitic diseases and drug resistance and veterinary services all tended to decline.
19. The majority of animal health field projects were funded by TCP. From 1995 until 2000, 90 TCP projects were approved for a total value of US$22.2 million. Those that dealt with FAO’s response to a disease outbreak were generally classified as emergency projects and comprised slightly more than half of the total TCP animal health portfolio. AGAH has technical responsibility for only a few non-TCP projects, reflecting a general decline in the FAO Field Programme as a whole. Between 1995 and 2001, 17 non-TCP projects were approved, for a total value of almost US$28.5 million.
20. EMPRES has achieved important results in its four main areas of activity, particularly in GREP.
21. The main results in other (non-EMPRES) areas included:
22. The evaluation concluded that in the priority area of EMPRES significant progress has been achieved, with main successes in the implementation of GREP and the dissemination of TADInfo. Within the overall aim of eradicating rinderpest by 2010, GREP has largely maintained its targets in its action plan for 1998-2003, and TADInfo represents an important achievement in improving disease reporting. While some good work has been undertaken in the promotion of contingency planning and emergency preparedness, early reaction has been less successful, requiring closer collaboration with countries. With the exception of tsetse and trypanosomiasis, most non-EMPRES activities have a low profile, and many of FAO’s veterinary service activities have been phased out. PAAT has been a useful umbrella for FAO’s work on tsetse and trypanosomiasis and should play an important role in the implementation of PATTEC. It is also found that FAO’s animal health work addresses gender in an integrated fashion.
23. The evaluation offers a set of recommendations with a view to encouraging limited resources to be directed towards addressing the needs in areas of FAO’s comparative advantage in orienting future animal health work.
24. The Panel met in Rome from 17 to 19 December 2001, when consultations were conducted with PBEE staff, with the Assistant Director-General (ADG) of the Agriculture Department (AG), the Director of the Animal Production and Health Division (AGA) and the Chief and senior staff of AGAH. The Panel considered the draft Evaluation Report, in the context of the current Strategic Framework for FAO 2000-2015, the Medium-term Plan (MTP) 2002-2007, the Programme of Work and Budget (PWB) 2002-2003, the AGA Mission Statement and priorities as outlined by senior management.
25. The Panel notes that AGAH participates in the strategic planning and prioritization process that has been adopted by FAO.
26. The Panel recognizes that AGAH staff have a range of diverse and highly developed skills that equip them to address complex animal health issues. However, the strategic direction of FAO and the donor community is to exploit the benefits of an integrated multidisciplinary approach to livestock development, in the context of rural development and poverty alleviation. AGA has already embarked on this process.
27. It is recommended that AGAH redefine the structure and responsibilities of the groups in order to be consistent with their broader objectives.
28. The structure and function of this group drew the attention of the Panel and was the one recommendation within the Evaluation Report with which the Panel disagreed. National regulatory veterinary services are the basis for animal disease surveillance and control. It appears that much of the emphasis of the Veterinary Services Group has been on the delivery of clinical veterinary services and the Panel believes that this focus needs to be changed. What is a higher priority is the promotion of institutional reform involving core function analysis to reposition veterinary services to focus on essential disease control activities such as legislation, surveillance, epidemiology, diagnostic support and disease reporting.
29. Management welcomes the methodology applied for this evaluation, which involved consultation with member countries and the involvement of an external expert panel. It also recognizes that the evaluation tabled is fair and objective.
30. The evaluation initially focused on TCPs managed by AGAH, and then expanded to cover the performance of the EMPRES-Livestock programme and eventually the entire animal health component of Programme 2.1.3 Livestock. It is noted that the numerous member countries visited expressed high appreciation of the EMPRES-Livestock programme activities. Management is committed to continue focusing attention on EMPRES in all its elements, including GREP, as suggested on various occasions by the review.
31. However, Management finds that, because of the initial focus on TCP and then EMPRES, the review should have given greater coverage to other important areas addressed by the programme. In recent biennia, FAO’s animal health programme has addressed not only the spread of transboundary animal diseases (primarily dealt with by the EMPRES programme), but has also provided support and advice to member countries in zoonotic diseases, food safety related to food of animal origin, quality and safety of drugs, biological products and pesticides, insect-borne diseases and the adjustment of animal health policies and services.
32. While very high priority will continue to be accorded to the EMPRES-Livestock programme, Management will also address other areas, such as veterinary public health, environmental management of insect-borne diseases and the support to policy and institutional reform in livestock services. The MTP 2004-2009 will continue to reflect this balanced programme thrust for which a concerted effort is being made to attract extrabudgetary support.
33. The following specific comments are made.
Management supports the Panel’s recommendation for two reasons. First, FAO is expected to assist member country policy-makers in rationalizing the delivery of veterinary services between the public and private sectors, based on the recognized responsibilities and competencies of each. This is of particular importance given the pressure on governments to downsize public services further. FAO is required to articulate principles for rational delivery of public and private veterinary services that go well beyond early reaction to epidemic infectious diseases. Second, the national veterinary services are one of the platforms for building the diverse public sector functions demanded by producers and consumers. These include broad outcomes such as poverty reduction through enhancing trade (World Trade Organization [WTO]/ Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures [SPS] Agreement); protecting public health through limiting food- and feed-borne zoonotic diseases (veterinary public health); and a general shift in public management towards facilitating private sector growth while protecting public health, natural resources and the environment. During the elaboration of the MTP 2004-2009, it is intended to re-examine the linkage between the work of the Veterinary Services Group and AGAL in matters of veterinary policy and pro-poor livestock policies in order to enhance the role of the animal health programme in the issues mentioned above.
Management agrees with the recommendation of the external Review Panel to sharpen the focus of the animal health programme further in the MTP 2004-2009. The recommendation of the Panel to allocate more resources, in particular personnel resources, to the animal health component of the Livestock Programme in order to respond to ever increasing requests by member countries is noted. The implementation of this recommendation will have to be a combination of gradual expansion of the regular resource base of the animal health component and of aggressive acquisition of extrabudgetary programme resources.
34. The Committee appreciated the concise and informative Evaluation Report as well as the clear comments of the external Review Panel and the responsive reaction from departmental management. It noted with satisfaction that management was already addressing many of the suggestions made by this evaluation through the development of MTP proposals.
35. The Committee recognized the growing global importance of animal health issues and the role FAO plays through this programme. It agreed with the overall findings of the evaluation, and commended the staff for the excellent progress made under the EMPRES-Livestock programme, especially in the implementation of GREP. It also endorsed virtually all the recommendations of the evaluation, including those for addressing the human and financial resource constraints of AGAH, the required extrabudgetary support for EMPRES-related field operations, and the need to review animal health programme priorities in the context of medium-term planning. The one area where the Committee did not accept the recommendation of the evaluation concerned the work on veterinary services. Here, the Committee was in favour of the position taken by the external Review Panel and departmental management that the Veterinary Services Group be maintained, but that it refocus its work on the role of public veterinary services, particularly in essential disease control activities. The Committee underscored the need to practise caution when privatizing veterinary services, which produce public goods not easily replicated by the private sector. It also stressed the importance for FAO of working closely with international partners in animal health.
36. The Committee noted the reservations concerning the results of TCPs/non-EMPRES projects in relation to the follow-up and interest of governments in these projects.
37. Finally, the Committee recommended that, in future, evaluation reports include in an annex the terms of reference for the evaluation as well as the names of the evaluation team and the external review panel.
38. Building on work undertaken by FAO to combat the scourge of epidemic animal diseases and plant pests, in 1996 the Organization launched the Emergency Prevention System for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and Diseases (EMPRES). The programme has two components – one on animal health and the other on plant pests, specifically Desert Locusts. The Desert Locust (DL), Schistocerca gregaria, is recognized as a transboundary pest of particular concern that merits priority attention under EMPRES. The DL component of EMPRES (EMPRES-DL) aims to prevent plagues by strengthening national, regional and international locust management. It also aims to improve, through research and technology development, the safety and environmental impact of the chemical pesticides at present in use.
39. The DL component of EMPRES covers three regions: the Central Region (EMPRES/CR, covering the Red Sea area), the Western Region (EMPRES/WR, North Africa and Sahelian countries) and the Eastern Region (EMPRES/ER, four countries in Southwest Asia). It was decided that the initial focus should be on the Central Region, in which many locust plagues were thought to have originated. The EMPRES/CR programme, formulated during 1994-95 for multiphased implementation, began operations in 1997 after an extended period of consultations with locust-affected countries and donors. The EMPRES/WR programme was originally formulated in 1997, following the Conference recommendation in 1995 for the extension of the EMPRES-DL component to the region. The EMPRES/WR programme envisaged substantial donor support of some US$8.5 million; however, this did not initially materialize and the programme was revised, with the participation of countries concerned, in 1998 and 2001. Negotiations are continuing with potential donors.
40. This evaluation was carried out within the context of a general review of the EMPRES programme after six years of operation and, in particular, it examines the implementation achievements and results under Phase I in the Western Region and Phase II in the Central Region. An evaluation team comprising PBEE staff and a consultant visited six participating countries9 between July and September 2001. A summary of this evaluation was presented at the FAO Conference as an information document in November 2001, and a full report was presented to the Programme Committee in May 2002. As the mission could not visit all EMPRES/CR and EMPRES/WR countries or donor agencies, the evaluation also reflects responses to questionnaires sent out to EMPRES collaborators, donors and DL researchers prior to the mission. Another evaluation of the EMPRES/CR programme is scheduled for early 2003.
41. The EMPRES-DL programme is a collaborative one among participating countries, donors and FAO, with AGPP providing the technical secretariat. EMPRES/CR is steered by a Consultative Committee comprising senior representatives from participating countries, other organizations (including the Desert Locust Control Organization for Eastern Africa [DLCO-EA] and the FAO Commission for Controlling the Desert Locust in the Central Region [CRC]), donors, AGPP senior staff and the EMPRES Coordinator. The EMPRES/CR Programme Coordinator, located in the region, is responsible for general management under the supervision of AGPP. EMPRES Liaison Officers (ELOs) are appointed by participating governments and the DLCO-EA for planning, implementation and coordination of activities in their respective countries and normally meet once a year with EMPRES and AGPP staff. The role of ELOs is to assist in the planning, implementation and coordination of activities. In addition, they are involved in reviewing priorities and progress and participating in the development of the work plan for the following year. EMPRES/WR envisages a complete integration of the programme with a new (expanded) regional commission (the FAO Commission for Controlling the Desert Locust in the Western Region [CLCPRO]), which is to replace the FAO Commission for Controlling the Desert Locust in Northwest Africa (CLCPANO) and the Organisation commune de lutte antiacridienne et de lutte antiaviaire (OCLALAV). The secretary of CLCPRO is expected to serve as the EMPRES/WR Programme Coordinator.
42. The EMPRES/CR programme, reformulated to reflect the experience of Phase I, has the objective “to strengthen the capabilities and capacities of national, regional and international components of the Desert Locust management system to implement effective and efficient preventive control strategies based on early warning and timely, environmentally sound early control interventions”. In particular, one priority in capacity building is to address some key gaps in the knowledge of DL ecology and management, and covers four components aimed at:
43. Phase II of the EMPRES/CR programme commenced in 2001, following the end of the first phase in 2000. Funding for the three-year period comes from FAO, CRC, the Desert Locust Control Committee (DLCC) and several donors (Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United States) for a total of US$4.3 million: in addition, bilateral assistance is also available from Sweden and the United Kingdom for research-related activities.
44. The EMPRES/WR programme is at an evolving stage – the institutional arrangements for its management and operation as well as an outline of the work programme were prepared during 2001. Although some US$8.5 million of funding was originally anticipated, no major donor support has materialized so far. Some pilot activities have been undertaken with FAO Regular Programme (RP) resources (US$0.6 million), supplemented by funding from DLCC and CLCPANO. In addition, several TCP projects have been implemented, mainly in response to an outbreak in Mauritania. The most significant source of support has been the Norway/FAO project (GCP/INT/651/NOR – Improved Pesticide Application Techniques for Desert Locust Control) which, although intended to be a regional project covering the Western Region, has been primarily active in Mauritania as a result of the absence of significant DL populations in other countries. This project has made an important contribution to developing and introducing safer and more cost-effective procedures for control operations.
45. Phase II of EMPRES/CR is essentially one of consolidation and, since 1999, substantial improvement has been made in programme management (which was a critical issue identified by the preceding evaluation mission). Rigorous work planning and enhanced internal monitoring and evaluation procedures have been significant factors in this regard. Collaboration with CRC has been strengthened through joint work planning and some shared training activities, and the key communication network among the countries has been upgraded. EMPRES/CR has also substantially improved the expertise of DL staff in the region through a series of focused training courses, and has also created a cadre of national (master) trainers who can pass on their expertise to a large number of DL staff.
46. However, the evaluation mission was concerned as to whether it would be possible to achieve the objectives of Phase II fully in the remaining time available, given the significant delays in implementing early warning and control systems. While some countries have gone ahead in reviewing and transforming their DL systems with the support of EMPRES/CR, others are still – for various reasons – reluctant to commit themselves to the kind of systematic analysis and planning envisaged by EMPRES.
47. Nevertheless, the countries visited by the EMPRES evaluation mission continue to regard preventive DL control as a high national priority with social, economic and environmental benefits that governments consider to be in the national interest. In some countries, the importance of preventive DL control has been reflected in the increased financial resources allocated to it by national governments since the implementation of the EMPRES programme. Likewise, regional collaboration in the form of joint surveys has increased among countries. These are seen as significant steps towards the development of a sustainable preventive control programme.
48. At the strategic level, important measures have been taken towards the development of a sustainable DL preventive control programme. Signs of progress in this regard include:
49. The mission was concerned about delays in the implementation of Country Focus Programmes (CFPs), which were introduced in three countries during Phase I. The CFP exercise analyses the main features of a country’s DL management system and development plans and strategies for future action. CFPs serve as an important analytical tool to improve survey and control procedures and also as a mechanism to build ownership within EMPRES. Since 2001, there has seemed to be less priority given to CFPs by the EMPRES/CR programme in the countries concerned.
50. Another source of concern was the programme staffing level. The mission considered that the staffing level in the field (two international staff, one Associate Professional Officer [APO] and two National Professional Officers [NPOs]) was at the minimal required level. In the light of the planned workload for the remaining period, additional staff resources would be strongly desirable in the areas of campaign evaluation, strategy development and economics.
51. Donor support for EMPRES/CR is adequate and confirmed until the end of Phase II (late 2003), but is not sufficient to finance additional positions.
52. EMPRES/WR’s objective is the strengthening of early warning and preventive control in the Sahelian countries. One important outcome for EMPRES/WR is the establishment of CLPRO, which will create a unified institutional structure for the preventive control of DL in the Western Region. The Maghreb countries have their own Desert Locust Units (DLUs) which are, in general, adequately funded and operational. Exceptional progress has been made in the development of an effective DL survey and control system in Mauritania, with support coming from a Norwegian-funded project. The Mauritanian DLU has developed into a very effective and efficient organization that can be regarded as a “best practice” model. However, apart from Mauritania, the EMPRES/WR programme cannot be considered operational in other Sahelian countries owing to a lack of financial support from donors. The general absence of significant DL populations in the past few years may have reduced the perceived threat from DL, and the lack of clearly demonstrated socio-economic benefits may be another reason for waning donor interest.
53. Recommendations made are the following.
54. The external Peer Review Panel met from 9 to 12 December 2001 in Rome to review and comment on the Evaluation Report of the EMPRES-DL component. The Panel’s comments on this evaluation and the EMPRES-DL programme are summarized below.
55. The evaluation exercise was conducted with the necessary analytical rigour through a well-balanced approach which ensured that all major issues were duly addressed, while the findings and conclusions were the result of sound judgements made by the team.
56. Unforeseen circumstances and prevailing conditions in some EMPRES member countries limited the geographic coverage of the evaluation and this, together with time constraints, precluded comprehensive discussions with every stakeholder. These constraints were to some extent offset, however, by the prudent use of questionnaires. While this evaluation was too early in Phase II of EMPRES-DL to provide requisite information to support negotiations for future funding, it allowed propitious assessment of responses of member countries and FAO headquarters to the recommendations of the previous evaluation in 1999. It also enabled assessment of the performance of member countries, albeit against programme- rather than country-specific criteria.
57. The Panel endorses the findings and recommendations in general, and highlights the following points.
58. The Panel emphasizes that, while the programme might to its advantage commission the necessary in-depth and comprehensive study to provide direct economic justification for its implementation, it is important to note that the socio-economic benefits, not least in terms of prevention of famine, human suffering, depravation and poverty, and the maintenance of political stability and order are central to the sustained development of EMPRES member countries. The potential contribution of EMPRES to the public good in the widest sense is beyond evaluation in purely economic terms.
59. In the context of the programme’s significant contribution to creating emergency prevention capacities for the DL in member countries, one concern arising is how best to sustain and improve the capacity throughout the long recession periods that are characteristic of this species. Experience elsewhere strongly indicates the need to ensure that capacities are kept active and operational if they are not to lose efficiency, skills, effectiveness and, not least, motivation. Experience has shown that operational efficiency of dedicated units such as the DL Emergency Prevention Services can be assured by the prudent and temporary redeployment of these services for other pest-oriented operations of concern within DL countries (e.g. other locust spp., armyworm, quelea and grasshoppers).
60. The initial restriction of the programme’s scope to the DL was a deliberate and prudent decision: it focused on the pre-eminent migrant pest in the critical points of its recession areas and provided the very sternest test for the concept and its successful implementation within the variable and contrasting situations of member countries. However, its implementation progress to date suggests that broadening of the target pest species under the programme could make it even more effective and beneficial to its member countries than it is already. The contingency planning exercises, as well as early warning, early reaction, training, research and coordination strengthened under the programme could be put to optimum use if applied not only to DL but also to other transboundary pests.
61. Expansion of coverage to species other than DL would not in any way change the concept or its implementation but rather would build on the concept. Expansion is a logical step in the development of the EMPRES programme and would contribute effectively to making EMPRES the best possible strategy for management of transboundary pests and for prevention of pest emergencies. The consensus among Panel members is that other pests that the EMPRES programme might address in the future, in order of pest status (severity of their outbreaks), are Central Asian Locust spp. (Migratory, Moroccan and Italian); Red Locust; armyworm; quelea; and grasshoppers. The appropriate juncture for expansion from DL to other candidate species would seem to be at the start of Phase III of the programme, i.e. in 2004. Temporary redeployment of the DL capacity to prevention exercises would involve little extra cost – if any. In essence, all that is involved is the application (with due adjustments) of planning and management capabilities for prevention of emergencies from DL to other pest species.
62. Management notes with satisfaction that there is a general agreement on the concept of EMPRES and on the success of the programme in the Central Region. It is satisfied that the evaluation has been based on a sound methodology, including consultation to the extent possible with stakeholders.
63. Management recognizes the limitations of funding at present available to EMPRES, which also translates into limitations in technical supervision and a cautious extension to regions other than the Central Region. As continuation of funding by donors beyond 2003 is far from secure, Management is seeking further pledges for funding to complement the resources that the Organization devotes to this programme.
64. Management recognizes that EMPRES/CR requires further staffing and technical inputs, in particular in the field. If such expertise were available in the field, the need for technical support from headquarters (AGPP) would be greatly reduced. In any case, the number and variety of activities covered by the programme inevitably mean that AGPP cannot provide detailed technical advice on all aspects. It follows that EMPRES/CR should seek technical advice from expert consultants as required and, within resources, this was included in the PWB 2002-2003. Management also accepts the recommendation that when the EMPRES Western Region develops a fully fledged field programme, additional staffing resources at headquarters will be needed to provide the necessary technical supervision.
65. Management agrees to the importance of economic considerations in the development and sustainable implementation of cost-effective and efficient strategies for the prevention of DL emergencies. Management also notes that detailed socio-economic studies on the control of other plant pests, even non-migratory ones, are very rare and costly. It considers that the present emphasis given to DL economics, including the sociological impacts of DL attacks, is sufficient with studies being conducted by EMPRES/CR and bilaterally by several agencies. In this respect, it notes that there is a limit to the number of socio-economic studies that can be carried out when locust populations are at very low levels. When the next locust outbreak occurs, it will be essential to collect data on crop and pasture damage, and the sociological side-effects of the locusts. Management fully agrees to the statement of the Peer Review Panel that the potential contribution of EMPRES to the public good in the widest sense is beyond evaluation in purely economic terms.
66. Management notes that some EMPRES studies are examining ways in which the costs of control can be significantly reduced, and it considers that an expansion of studies on this subject would be of great value.
67. Management notes the comments on information exchange of both the evaluation mission and the Peer Review Panel. It agrees that information dissemination needs more attention and that the EMPRES Web site needs to be strengthened.
68. Management recognizes the importance of research. It agrees to the recommendations of the evaluation mission on long-term sustainability of the research grant scheme. It notes that long-term support to research programmes has indeed been very difficult and it is considering ways to support such programmes further.
69. The suggestion of the Peer Review Panel to consider redeploying EMPRES Emergency Prevention Services for locusts to other transboundary pests needs to be considered very carefully. A number of services are also required in recession periods, while others may only be required during upsurges and plague situations. EMPRES-DL is built on the creation of sustainable national capacity to monitor locust populations as part of an early warning system. Any tendency to redeploy these resources during periods when the locust situation is calm may undermine the early warning capacity and lead to undetected locust outbreaks developing. Historically there are several examples of such scenarios, including the last major plague in 1986. On the other hand, resources for intervention during upsurges and plagues should be identified in countries’ emergency plans but may be in part or completely redeployed during recession periods.
70. Management notes that there are three issues related to the extension of EMPRES. First, there is the extension of EMPRES in relation to the DL to cover more fully the Western Region and also to include the Eastern Region. Second, in some countries covered by EMPRES-DL, an enlargement of the EMPRES mandate may cover other migratory pests such as other locusts, armyworm and quelea. Third, the extension of EMPRES to other migratory species may also include geographic regions different from those covered at present by EMPRES. The first two issues have been considered by the evaluation mission; in addition, the third issue was discussed by the Peer Review Panel. Management agrees with the Panel that in future an extension to include other migratory pest species covering other geographic areas is highly desirable. The extension of EMPRES to coordinate and improve the management of locust species in Central Asia, including Afghanistan, is considered to be a first priority and would incorporate environmentally friendlier integrated pest management (IPM) approaches. The Panel’s observation that an expansion to other species would involve few extra costs would hold for costs in countries in which EMPRES is already active, or for other countries where there are ongoing DL control activities. However, it would not necessarily apply, for example, to locusts in Central Asia. Furthermore, any enlargement cannot be achieved without additional resources both to cover required technical posts at headquarters and to fund field activities.
71. The Programme Committee found this evaluation useful, providing a concise assessment of progress being made in the implementation of the DL component of the EMPRES programme. It appreciated the informative comments of the external Peer Review Panel and the clear management response, noting that there was broad consensus between them on the main findings and recommendations. The Committee also agreed with the conclusion of the Panel that the concept of the programme was technically, strategically and politically sound and that it should be implemented as expeditiously as is practicable.
72. The Committee recognized the need for securing adequate extrabudgetary resources to ensure continuation of the activities in the Central Region and to provide effective support to the nascent programme in the Western Region as well as other priority areas, such as the Eastern Region. While noting with satisfaction the recent progress made in the Central Region under difficult conditions, the Committee shared the evaluation’s concern about the inadequate level of donor support to the programme in general. It stressed that extrabudgetary resources were essential to help the countries concerned in modernizing and in making best use of their existing national capacity, thus ensuring sustainability of DL management. The Committee noted that in setting relative priorities for countries to be assisted with the very limited resources available, the transboundary nature of DL made it essential to address groups of neighbouring countries for effective control and prevention. In this respect, the Committee noted with satisfaction the inclusion of funding for EMPRES in the FAO Trust Fund for Food Security and Food Safety. The Secretariat was making efforts to maintain close cooperation with various international research and technical organizations in developing alternative control methods that would respond better to growing environmental concerns, including biopesticides.
73. The Committee endorsed the main recommendations of the evaluation, including the need to ensure adequate RP and extrabudgetary resources to enable AGPP to perform its work. It also considered that it was desirable, as additional resources become available, to expand the coverage of the programme, both in terms of geographic areas and other pests with priority for locust species, so long as such expansion would not jeopardize the operations already initiated. In this respect, the Committee agreed that a first priority would be on countries in Central Asia to address locust problems in Afghanistan in a sustainable manner.
______________________________
3 PC 87/4 (b).
4 The EMPRES programme comprises two components: one for livestock (implemented mainly by the Animal Health Service [AGAH]) and one for plant pests (implemented by the Plant Protection Service [AGPP]).
5 Afghanistan, Benin, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mali, Pakistan, South Africa, the United Republic of Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe. Iraq was also included on the original list, but technical reasons made it impossible for the mission to be carried out.
6 The members of this independent panel were: Dr. Philippe Vialatte, Principal Administrator, European Commission, DG Development B/4; Dr. Jim Pearson, Director, Scientific and Technical Department, International Office of Epizootics (OIE); Dr. Subhash Morzaria, Head, Animal Health Programme, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI); Dr. Raja Rafaqat Hussain, Animal Husbandry Commissioner, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Pakistan; Dr. Stuart Hargreaves, Director of Veterinary Services, Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement, Zimbabwe; and Dr. Tony Forman, independent consultant and participant in missions to East and Southern Africa and Asia.
7 PC/87/REP, paras. 29-32
8 PC 87/4 (c).
9 Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mauritania, the Sudan and Yemen.
10 The members of this independent panel were: Dr. Graeme Hamilton (Australia), Director, Australian Plague Locust Commission, Canberra; Dr. Roger Price (South Africa), Manager, Locust Division, Plant Protection Research Institute, Pretoria; Dr. Mohamed Zehni (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), retired ex-Director of AGP and the former Research and Technology Development Division (AGR); Prof. Tecwyn Jones (United Kingdom), University of Wales and former Deputy Director of NRI, Department for International Development (DFID); Dr. Tayeb Ameziane El Hassani (Morocco), Professor of Agronomy and Director of National Drought Observatory; Dr. Mohammed M. El Hannan (the Sudan), Under-Secretary for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry; Prof. Hermann Waibel (Germany), University of Hanover.
11 PC/87/REP, paras. 33-35.