Chapter One: Evaluation of the Animal Health Component of Programme 2.1.3³

I. INTRODUCTION

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).

II. OVERVIEW OF FAO’S ANIMAL HEALTH WORK

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.

• Early warning. This encompasses disease control initiatives (based predominantly on epidemiological surveillance) that lead to improved knowledge of disease distribution, so that further evolution of an outbreak can be anticipated.
• Early/rapid reaction. This involves the rapid and effective containment of disease occurrences, which limits their spread and impact. It also includes contingency planning and emergency preparedness.
• Enabling research. Collaboration between FAO and scientific centres of excellence directs research efforts towards solving problems in transboundary disease control.
• Coordination. This relates to international and regional disease control activities that are coordinated through a variety of mechanisms, the most important of which is the Global Rinderpest Eradication Programme (GREP).

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:

• infectious diseases (including EMPRES, GREP, the Transboundary Animal Disease Information System [TADInfo] and the Regional Animal Disease and Surveillance Control Network [RADISCON] for North Africa, the Middle East and the Arab Peninsula);
• parasitic diseases (including PAAT); and
• veterinary services.

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.

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

20. EMPRES has achieved important results in its four main areas of activity, particularly in GREP.

• Early warning. Software for TADInfo has been developed and adopted by several countries for their national animal disease database. Disease surveillance systems have been promoted and countries assisted in the development of early warning systems. RADISCON for North Africa, the Middle East and the Arab Peninsula has been established by an FAO/International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) partnership.
• Early reaction. Guides to contingency planning and Good Emergency Management Practices (GEMP) have been prepared, and workshops held in Africa, Central Europe and Asia. Some countries have undertaken improved contingency planning.
• Enabling research. Research into priority diseases and vaccine development has been promoted. A list of world reference laboratories and other institutes allows EMPRES and member countries to identify sources of technical and scientific support. Diagnostic capabilities have been introduced and expanded in developing countries.
• Coordination. GREP has converted separate regional eradication initiatives into a global programme with a valuable rapid response capability. The GREP Secretariat has drawn up an action plan to achieve the goal of global freedom from the disease by 2010, and partial or complete successes have been achieved in several locations; however, the essential programme for the international verification of worldwide freedom lacks assured funding. The Regional Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia and the Pacific (APHCA) and the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (EUFMD) act as fora for the regional coordination of activities in their respective areas of operation.
• Field projects. A large majority of projects supported EMPRES in the above areas. In particular, 23 projects provided direct support to EMPRES. All were considered to be relevant to national needs and, in general, were well implemented. The evaluation missions gave particularly high scores to the seven projects related to rinderpest.

21. The main results in other (non-EMPRES) areas included:

• Environmental management of insect-borne diseases. Science-based standards for tsetse and trypanosomiasis control are the most important element here. PAAT was started in 1995 as the forum through which control and eradication efforts are coordinated. PAAT supports the Pan African Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Eradication Campaign (PATTEC) initiated in 2000, but harmonization between PAAT and PATTEC needs to be improved.
• Integrated parasite control and drug resistance. A Working Group on Parasite Resistance (WGPR) was established in 1997 to assist FAO in preparing guidelines on the subject. Two regional reference laboratories and three information networks concerned with ticks and helminths were established, and FAO is acting as a forum for the coordination of resistance issues.
• Veterinary services. RP work has aimed at helping governments to reinvigorate public veterinary health programmes by focusing them on World Health Organization (WHO) initiatives that increase the benefits that national livestock industries can derive from global trade. However, the recent privatization of many clinical veterinary services has led to changes in FAO’s veterinary health work and now only very limited RP funds are available for public veterinary health work.
• Field projects. Seven of the nine non-EMPRES TCP projects that were evaluated were not judged as highly as the EMPRES ones. The reasons for this include the greater government support that EMPRES projects attract and the two-year time limit imposed on TCP projects, which is not long enough to bring significant results for tsetse and parasite interventions. In other cases, projects had not taken sufficient account of local conditions and other limiting factors.

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.

1. FAO should continue to promote the improvement of disease surveillance systems, particularly at national level, through dialogue with partners in the donor community.
2. There is a risk that GREP’s successes with the control and eradication of rinderpest may lead to unrealistic expectations of success against other diseases that are more difficult to control.
3. In encouraging emergency prevention planning for transboundary diseases other than rinderpest, while strategic diseases for global or regional elimination can be recognized, it may be a more useful criterion for most interventions, rather than disease lists, to recognize transboundary disease situations and events in which the threat to a country comes from an outside source.
4. AGAH should clarify the EMPRES mandate in order to establish whether it embraces, beyond “emergency prevention”, the promotion of improved disease surveillance, epidemiology, control and eradication planning and policies for disease situations with transboundary implications.
5. The shortage of staff in the EMPRES-Livestock Group should be redressed, or greater discrimination should be applied to accepting TCP requests. Furthermore, FAO should intensify its efforts to obtain extrabudgetary funding for EMPRES activities.
6. FAO’s work on veterinary services may be absorbed within EMPRES with key focus on work related to contingency planning.
7. More concrete arrangements should be made among the various agencies involved in PAAT and PATTEC.
8. FAO should clarify its perceived medium- and long-term role in integrated parasite control and drug resistance and how it intends to interact with other concerned bodies in this area.
9. While FAO’s collaborative working arrangements with other agencies have been generally good, there are still potential conflicts of interest with the Organization of African Unity Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (OAU-IBAR) regarding PAAT and PATTEC activities and this relationship needs to be carefully nurtured.
10. For field activities, the main lessons identified in the review of animal health projects should be taken into account in formulation and implementation.

REPORT OF THE EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW PANEL⁶

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.

Panel findings

1. The external Review Panel appreciates the evaluation process and endorses, with one exception, the conclusions and recommendations presented within the Evaluation Report.
2. The Panel recognized that there is a high demand for assistance in animal health from member countries and this is reflected in an active RP of activities and also in a high level of participation of AGAH in TCP activities.
3. The Panel was impressed by the commitment demonstrated by the Chief of AGAH and by the professionalism and dedication of his staff. The team is highly competent and productive and has responded well to the heavy demands placed upon it by RP activities and the substantial load of TCP and other unplanned activities.
4. While the heavy contribution of AGAH to TCP represents a particular challenge, it has also been an opportunity, which the staff have utilized extremely well, to undertake operational aspects of their work programme in the field, and to maintain a presence and appropriate balance between normative and operational activities.
5. The current structure of AGAH was established in 1994 and includes an Infectious Diseases Group, a Parasitic Diseases Group and a Veterinary Services Group. The EMPRES programme has become a major element of the Infectious Diseases Group, reflecting the priority placed on it by FAO. In particular, its coordination of GREP, which is its main operational focus, has played a pivotal role in the success seen in controlling the disease and is on target for achieving disease freedom in 2010.
6. Rapid changes are occurring globally in the context of livestock trade and the recognition of the importance of livestock in food security and poverty alleviation. These changes are reflected in the changing priorities of FAO and the Panel believes that it is important for AGAH to position itself strategically to meet these changing demands.
7. The Panel has, however, identified some key concerns. In particular, it believes that the human resource limitation is so acute, and the unprogrammed demands on staff so great, that AGAH is severely constrained in the implementation of its RP activities. Key areas that need to be addressed are indicated in the recommendations below.

Recommendations

Strategy

25. The Panel notes that AGAH participates in the strategic planning and prioritization process that has been adopted by FAO.

• AGAH needs to define and articulate its strategy more clearly within the MTP.
• Given the limited resources available, the next medium-term planning exercise needs to be followed by a process of eliminating the lowest priority activities.

Resource allocation

• Despite the potential for alleviating the workload by eliminating low-priority activities, much of the demand placed on AGAH comes increasingly from unscheduled activities, including technical cooperation projects (TCPs). The Panel finds it difficult to see how an appropriate level of service can be sustained without the allocation of additional staff. The Panel therefore recommends that FAO give serious consideration to increasing the staff of AGAH.
• The EMPRES programme is one area that clearly requires such additional resources. The Global Trust Fund for the Special Programme for Food Security (SPFS) and EMPRES, currently being established, would appear to present one opportunity for funding such an initiative.
• Other extrabudgetary sources of long-term, secure funding should also be explored. Responsibility for pursuing this action needs to be clearly identified.
• Consideration should be given to redefining the responsibilities of some regional animal production and health staff, to place a greater emphasis on the areas determined to be of highest priority.

Strengthening linkages

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.

• The Panel notes that policy elements in the EMPRES programme need strengthening and recommends an enhanced interaction between AGAH and the Livestock Information, Sector Analysis and Policy Branch (AGAL).
• AGAH has a particular strength as a source of expertise. This should be better utilized by providing new concepts to address current and future issues in the livestock subsector such as technical issues (disease surveillance, reforms of veterinary services) and policy analysis formulation and implementation.
• AGAH also has a communication and advisory role that should be more effectively exploited to enhance the importance of animal health for poverty reduction strategies in developing countries.

Structure

27. It is recommended that AGAH redefine the structure and responsibilities of the groups in order to be consistent with their broader objectives.

• In particular, the activities of the Parasitic Diseases Group need to be more focused and directed towards achieving the objectives of the division.

The Veterinary Services Group

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.

• It is recommended that the Veterinary Services Group remain as a separate entity and its role redefined. It should have a broader role in support for reform and strengthening of regulatory veterinary services to underpin national disease surveillance and control at all levels.

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

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.

1. For the EMPRES programme the Evaluation Report detected a weakness in the early reaction element which it attributes to: (i) the complexity of the concept of contingency planning; (ii) the newness of the concept; and (iii) lack of resources, both staff and non-staff. All three reasons are valid. Even after the decision to devote more time and resources to the development of TADInfo, to undertake some modelling initiatives, and to promote the advancement of GEMP, much more is still to be achieved. Such progress is also required in the FAO Regional Offices where necessary strengthening of professional presence will help EMPRES develop competence in its twin technical pillars, i.e. surveillance (early warning) and contingency planning (early reaction).
    
2. The Evaluation Report and the report of the external Review Panel differ in their recommendations with respect to the Veterinary Services Group. The Report recommends that it be folded into the EMPRES programme, particularly to strengthen disease early reaction. The Panel, on the other hand, recommends that the Veterinary Services Group be maintained and strengthened so as to enable it to provide greater assistance to member country veterinary authorities, noting that "what is a high 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".

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.

3. The Evaluation Report states that "the work on resistance features little in FAO's programme planning documents" and has a valid point when mentioning that "work in parasitology is not mentioned in the MTP 2002-2007 and work on parasites is given only a passing general reference in the PWB 2002-03". AGAH is working towards improving and consolidating the activities of the Parasitic Diseases Group. This group is increasing its presence in the field of veterinary public health, in particular of parasitic zoonoses. The consequences of such shifts will be evaluated carefully, both in terms of programme priorities as indicated above and in terms of resource allocation.
    
4. The Evaluation Report documented a generally satisfactory impact of animal health-related TCPs and Trust Fund (TF) field projects, which is noted with satisfaction. It found, however, that the non-emergency TCPs received a generally lower rating than those related more directly to acute animal disease emergencies and falling under the EMPRES mandate. AGAH recognizes opportunities to lift these broader, more development-oriented TCP projects to higher levels of impact.

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.

REPORT OF THE PROGRAMME COMMITTEE⁷

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.

Chapter Two: Programme Evaluation of
EMPRES-Desert Locust⁸

I. INTRODUCTION

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.

II. OVERVIEW OF THE EMPRES-DL PROGRAMME

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:

• increasing the level of coordination of DL monitoring, survey and control activities in the Central Region by facilitating networking among national, regional and international organizations and by strengthening information exchange systems;
• establishing an improved DL early warning system based on meteorological forecasts, remote sensing and the collection and analysis of field information;
• strengthening and improving national preventive control capacities through improved planning, training, provision of equipment and operational resources, and the field testing of new control technologies;
• formulating improvements in the DL emergency prevention strategy through evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency and economic and environmental soundness of current approaches and new technologies.

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.

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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:

• increases by some governments to their resource allocations for preventive control;
• more intensive cooperation between EMPRES/CR and the CRC;
• the effective reinstatement of a full-time post of CRC Secretary at FAO;
• the likely expansion of CRC membership to fit the distribution of the DL outbreak areas (Djibouti joined in 2001);
• the creation of a unified regional DL structure in the Western Region (CLCPRO).

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.

1. Regarding programme management, FAO and EMPRES/CR should monitor progress carefully in countries where delays have occurred. If delays in progress continue, they should be brought to the attention of higher-level FAO management and the EMPRES/CR Consultative Committee, and solutions should be sought with the concerned authorities.
2. FAO should consider revising existing terms of reference and establishing an additional technical position to assist in the implementation of EMPRES/CR activities. In the event of EMPRES/WR becoming operational, the Plant Production and Protection Division (AGP) should review whether AGPP’s staffing resources are sufficient to manage and administer two major regional field projects effectively while continuing with other routine activities. In the same context, FAO should consider using external experts to assist with the technical monitoring of EMPRES field activities.
3. FAO should engage in dialogue with donors to clarify the possible reasons for their apparent reluctance to fund EMPRES/WR activities. FAO and EMPRES/CR should also undertake more detailed appraisals of proposed bilateral research activities to be implemented under EMPRES/CR and, where required, liaise with the bilateral agencies concerned to ensure that these activities align with core EMPRES/CR objectives.
4. FAO should consider widening the mandate of EMPRES-DL to include other relevant plant pests and additional locust-affected regions.
5. Research should be initiated on the economic benefits of preventive DL control, and on the political and social implications of DL outbreaks and possible control or remediation measures.
6. The development of CFPs is regarded as an important tool and EMPRES/CR should renew efforts to assist countries to develop and implement their CFPs.
7. EMPRES/CR, CRC and FAO should give consideration to the longer-term sustainability of the research grant scheme. FAO and EMPRES/CR should also develop research contingency plans and establish priorities to facilitate field research in the event of an outbreak of DL populations in the Central and Western Regions. The development of joint research activities and joint training programmes between EMPRES/WR and EMPRES/CR should be considered in order to ensure the efficient use of resources, the standardization of approaches and a more general exchange of ideas.
8. Regarding the future technical support of the Natural Resource Institute (NRI), it may be useful for EMPRES management to initiate an issues paper which would serve as the basis for discussions to define the future use of the Reconnaissance and Management System of the Environment of Schistocerca (RAMSES), including the possible development of additional modules. If possible, the issues paper should also include indicative costings.
9. FAO should arrange for additional technical inputs to be provided to the Desert Locust Information Service (DLIS) so that satellite images can be provided to some countries and ground-truthing surveys carried out. The results should be analysed and written up as a guide to the advantages and limitations of using satellite images when planning locust surveys.
10. There is further scope to involve the countries of the Eastern Region in such EMPRES activities as training and access to research information, especially through the creation of additional EMPRES Web sites as envisaged by the FAO/Norway project. Web sites are a very useful tool for the dissemination of EMPRES results. A joint CRC/EMPRES/CR web site should be considered, especially in view of the recent co-location of management personnel in Cairo. As well as information, results and reports, FAO should also consider making training materials on DL available via the web.

REPORT OF THE EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW PANEL¹⁰

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.

Quality of the evaluation

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.

Panel findings and recommendations

57. The Panel endorses the findings and recommendations in general, and highlights the following points.

1. The concept of EMPRES-DL is technically, economically, strategically and politically sound and should be implemented as expeditiously and vigorously as is practically possible.
2. The outcome of EMPRES/CR as the first operational programme is that, in terms of emergency prevention systems, the essentials are in place. Expertise, techniques, technicians, materials and equipment, information and communication services, and regional networking have been upgraded and the Central Region Commission Secretariat is established and operating. EMPRES/CR is a success and thus, with adequate external support, similar success can be expected with EMPRES/WR and, in due course, with EMPRES/ER.
3. There is an urgent need to mobilize donor funding for regional programmes in both the Western and Eastern Regions. With the trend for thematic orientation in donor approach, including the recent establishment of a global trust fund (TF) at FAO, it is apposite to explore the most appropriate funding arrangement for this programme. It is suggested that, because the programme is expected to operate in various regions (Central, Western and Eastern) with distinct regional activities, a dual system of funding may be considered, whereby EMPRES core, mostly normative activities are funded by a “Pool Fund” (FAO RP budget and TF with matching contributions by bilateral donors), while region-specific activities will be financed mainly by bilateral donors with FAO technical support.
4. The issue of inadequate staffing levels at FAO headquarters and in the field is of critical importance, especially in ensuring adequate technical support to the programme and technical monitoring in the field, and the recommendations are strongly supported.
5. The programme for training trainers is an essential element in capacity building and the Panel endorses the need to monitor the impact of training. Furthermore, it highlights the need for performance assessment of trainers and a longer-term strategy for sustaining and improving expertise at all appropriate levels. The CRC/EMPRES-sponsored diploma course at Khartoum University is seen as a valuable initiative that should be developed elsewhere in the regions, and the plan to produce training manuals is strongly endorsed. Joint Central and Western Region training programmes would enable more efficient use of resources and harmonization of training methods and standards.
6. Information and its dissemination are also an important issue and the recommendation for updating the Web site and for the networking of timely information on the Web site is endorsed. A stronger EMPRES Web site with relevant country Web links is necessary, and help needs to be provided to countries to create and sustain national Web sites with topical information.
7. Economic consideration is essential in developing and sustaining the most cost-effective and efficient strategies for the prevention of DL emergencies – the programme should be more proactive on this issue. To date, mostly academic studies have been undertaken and largely on an ad hoc basis without the benefit of guidance of the EMPRES programme regarding the broad spectrum of issues to be considered in such studies. EMPRES has a role in reviewing and evaluating any relevant studies undertaken and in commissioning more comprehensive studies as it moves from crisis to risk management.
8. CFPs are fundamentally important to the successful implementation of EMPRES, as the primary vehicle for programme implementation is the DLU in the member country. The evaluation mission suggests there has been a de-emphasis of CFPs in EMPRES/CR Phase II, although AGPP staff consider this to be an oversight rather than a deliberate action. The Panel considers that not only should the importance of CFPs be re-emphasized, but that they should receive greater attention than in the past, as they are critical to the successful implementation and sustainment of improvements made under EMPRES. For each member country, the CFP needs to consider the best way to develop and maintain locust control capacity within the context of the organizational and policy framework of that country. A “one size fits all approach” will not support effective implementation.
9. The research function is integral to the programme, including promoting improved technologies and methods – not least those for greening control regions through use of biopesticides. The research needed to address all these issues is beyond the capacity of EMPRES and, therefore, FAO should enhance its advocacy role to make known what research is needed and encourage response by relevant research organizations and/or through externally funded projects, especially for joint regional research.

Additional suggestions for the future

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.

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE

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.

REPORT OF THE PROGRAMME COMMITTEE¹¹

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.