ORGANIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

2.2 ORGANIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

National and zonal levels, which are under the sector ministries at central level, mainly the MAFS and the Ministry of Water and Livestock Development (MWLD), as well as the Ministry of Cooperatives and Marketing (MCM); and Regional and local levels, including district, ward and village levels, which are the primary responsibility of the President’s Office – Regional Administration and Local Government (PO-RALG), and the concerned LGAs, with support from line ministries (MAFS, MWLD and MCM), through the Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institutes (ZARDIs).

Implementation at all levels would be governed by the principle of greater control by farmers and clients, in cooperation with the public sector agencies and, increasingly, with the private sector Agricultural Service Providers (ASPs), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and the civil society. Emphasis would be given on the transfer of jurisdiction over agricultural service provision to the farmers/clients and their representative forums. The roles and responsibilities for implementing the Programme are outlined below. These will be further developed in the Programme Implementation Plan (PIP), which will be prepared before the Programme becomes operational.

2.3 ZANZIBAR COMPONENT OF ASSP
The Zanzibar Components of the Program would be consistent with the overall objective, rationale and approach of the mainland ASSP. Its design is based on the commitment of Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Cooperative (MANREC) to participatory approaches and gradually devolving the provision of agricultural services to the private sector. The Zanzibar Component would consist of three sub-components:
Farmer Empowerment

Support to Agricultural Services and Linkages

Program Coordination, Quality Control and M & E
Farmer Empowerment would be promoted through the establishment of farmer empowerment group (such as Farmer Field Schools) and farmer fora that would build their knowledge and institutional capacity. In contrast to the corresponding component on the mainland, this sub-component would also strengthen the farmer empowerment groups in marketing, and through services provider to support member-based rural finance institutions, in financial management. Agricultural Services, covering both research and extension, would be provided in response to farmer demand, mainly through a District Research and Development Fund, which would employ criteria that place special emphasis on activities in the coral rag areas. Extension services would comprise a mixture of public, private and farmer-to-farmer training. Program coordination would be integrated in MANREC to strengthen Government’s capacity at central level and to provide optimal linkages with other activities. The program coordination team would consist of senior officeholders in the Planning, Research, Extension and Cooperative Departments and the ministry’s Pemba office. The Cooperative Department would play a key role in coordinating the support of a broad range of farmer organizations
The Zanzibar Component would be implemented in four of the nine rural districts of Zanzibar, two on Unguja and two on Pemba, the remaining five being supported by the World Bank-financed PADEP. The component’s cost estimates, which are still indicative at this stage, stand at about USD 6-7 million over the 7 year implementation period. Policy issue related to crop marketing subsidies for inputs and tractor hire have yet to be addressed, and require further discussion with the Government of Zanzibar.

3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND JUSTIFICATION

3.1 THE EXISTING LANDUSE PATTERN, AGRO-ECOLOGICAL AND FARMING ZONES

Farming systems are dictated by altitudes, temperature, rainfall and several other factors which sum up to agro-ecological zones.

• 
  Over dependence on rainfed agriculture and less on irrigation agriculture
  
• 
  Inadequacy of farming equipment e.g. predominance of the hand hoe
  
• 
  Difficulties of acquiring inputs e.g. fertilizers; pesticides etc either due to lack of credit facilities or simply lack of capital resources
  
• 
  Unreliability of markets; couples with lack of storage facilities etc
  

Thus conventional low-input and low-output agriculture production system has resulted in high rates of environmental land degradation. Maps 3.1 – 3.7 present summary of farming systems. They are on turn mainly based on Tanzania agro-ecological zones.

According to the JICA report of 2002 agro-ecological zone of Tanzania (see Map 3.8) are categorizable as follows:-

• 
  Coastal plains
  
• 
  Eastern plateaux and mountain blocks
  
• 
  High plains and plateaux
  
• 
  Volcanoes and rift depressions
  
• 
  Central plains
  
• 
  Rukwa-Ruaha rift zone (in alluvial plains)
  
• 
  Inland sedimentary sediments
  
• 
  Western highlands
  

The zones have distinguishing features in terms of soils and topography but it is pertinent to quickly add the fact that there is no cut line distinction. For example most high plains and plateaux are at relatively high altitude; but in the zone there are also places of low altitudes; in fact as low as 500m. Similarly in the volcanoes and rift depressions most soil/topographical characteristics are of medium altitude plains with mainly sandy and loam of low fertility. However there are also in the zone high altitude plateaux with volcanic ashes of high fertility.

3.2 PEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Until half a century ago crop protection practices were integral parts of any cropping system. Growing world population required dramatic increases of agricultural production. From the 1940’s to the 1970’s, a spectacular increase in yield was obtained with the aid of an intensive development of technology, including the development of a variety of agro-pesticides. In many countries this advancement was coupled with the development of education of farmers and efficient extension services. In many development countries, however, this foreign technology was dumped without adequate support systems. Agro-pesticides were often used injudiciously. Misuse and over-use was stimulated by heavy subsidies on agro-chemicals.

Many developing countries adopted a system of technology transfer in which a research apparatus developed or adapted technology that was transferred to farmers by an extension unit. Crop protection measures were often reduced to easy-to-use pesticide application recipes, aimed at immediate and complete destruction of the causal organism. In places where the use of improved varieties was propagated, packages of high-yielding varieties with high inputs of agro-pesticides and fertilisers made farmers dependent on high external inputs.
Recently, it was realised that this conventional approach has its disadvantages. Conspicuous drawbacks are:
Undesirable side-effects of pesticides

• 
  human toxicity; poisoning and residue problems
  
• 
  destruction of natural enemies and other non-target organisms
  
• 
  development of resistance in target organisms
  
• 
  environmental pollution and degradation
  

Pesticides are expensive and good management of their use requires skills and knowledge. Both often are lacking

For various reasons the (Research-Extension – Farmers) transfer of technology often does not work well. The technology is frequently inadequate and not adapted to the specific local needs.
Based on above, the following conclusions can be drawn:

• 
  Relying on the use of pesticides in not sustainable, their use is not human and often nor appropriate;
  
• 
  The development and transfer of technology should be improved.
  

Why IPM?
Because of the drawbacks mentioned, a crop protection approach is needed that is centred on local farmer needs that are sustainable, appropriate, environmentally safe and economic to use. Such approach is called Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
What is IPM?
There are many definitions of IPM exist. The FAO definition in 1967 state that:
“Integral control is a pest management system that in the context of the associated environment and the population dynamics of the pest species, utilizes all suitable techniques and method in as compatible manner as possible, and maintains the pest population at levels below those causing economic injury” (FAO, 1967. Report of the first session of the FAO panel of Experts on Integrated Pest Control, Rome, Italy, Sept. 18-22, 1967. 19 pp. is shown In: Bruin and Meerman, 2001).
In line with the WB OP 4.09, the policy supports safe, effective, and environmentally sound pest management aspects, such as the use of biological and environmental friendly control methods. As outlined in the Environmental Social Management Framework (ESMF), projects will prepare pest management plans should the need arise. Hence, an Integrated Pest Management Plan for the ASSP projects will serve as a guidance and reference document for the preparation of subproject PMP.

Precondition for an IPM approach
An understanding of the ecological interrelationships within a farming system (crop, plant, pests organisms and factors influencing their development)

An understanding of economical factors within a production system (infestation: loss ratio, market potential and product prices)

Understanding of socio-cultural decision-making behaviour of the farmers (traditional preferences, risk behaviour, etc)

The involvement of the farmers in the analysis of the plant protection problems and in the elaboration of solutions)

The successive creation of a legislative and agricultural policy framework conducive to a sustainable IPM strategy (plant quarantine legislation, pesticides legislation, pesticides legislation/pesticide registration, price policy)
Key characteristics of an IPM approach:

• 
  Use all available, suitable methods of prevention and control, including resistant varieties, cultural methods such as planting time, intercropping and crop rotation, biological control. Pesticides will only be used as a last resort, but preferably selective ones, or used in a selective way to prevent detrimental effects on natural enemies and other non-target organisms.
  
• 
  Conservation of the ecosystem, stimulate the presence of natural enemies
  
• 
  No total eradication of all noxious organisms, but keeping them at a low level
  
• 
  Technology is developed by farmers in close co-operation with researchers and extensionists
  
• 
  Farmers make their own decisions and carry them out.
  

The principles of an IPM:
Grow a healthy crop

Recognise pests, diseases, and natural enemies

Carry out regular observations

Makes the right crop protection decisions, through discussion with fellow farmers

Directory: curated
curated -> Concept stage
curated -> Concept stage
curated -> Republic of Côte d'Ivoire Urbanization Review
curated -> Report No: aus11011 Central America
curated -> Report No. 94474-pk fiscal Disaster Risk Assessment Options for Consideration
curated -> Environmental and Social Management Framework for the Costa Rica Telecommunications Sector Modernization Project
curated -> Environment Impact Assessment For Jiangxi Shangrao Sanqingshan Airport Beijing Guohuantiandi Environmental Technology Development Center. Ltd. Oct. 2012 Content
curated -> Growth through Innovation An Industrial Strategy for Shanghai By Shahid Yusuf Kaoru Nabeshima April 22nd, 2009
curated -> Report No: 70178. People's Republic of China

Download 1.87 Mb.

Share with your friends: