Damage caused by pests to agriculture affects the social and economic situation of population. In recent years the problem of BMSB outbreak and prevalence has become especially crucial, which has been especially negatively affecting the amount of harvested hazelnut crops and export rate.
The government in 2018, as compared to 2017, significantly enlarged the size of measures against BMSB and as a result pest population has reduced. Moreover, increase of the prevalence area of BMSB is not observed. Despite the progress, it was still possible to have certain measures planned and more effectively implemented.
The audit covers the issues on the effectiveness of preventive and response measures against outbreak and prevalence of pests throughout the country by identifying the gaps and providing the recommendations. Namely:
Gaps in preventive mechanisms of outbreak and prevalence of pests throughout the country
To ensure prevention of outbreak and prevalence of pests throughout the country, it is important to develop effective annual program based on phytosanitary control methodology. Often, full prevention of penetration of pests on the country’s territory is not possible, but its timely identification and instant implementation of actions enables the reduction of pest population, the localization within smaller prevalence and the reduction of damage.
There are gaps in the pest outbreak and prevalence prevention mechanisms in the country. BMSB was reported by the Agency in September 2016, after its wide spread on Georgia’s territory, with damage already caused by BMSB to the agro cultures. The monitoring mechanisms in place have not been sufficient and efficient for timely identification of the threat of spread of BMSB. Therefore, anti-pest measures taken were not of prevalence preventive nature but of further response.
The Agency’s phytosanitary control methodology being one of the most important preconditions for timely identification and prevention of pest outbreak and prevalence throughout the country, is of general nature and requires detailed specification.
Had the threat of BMSB outbreak and spread been timely identified, the government would have been able to earlier start the anti-BMSB actions and it would have enabled the localization of pest population on a smaller prevalence area.
Gaps in the anti-BMSB Measures taken
Gaps in the Strategy
Effective pest control is achievable by developing the relevant strategy and action plan covering the specific result-oriented detailed measures, rational grounds for setting the periods of their implementation, optimal estimation of resources, outputs to be delivered and their indicators. This will facilitate ongoing monitoring of the measures taken.
In implementing the measures against BMSB in 2017, the only main action plan of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture and National Food Agency was US experts’ recommendations and the Governmental Decree. In 2017, the Decree was supplemented by the action plan of fight against BMSB approved by the Governmental Commission, which is not detailed enough and allows for inconsistent interpretation and does not provide for outputs assessment indicators.
Moreover, measures, laid down under the Governmental Decree, to be implemented against the pest initially, in 2017, only covered three areas: monitoring, control measures and awareness raising, and in 2018 it was added the R&D works being one of the crucial components for fight against pest in a long-term.
Gaps in the area of Environmental Protection
It is important that anti-pest mechanisms are both effective and safe for the environment, humans and agriculture, which would be facilitated by using less toxic and effective chemicals as well as biological and mechanical appliances. Main means used against BMSB are pesticides. In general, chemicals, together with target pest, affect healthy insects and create threat to ecological equilibrium. Of note that during pest prevalence, to reduce population in a force majeure situation, fight with chemical method is the most successful one.
Experts from the USA provided information to the Agency on most effective insecticides against BMSB and recommended to determine their effectiveness in a local setting. In addition, they shared their experience that Bifenthrin is the most effective chemical and actively used in the US as it has both high destructive effect on the pest and the longest residual action taking the priority over other chemical substances.
Among anti-BMSB pesticides, Bifenthrin has been selected based only on the US experts’ advice, and deltamethrin - based on the Agency’s experience. Discussion of individual factors for selection of Bifenthrin are provided in various sources, including: presentation of American expert, video recordings of working meetings held with foreign experts, emails and guidance files. As for selection of deltamethrin-containing insecticide, the discussion is provided in the Agency’s internal official document demonstrating that thermal fogging has been effective in the past against Fall webworm moth. Moreover, the Agency conducted experimentation of deltamethrin-containing insecticide which showed positive assessment of biological effectiveness of thermal fogging against BMSB.
A single summarizing document showing the impact of each of the factors on final decision-making, to be considered in selection of optimal insecticides has not been drafted. This is important for institutional memory as well as for analysis and assessments to be performed by all stakeholders.
The scope of application of mechanical appliances and biologics, compared to chemical, is low. Out of mechanical appliances, mainly the so-called “attract-and-kill” traps are used.
It is important to note that by reduction of chemical measures, application of biological preparations, biological agents and mechanical appliances will support reduction of the risk of damage to the environment.
Gaps in the Area of Complex Control
Effective control of pest population and minimization of economic loss is possible by as full as possible control of the prevalence area to prevent migration of a pest from untreated areas to adjacent premises.
Despite the annual increase of the size of measures taken by the Agency against BMSB, and improved results generated in comparison to the previous year, there is a need for improvement of mechanisms applied for achieving integrated control. Measures implemented against BMSB failed to cover certain part of the pest prevalence area and thus was less effective as evidenced by the following factors:
- The 2017 plan provided for treatment of only hazelnut culture and only the lands with less than 5 ha area. However, it should be noted that additionally part of maize lands were also treated. As explained by the Agency, according to the 2017 plan, treatment of hazelnut lands with more than 5 ha area was not foreseen for the following reasons: “Their owners are large entrepreneurs and they should take plant protection measures with their own efforts. Measures to be taken by the Government covered main vulnerable group of population, majority of whom possessed hazelnut plantations from 0 to 5 ha area”. However, there are no controls of assurance that large entrepreneurs treated their own lands.
- In 2017, it was planned to give insecticides to the population. Based on the results of the Agency’s survey (734 beneficiaries surveyed) we could presume that out of 230 000 households in 2017 approximately 25% of them have not used the pesticides given to them at all.
- In 2018, mainly hazelnut and maize lands were sprayed, and residents’ homestead lands were treated only on nearby roadsides, within 150-meter radius.
- Mainly thermal fogging was used through respiratory exposure to pest and has no residual action. Based on the above-mentioned circumstances, there were remaining some untreated lands from where the risk of migration of BMSB to treated areas was high.
As explained by the Agency: „It should be noted, that based on the program approved under the Decree No 224 of the Government of Georgia dated 30 January 2019 on Measures to be taken in the country against BMSB, the Government has not assumed the obligation that it would be able to solve the problem of BMSB with its own efforts only and without active involvement of public. Consequently, as much as possible involvement of public was foreseen in the course of taking the measures, under the slogan “Let’s fight BMSB together”. With specialized equipment available for the Agency intended for treatment of large areas, it is not permissible to take mass spraying works with residual-action bifenthrin in homestead lands of the residents where various agricultural and decorative cultures as well as domestic animals are present”.
Gaps in the Area of Public Awareness Raising
In fighting against pests, community involvement and understanding of their role is crucially important since major part of agro cultures are enclosed in the yards. BMSB overwinters in buildings. Destroying the hibernation phase is the precondition for preventing the increase in the quantity of pest for the coming year. Raising of public awareness will facilitate their increased involvement and positively affect reduction of the quantity of BMSB.
Public awareness raising activities implemented by the Agency during 2017-2018 cost about GEL 900 000. The main source of information campaign was media, social networks, printed material and direct interactions with the population.
Despite supplying the information to the population through various means, the awareness level is low. Awareness mechanisms used by the Agency are necessary but insufficient.
About 230 000 households are benefiting from the program. Out of 945 recordings provided by the Agency, in 270 instances (29%) the population is not informed about the methods of fighting the pests, instructions for use of pesticides, and measures to be taken by the Agency. It is also important to note that from the incoming calls in 590 cases (62%) the population is requesting that Government should take response actions and treat their orchards. This points out that the population does not have the understanding of its role in fighting the pests although every household was given one-liter pesticide and printed information material concerning fight against pests including the methods of fighting pests, use of pesticides and safety measures in household settings.
Therefore, in these terms, effective mechanisms need to be developed, measures enhanced and better community involvement assured. To improve level of public awareness on plant protection and health safety, it might be more helpful and effective to directly provide information to them, to identify focus groups by priorities and deliver trainings on the importance of public involvement and the methods of fighting not only against BMSB but against pests in general.
