Required citation:

FAO. 2022. Technical guidance on fall armyworm – Coordinated surveillance and an early warning system for the sustainable management of transboundary pests, with special reference to fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda [J.E. Smith]) in South and Southeast Asia. Bangkok. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0227en

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

ISBN 978-92-5-136266-2
E-ISBN 978-92-5-137253-1 (MOBI)
© FAO, 2022

Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode).

Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.”

Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.

Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.

Cover photograph: ©RGFAW

Contents

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations and acronyms

Executive summary

SECTION A: INTRODUCTION AND DRAFTING PROCESS

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

1.2. The need for regional guidance on transboundary pests

1.3. The regional response and current gaps

1.4. Monitoring and early warning system – regional status

1.5. Scope and objectives of the regional guidelines

2. Approach to drafting the guidance

3. Results of the drafting process

3.1. SWOT analysis

3.2. Results of stakeholder consultations

Monitoring

Sustainable practices

Plant quarantine

Reporting and communication

Policy

Financing

SECTION B: TECHNICAL GUIDANCE

4. Recommendations by key area

4.1. Key Area 1: Stakeholder coordination and policy change

4.2. Key Area 2: Surveillance, EWS and emergency preparedness

4.3. Key Area 3: Advocacy, awareness and knowledge about FAW

4.4. Key Area 4: Technical capacity of the plant protection and expansion system

4.5. Key Area 5: Surveillance, EWS and emergency preparedness

4.6. Key Area 6: Implementing IPM for FAW 24

4.7. Key Area 7: Innovative research

4.8. Overarching remarks

5. Technical assistance and resource mobilization

6. Monitoring and evaluation

6.1. Monitoring and evaluation at country level

6.2. Monitoring and evaluation at the regional level

6.3. National forums and national task force meetings

6.4. Publications: national and regional

6.5. Impact analysis: social and economic impact, and direct and indirect benefits

Bibliography

ANNEX I

List of institutions consulted

ANNEX II

List of stakeholders consulted in the regional consultations/guidance validation workshop

ANNEX III

Guiding principles for managing invasive species

ANNEX IV

Pest management decision guide for the fall armyworm on maize

Boxes

Box 1. Key takeaways from the regional SWOT analysis

Box 2. Key principles to be observed when designing a communications framework for communicating on pest outbreaks

Box 3. Key areas for capacity building

Box 4. Prerequisites for successful implementation of IPM for FAW

Box 5. A successful strategy for implementing IPM

Figures

Figure 1. A summary of the guidances developed for the sustainable management of the fall armyworm for Asia

Figure 2. Three-tier hierarchy of stakeholders at regional, national and local levels who form the audience for the guidances

Figure 3. SWOT analysis for Bangladesh

Figure 4. SWOT analysis for India

Figure 5. SWOT analysis for the Philippines

Figure 6. SWOT analysis for Indonesia

Figure 7. SWOT analysis for Viet Nam

Figure 8. SWOT analysis for Cambodia

Figure 9. The invasion curve

Figure 10. Invasive species system components

Figure 11. SEWR system for transboundary pests

Figure 12. Steps in developing and rolling out an IPM training programme

Figure 13. Management strategy for FAW

Figure 14. IPM pyramid

Tables

Table 1. Agro-ecological practices suited to different stages of the FAW life cycle, and their suitability for adoption in Asia

Table 2. Scientific recommendations for different stages of FAW and the suitability of their implementation in Asia

Table 3. Dos and don’ts when implementing the recommendations for sustainable management of FAW

Foreword

Agriculture is a central pillar of most Asian economies, driving aggregate growth while providing nutrition, food security and livelihoods. Small-scale family agriculture has become indispensable for the integrated socioeconomic development of rural areas across South and Southeast Asia. Even though rice and wheat continue to be prime cereal staples, maize cultivation has steadily expanded over the past two decades. Maize has gained prominence because of minimum support prices, swelling market demand from animal feed or processing industries, and human consumption. Maize has also become a much-desired crop in settings where meteorological conditions, such as precipitation, have limited rice cultivation, and it is increasingly grown in peri-urban environments.

Since 2018, Asian maize production has been crippled by a highly mobile, voracious insect pest, the fall armyworm (FAW) (Spodoptera frugiperda). Native to the Americas, this noctuid moth has invaded both the continent of Africa and of Asia with its transboundary spread and proliferation encouraged by climate change, global trade and agricultural intensification. Since it arrived in Asia, FAW has lowered maize yields, diminished farmer profits and triggered an increase in pesticide use. As such, FAW is having serious negative socio-environmental impacts and is compromising food and nutrition security at the regional level. The current over-reliance on chemical crop protection equally affects biodiversity and ecosystem services, undermines the resilience of agrifood production, aggravates water pollution, and threatens human, animal and environmental health.

Multiple factors impede a swift and effective mitigation response to this transboundary pest. Throughout the Asia-Pacific region, the necessary human resources are lacking for pest surveillance, field-level monitoring, and early warning. Weak collaboration among local, national, and regional actors further lowers rapid response capacity and slows the diffusion of more sustainable crop protection technologies such as biological controls or integrated pest management (IPM). National capacities also need to be strengthened in fields such as applied research, farmer extension and stakeholder education.

In response to this situation, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the united Nations (FAO) has prepared this technical guidance on early warning systems (EWS) and sustainable management of the fall armyworm for 2022–2026. The guidance aim to attain a regionally coordinated management of FAW and to promote crop protection practices that protect human and environmental health. By doing so, FAO intends to support the restoration of maize yields, lift farmer incomes, safeguard food and nutrition security while alleviating the “One Health” burden of agrochemical use. This work emphasizes how an Asia-regional approach is highly appropriate to resolve FAW issues and is crucial to advance the uptake of good agricultural practices and IPM. This approach is also in line with the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and of the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Agricultural Policies.

This technical guidance offer a systematic review of the FAW programmes across the Asia-Pacific region. This document thereby serves as a valuable compass for FAO and its development partners to identify opportunities for inter-country cooperation, capacity building and technical backstopping. As such, the necessary momentum can be built to defuse transboundary pests in a way that optimally benefits farmers, the environment and human society.

Jong-Jin Kim

Assistant Director General and Regional Representative

Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (FAO-RAP) for funding this work.

We are also very grateful for the valuable contributions of those who participated in regional consultations and validation workshops, hailing from Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Viet Nam.

We are particularly grateful to the following organizations:

In Bangladesh: the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre and Ispahani Agro Limited.

In Cambodia: The Plant Protection, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Department at the General Directorate of Agriculture and the Ministry of Agriculture.

In India: the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine, and Storage, the Indian Agricultural and Research Institute, the Indian Institute of Maize Research, the National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources, the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, and state agricultural universities – the University of Agricultural Sciences, the University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Punjab Agricultural University, and Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University – and Bayer Crop Science Limited.

In Indonesia: Universitas Gadjah Mada and the Pest Forecasting Institute.

In the Philippines: the Philippine Rice Research Institute, the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Plant Industry, the Philippines University of Philippines at Los Baños, and the Philippines National Crop Protection Centre.

In Viet Nam: The Plant Protection Research Institute.

The guidance have been technically edited by Dr Malvika Chaudhary of the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI), Dr Manju Thakur (CABI), Kavitha Srinivas, Dr Krishan Kumar and Dr Ravi Joshi, from the Philippines. Thanks is also due to Yubak Dhoj GC, Senior Agricultural Officer (Plant Protection) at The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), for his work coordinating the project with the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International in India.

Abbreviations and acronyms

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BARI Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute

BCA Biological Control Agents

BPH brown planthopper

CABI Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International

CESAS Cost, efficacy, safety, accessibility and scalability

CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre

CMD Cassava Mosaic Disease

COVID-19 coronavirus disease 2019

DOA Department of Agriculture

EWS Early warning systems

FAD Flavin Adenine Dinucleotide

FAMEWS FAW Monitoring and Early Warning System

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FAW Fall armyworm

GIS Geographical Information System

ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research

IFN Interferons

IPM Integrated pest management

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention

IRRI International Rice Research Institute

ISPM International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

NBAIR National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources (India)

PhilRice Philippine Rice Research Institute

PPRI Plant Protection Research Institute (Viet Nam)

PRA Pest risk analyses

RCPC Regional Crop Protection Center

SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

SEWR Surveillance, early warning and response

SWOT Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

UAHS University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences (India)

USAID United States Agency for International Development

Executive summary

Worldwide, maize is the third most important cereal after rice and wheat. It occupies 197 million hectares of planted area. Asia contributes to nearly 30 percent of global maize supplies, and area and production of the crop is rapidly increasing in the continent. Minimum support prices, swelling market demand from the animal feed and processing industries, as well as human consumption, have all led to increased maize production in zones where precipitation limits rice cultivation.

However, maize production is currently threatened by the arrival in Asia (in 2018) of the fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) – a native to North America. It invaded India in 2018 and since then it has marched to most of the Asian countries. In 2019, its presence was confirmed in 13 Asian countries including Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, and Viet Nam. In 2020, it was confirmed in Australia, Timor-Leste and Papua New Guinea. In August 2021, it reached the Solomon Islands, posing a serious threat to other Pacific islands. FAW is a fast-dispersing, migratory, transboundary insect pest. While high FAW incidences have been reported on several crops in Asia, the most important economic damage caused is to maize (followed by sorghum). The FAW invasion threatens the food security of millions of family farms in Asia, with smallholder farmers being especially vulnerable. The negative economic impact of FAW is not only evident in yield loss: the pest also leads to a significant increase in insecticide applications, with associated health, environmental and cost issues. At the same time, resilience to FAW on the continent is currently weakened by the limited access to necessary tools, technologies and sustainable integrated pest management (IPM) practices for FAW. Thus, there is an urgent need to implement an effective approach to FAW management in Asia.

Recent analysis has revealed several strengths and weaknesses regarding managing FAW in Asia. Strengths include high awareness of the magnitude of the problem, an increasing inventory of biopesticides and the availability of emergency funds. Weaknesses include a lack of understanding of real yield losses caused by the pest, and a general lack of knowledge of the most effective and cost-effective measures for FAW management, as well as a lack of mass production of biological agents.

Extensive stakeholder consultations show that there is a need for the following regarding Asia’s response to FAW:

• greater investment in research to develop sustainable FAW management options;

• validating different FAW management options and implementing large-scale demonstration of the most effective ones;

• developing a regional insecticide resistance management plan; and

• establishing a single coordinating body with multi-stakeholder representation for the region that coordinates the development and implementation of sustainable FAW management.

Further requirements are set out in the following paragraphs.

FAW is already fully established in tropical/subtropical Asia and seasonal FAW migrations also pose a serious threat for maize farmers in areas further north. Thus, a sound forecasting system for FAW needs to be established to alert farmers to the threat as early as possible. To be most effective, this system should function region-wide, but it should also operate at a local scale. It could use the FAW Monitoring and Early Warning System (FAMEWS) mobile app, which brings together locally collected data and provides advice to farmers on managing the pest.

International guidelines suggest several cultural control methods for the sustainable management of FAW, and many specific methods are recommended for Asia, including those making use of host plant resistance. However, these methods may not always be sufficient for FAW control (as well as being labour-intensive).

Conservation biocontrol approaches appear to be promising and more research is recommended on the impact of natural enemies. In this context, the avoidance of broad-spectrum pesticides is clearly of high relevance, so as not to put beneficial insects at risk.

Several effective biologically-based products are available in the region, and these should be given priority. Biocontrol practices must be tailored to regional challenges within an IPM framework. Further research is needed to identifying promising indigenous microbial and microbial isolates, and to develop pheromone technology.

It is further recommended that support be provided for local production units involved in producing biological control agents as locally available eco-friendly options for FAW management.

Monitoring is necessary to track the future evolution of FAW concerning pesticide resistance and host expansion. This should be used to tailor modified IPM.

Agro-ecological approaches should aim to minimize pesticide inputs and, where possible, be based on the least-toxic products available, to encourage conservation of biocontrol and avoid damaging human and environmental health. Finally, Asian maize growers should be made aware of key features of this new invasive pest, and appropriate control options. To this end, a large training programme should be implemented, the main content for which should be developed as a joint regional effort. Importantly, the focus needs to be on sustainability – both financially and environmentally. In line with this, the technical capacity of plant protection and extension systems in some Asian countries should be strengthened to allow for effective farmer training programmes and advisory services.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Crop pests and diseases are responsible for 20 to 40 percent of losses to the world’s agricultural production. In Asia, these comprise endemic pests, such as the brown plant hopper, beet armyworm and the yellow-spine bamboo locust, as well as invasive threats such as the fall armyworm (FAW) (Spodoptera frugiperda) (J.E. Smith), desert locust and tomato pinworm. The socioeconomic and environmental impacts of transboundary pests are substantial, with invasive pests annually causing very high economic yield loss. The risk to farmers of pest-induced losses is further exacerbated by global climate change, which alters the frequency and intensity of pest outbreaks, disrupts interactions between pests and their natural enemies and steadily weakens nature’s biological control services. The movement of human beings and materials across the Asia region is also accelerating, increasing the dispersion of pests. In addition, pest impacts are more severe in intensified farming systems, such as Cambodia’s western plains, Viet Nam’s Mekong Delta, or the high-input farming systems of Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. In these settings, pesticide overuse, removal of (semi-) natural habitats, and the proliferation of genetically uniform (clonal) crops have led to a degradation of agro-ecosystems. Under these conditions, transboundary pests thrive and farmers struggle to safeguard their harvests and sustain their often precarious livelihoods.

To mitigate the above transboundary pest threats, farmers in South Asia and the Asia Pacific region routinely resort to costly, environmentally disruptive measures. For example, the recent invasion of FAW has triggered increased application of pesticides, including aerial (drone) sprays and prophylactic use of neonicotinoid insecticides, in Southeast Asian countries. In China, chemical pesticide use in maize has reportedly risen six-fold since the 2018 arrival of this voracious pest (Zhao et al., 2020). In the absence of regionally coordinated action, phytosanitary issues can rapidly aggravate farmers’ poverty and vulnerability, stall rural development and broaden the environmental footprint of agriculture. These issues also increase the market prices of crops like maize, due to increases in the cost of production arising from pest management efforts. These impacts add to the recent disruption of South Asian and Southeast Asian rural livelihoods due to COVID-19.

In this context, a multi-pronged regional approach and coordinated efforts by responsible stakeholders are urgently needed to devise, validate and deploy ecologically based sustainable plant health solutions.

1.2. The need for technical guidance on transboundary pests

Countries in the South Asia and Southeast Asia region demonstrate different levels of interventions regarding transboundary pests like FAW. There is a need for a harmonized approach to research and development, data collection and to the use of data for surveillance. Moreover, cross-national learning, guided coordination and cooperation are at the nexus of effective early warning systems (EWS) and sustainable management for such pests. It is, therefore, vital to develop a regional strategy that integrates successful best practices to catalyse the preparedness and response system of countries in the region for future invasions.

In this context, the technical guidance set out in this document have been developed, setting out how nations in the region can deliver an Asia-wide coordinated response to priority transboundary pest threats such as FAW, including collaborating on an EWS for, and sustainable management of, such pests. The guidelines have been developed based on an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) in this area, and take account of existing systems (surveillance and early warning).

1.3. The regional response and current gaps

In response to the rapid spread of FAW in Africa and Asia, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) developed a robust FAW Programme for Action and Framework for Partnership in collaboration with many partners and mobilized over USD 15 million to put these plans into action. Many of the results and documents relating to these plans are available on FAO’s FAW website.

Pre-emptive efforts to coordinate FAW activities commenced in Bangladesh even before FAW was able to migrate and invade, with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) convening stakeholders to initiate appropriate policy and strategies in September 2018.

The first regional consultative meeting on FAW in Asia was organized by FAO in Bangkok in March 2019. This meeting made some significant recommendations, including on surveillance, research and extension in relation to FAW on maize. The Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI), CIMMYT, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and a few other organizations have also initiated needs-based programmes relating to the regional management and control of FAW. CABI-SE Asia, in collaboration with the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice), has conducted online training on the diagnosis, surveillance, monitoring and management of FAW

Despite these coordinated efforts, there have been gaps in the response to the FAW invasion of Asia. So far, there is no single platform that can bring nations together to conduct coordinated actions across the region. In the absence of such a platform, SAARC is currently acting as the coordinator for collaborative research on FAW, and facilitates the exchange of information across Member Nations, in technical partnership with the national and international organization. Moreover, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has a regional FAW task force that has developed action plans for the region and holds regular discussions among Member Nations on how they can best coordinate their response to the pest.

1.4. The regional response and current gaps

Surveillance and the use of digital tools

Since eradicating FAW is not practically possible, the only efficient approach to managing the pest is applying area-wide IPM. This will be feasible only if there is a well-structured regional strategy in place on the surveillance of, and the EWS for, FAW. Surveillance (where different countries in the region all collect and share surveillance data), a regional approach to research (to avoid duplication), and a regional approach to pesticide registration, as well as a regional identification service to identify natural enemies of FAW (including race profiling, etc.), should be a focus across the nations of the region. Proper scouting protocols should also provide farmers with the information necessary to avoid treatments that are not economically justified. Additionally, scouting and action thresholds should be built into the regional strategy prior to initiating pest management options for FAW, especially in regard to the use of chemical pesticides.

Community-based surveillance can play an important role in terms of sourcing information on and understanding the intensity of, infestation. Various programmes in the region, such as farmer field schools and plant clinics, can help in developing the FAW forecasting and early warning information that can enable farmers in both FAW breeding areas and along migration pathways to mitigate FAW infestation by applying the proper measures at the proper time.

In this context, there is a need for capacity building for surveillance, covering factors such as FAW natural mortality, predators, parasitoids, entomopathogens, etc. in order to arrive at scientific management decisions.

Digital tools can also be useful in managing FAW across the Asia region, though some countries may not have the financial resources or skilled human resources needed to effectively utilize this technology. Capacity building on digital tools is currently limited and very few trainings are being provided across the region on using the tools that are available for FAW surveillance (which include FAW monitor, FAMEWS, Plantix, etc.). Interventions are, therefore, needed to build capacity on using digital tools at the national and community level, with the ultimate aim of having a dashboard that provides information on FAW incidence in particular regions at the micro level.

Collecting data and disseminating information on pests

Data collection, which requires coordination between different stakeholders, is a major constraint in larger countries in the region. However, in general, all countries have made strides in regard to improving data collection.

Currently, various methods are used to disseminate pest information. Extension mechanisms like farmer field schools and plant clinics are used for this purpose, as are media like television, radio, video and printed materials, which can maximize outreach by private media organizations and agricultural information systems within ministries of agriculture. Various communication workshops have also been used to develop technical briefs on pests.

Eco-friendly and sustainable management of FAW

Work carried out in different parts of the world indicates that there are different options for managing FAW. The choice and success of IPM are determined by five criteria: cost, efficacy, safety, accessibility and scalability (CESAS). Small-scale and medium-scale farmers face the challenge that management costs can be prohibitive or the options may not be practically available. For sustainable IPM, if chemicals are used, it is vital to use those that are safe for the ecosystem and ecosystem services, such as pollination and biological control through natural enemies of pests.

Globally, initial attempts to manage FAW have always used synthetic insecticides. Understanding of conservation biological control and its contribution towards the reduction of FAW populations is currently lacking in South and Southeast Asia. There is a lack of availability of biocontrol products at the farm level, and business models do not exist for rural enterprises working in this area. However, some countries, such as Bangladesh, have taken timely steps in issuing emergency registration for biopesticides and chemicals that are relatively safe for the beneficial organisms and to make the products more available at the farmer level.

FAW extension guides have been prepared by several organizations, such as FAO, CABI, CIMMYT, and others (FAO and DPPQS, 2021). One example is the fall armyworm in Asia: A Guide for Integrated Pest Management (Prasanna et al., 2021). These guides have been used by countries to develop management strategies for pests. They emphasize appropriate ready monitoring and scouting protocols.

1.5. Scope and objectives of the technical guidance

The overall objective of these guidelines is to contribute to setting up an FAW surveillance system and a framework for the efficient and effective management of FAW in South and Southeast Asia. Although the focal countries selected for gathering information to support the drafting of the guidelines were Bangladesh and India in South Asia and Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Viet Nam in Southeast Asia, the findings, as set out in the guidelines, have wider application at the regional and global level.

The specific objectives of the guidelines are:

1. to support the development of a regional FAW surveillance system;

2. to support countries in the region to implement sustainable, IPM-based measures to manage FAW populations in areas affected year-round as well as seasonally;

3. to support the co-ordination of regional and national policies, standards and measures to reduce the risk of FAW outbreaks; and

4. to contribute towards reducing socioeconomic and environmental risks due to FAW infestations and damage in the region.

The key audiences for the guidelines are summarized in the figure below.

2. Approach to drafting the guidelines

The approach to preparing the document has strongly adhered to the guidelines provided by FAO (FAO, 2021a) contextualizing them to the region and also complimenting sub-regional action plans such as the ASEAN FAW Action Plan. Initially, a desk review was conducted using the general guidelines and all possible information was gathered on the level of awareness of regional stakeholders regarding the following areas: FAW infestation levels; damage to maize; natural enemies observed; plant protection measures; and national and regional management actions taken in response to the pest. This review identified the relevant institutes and resource persons working on FAW. A list of stakeholders and institutes was collated, and an email was sent to each resource person seeking their permission to proceed further in sharing their knowledge and data to develop the guidelines. A survey questionnaire was also developed to obtain information that could not be gathered through the desk review. In the next step, key informants were identified based on their knowledge and based on recommendations from various organizations. Online interviews were then conducted with these informants to understand knowledge gaps in regard to surveillance and sustainable management. Thereafter, based on the key informant interviews and the responses to the questionnaires, a SWOT analysis was conducted. The results of this analysis were validated and endorsed by key informants in validation workshops that were conducted in each focus country to make sure that the collated information was valid for the region as a whole. Understanding the weaknesses of countries made it possible to craft guidelines that can be implemented in each country, and to customize those guidelines.

3. Results of the drafting process

3.1. SWOT analysis

A SWOT analysis was conducted to analyse strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats in the focus countries and the region regarding FAW management. The aim was not necessarily to identify solutions but rather to understand what can reasonably be expected to be achieved. The analysis of strengths and weaknesses focused more on current processes, human resources, physical and financial resources, policy, etc. while the analysis of opportunities and threats focused on external factors, such as infestation in adjoining regions, market and economic trends, political and economic regulations, etc. The results of the national SWOT analyses are shown in the figures below, while the overall conclusions derived from them at a regional level are provided in Box 1.

3.2. Results of stakeholder consultations

This subsection summarizes the main points that were noted in the stakeholder consultations.

Monitoring

• Surveying FAW on other crops. Though FAW has a predominant preference for maize, it has a reasonably vast host range and thus monitoring must be carried out for other crops too.

• Obtaining IPM advice based on scouting. It is paramount that extension personnel are trained on the scientific way of scouting (using smartphone web applications), identifying the target pest correctly, recording infestation and damage, transferring this data, and seeking expert advice on whether to intervene with management options.

• Different levels of monitoring and their purposes. Monitoring in a field has at least two potential purposes: (1) helping the farmer decide if/when treatment might be required; and (2) providing information to an aggregator of such information (at local, national, regional and international levels) for other uses, such as forecasting seasonal changes. These are quite different scenarios. The former occurs mostly locally and has no regional requirement, while the latter is a regional activity (but might provide additional information to support on-farm decision making).

• Digital interventions. In many developing countries in South Asia and Southeast Asia, initial hesitancy to shift to phone-based apps from field notebooks is observed but this is usually temporary. One of the advantages of phone-based apps is that they can be integrated with GPS. This system can validate observations and facilitate precise monitoring from a distance.

• Sharing data. Data transparency is often a matter of concern in regard to monitoring but it must be encouraged in the larger interest of sustainable IPM.

• Addressing emergencies. Unexpected challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, can affect the process of conducting area-wide surveillance and decision making for sustainable management. It is necessary to estimate the optimum sampling number/size so as to ensure a realistic estimation of infestation and damage.

Sustainable practices

• The existence of multi-disciplinary stakeholders: Stakeholders in regard to FAW in the region are diverse in terms of their mission and mandates, as well as their type. A multi-disciplinary approach should be applied in controlling and managing FAW in the region, with different stakeholders bringing to the table their different resources, knowledge and expertise.

• Lack of farmer representation: While it is positive that most countries in the region have established focal forums for FAW, such as task forces overseeing control of the pest, a key weakness of many of these structures is the lack of farmer representation within them.

• Low use of biopesticides: Biopesticides are not readily available in the market, with chemical pesticides often more readily available with agro-dealers. Countries also lack specific policies for the use and regulation of biopesticides. There is a need to create awareness on the use of biocontrol agents, and also to make sure they are available.

• Insufficient deployment and usage of digital tools: Digital technology, apps and tools are recognized by all stakeholders in the different countries as key for effectively tackling FAW. Such tools have been used by countries in relation to locusts for decades. However, use and deployment of digital technology in the management of FAW has not yet taken hold, due to a lack of focal co-ordinating bodies, a lack of sufficient funding (to provide digital tools for all extension services, for example), a lack of knowledge of how to use such technology, and/or poor network connectivity in some parts of the region.

• Limited cross-country/cross-border collaboration: Although it was mentioned by some stakeholders, cross-border collaboration does not currently seem to be a priority. This could be because most key informants interviewed have local and/or specific geographical mandates within their countries, and do not look beyond the country boundaries.

Plant quarantine

Plant quarantine is an issue in the region. There is a need to improve diagnosis in this area so that it is on a par with that in developed countries.

• Point of entry: Many airports and harbours in the region do not have scientific phytosanitary measures in place for the movement of live plant materials within and between countries.

• Advanced diagnostics: Molecular diagnostics need to be strengthened across developing countries.

• Role of quarantine: Preparedness is key in managing invasive species like FAW. There is a need to put in place an anticipatory database on possible invasive pests. Firefighting methods also need to be in place as a national policy. Quarantine measures should focus on mitigating the spread of invasive species within countries and across the region.

Reporting and communication

• Early reporting: Many countries in the region do not immediately announce the presence of an invasive pest, fearing the possible impact on trade and export, etc. This hinders the dissemination of information on the presence of invasive pests and facilitates their spread and dispersal, which increases crop losses.

• Risk communication: Countries have a national reporting obligation under the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). This is usually for new pests but it also covers the risk of FAW in any place and at any time. Often, however, countries do not fulfil this obligation. Delay in accepting the presence of FAW and procrastination in destroying the initial infestation is one of the reasons why the pest has spread so quickly.

Policy

One of the major weaknesses in the South and Southeast Asia region is the fact that the focus on mitigating the impact of FAW has been restricted to the individual country level or to a narrow geographical area.

• Early intervention and preparedness: Task forces have generally been constituted late in the region after FAW had become well-established.

• Regional co-ordination: There is currently very little appreciation of the need for a regional approach to FAW.

Financing

• National funds for research: Many countries in the region are currently facing financial difficulties. Moreover, funds allocated to research have been diverted to fight COVID-19. As this situation is likely to continue for the next few years, the lack of funding for managing FAW in the region remains a concerne.

4. Recommendations by key area

Based on the learnings regarding the current status of FAW management in the countries consulted, the following key areas and related recommendations are proposed.

4.1 Key Area 1: Stakeholder coordination and policy change

To ensure successful implementation of IPM of FAW, a policy intervention is necessary to establish a centralized single window for preparedness and a decision-making body that facilitates interaction, monitoring and timely action on all invasive pests, including FAW, is needed. Similarly, there should be coordinated policy intervention at the regional and national levels on sharing information about the presence of invasive pests. Regional stakeholder coordination and cross-sharing of data on invasives, as well as sharing lessons learned during their management, are critical. Sharing information on the identification of natural enemies, molecular sequences, and mass multiplication protocols will also limit the duplication of work across countries in the region. If they are shared region-wise and country-wise, large data can be used to conduct a meta-analysis to highlight the similarities and differences in regard to the extent of damage, crop loss, management efficacy, yield and socioeconomic impact. This is vital to identify gaps in FAW management.

The recommended actions under the Key Area 1 are as follows:

► Develop a methodology for conducting assessments of invasive species system ecosystems: Develop a methodology for assessing the system for managing invasives, and then conduct such an assessment to establish the baseline against which changes in the responsiveness of the system can be assessed at a later date if required.

► To define the invasive species system and its functions and actors it is useful to consider the progression of an invasive species as it invades a new country or territory. Consideration of the actions needed at each stage of the invasion curve (Figure 9) to control or manage an invasive species can help to produce a list of functions and actors that are involved in the system. For example, the invasion curve set out in Figure 9 defines four management stages: prevention, eradication, containment and long-term or asset-based management. In addition, the Guiding principles for the prevention, introduction and mitigation of impacts of alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species (CDB, 2002) (see Figure 10) provide guidance on what an invasive species system within a country should aim to deliver, and therefore what functions and actors should be part of the system.

Set up a single national coordination body, which should have a central role in the management/mitigation response to an invasive species threat in the country. The coordinating body must have adequate representation from all sectors involved in invasive species management and the ability to effectively bring all stakeholders together to rapidly increase the profile of the invasive species issue. In addition, a member of this body should represent the country in a similar regional co-ordinating body for the South Asia and Southeast Asia region as a whole.

► Develop an invasive species management strategy that adopts a multi-species approach.

► Establish a permanent body that will be responsible for regulating the system for managing invasive species in the country. This can be a national task force for FAW.

► Set up a conceptual framework that sets out the actors working within each of the functions within the invasive species management system (see Figure 10).

4.2. Key Area 2: Surveillance, EWS and emergency preparedness

FAW is established largely in Asia (with probable exceptions in Central and North-East Asia). In the context of FAW, strengthening surveillance and emergency preparedness is relevant in the region where the invasion has not yet taken place. Early warning is significant for population outbreaks in both year-round breeding areas and areas along FAW migration pathways. The following figure depicts the elements of a functioning surveillance, early warning and response (SEWR) system.

The recommended actions under Key Area 2 are as follows:

Ensure that basic phytosanitary functions are implemented

At each surveillance point, the following basic phytosanitary functions should be implemented: identification of pest risk; surveillance; pest diagnosis; import regulation; export certification; transit regulation; and emergency response. This will enable pest management to be well-targeted, cost-effective, and adjusted based on the population density of the location. This will help to avoid the implementation of calendar-based pest control measures, depending on whether a pest is regulated or non-regulated. Monitoring is also crucial to determine population dynamics, to compare infestation levels between sites and to evaluate the effectiveness of controls.

Institute a rapid response system to limit the economic, social and environmental impacts of FAW introductions

Individual FAW introductions must be detected, evaluated and, if deemed necessary, contained as quickly as possible to prevent the introduced population from spreading to other areas. This can reduce the size and duration of regulatory quarantines.

Emergency action refers to a prompt phytosanitary action that is undertaken in a new or unexpected phytosanitary situation. It may constitute a series of co-ordinated activities involving one or more organizations to respond to an FAW incursion into new areas and to bring an emergency under control. Emergency response actions, public outreach and education and inter-organizational communication and co-ordination are key to FAW management. Financial resources and regulatory support are key to responding to phytosanitary emergencies efficiently and effectively, especially if eradication is difficult or impossible.

Establish pest monitoring and an EWS

Pest monitoring and an EWS should be established in each country in the region. This should include field data collection at the farmer level that can then be shared with relevant stakeholders for early warning. Improved collection, recording and transmission of field data is the basis for an efficient and effective national EWS. It should be possible to access information from an online pest database linked to the Geographical Information System (GIS) through the national plant protection organization’s website. Stakeholders with internet connectivity should be able to query and display field data on a map, in order to conduct a simple visual analysis of the current specific pest situation. Within the GIS it should be possible to conduct a more complex analysis of the field data, combined with accessing satellite-based rainfall estimates, crop maps and calendars. The online pest database should be established and strengthened to be able to automatically disseminate e-alerts, e-bulletins and pest advisories to stakeholders at all levels via SMS, text blast and email. This will assist in producing FAW management and early warning products that meet the needs of all stakeholders.

Monitoring should be as simple as possible and will require close coordination among grassroots-level extension staff. Monitoring may need to be more intensive in areas where maize is intensely cultivated, whereas it can be less intense in areas where maize is not always growing. Monitoring and surveillance should cover real-time weather data and the percentage of parasitism, pathogens, nematodes, etc. In tropical and subtropical areas, monitoring FAW is more important than the EWS due to continuous cropping and the establishment of pests in those areas. Other hosts of FAW beyond maize should also be monitored by scientists to understand if the pest is expanding its host range and if this could cause serious crop loss. For example, FAW has caused significant loss in finger millet and rabi sorghum in Karnataka and so there needs to be continuous monitoring of these crops in India, as well as of rice in the Philippines.

Harmonize phytosanitary regulations and conduct pest risk analyses

While countries in South and Southeast Asia have porous borders and often engage in transboundary trade, adequate phytosanitary precautions are not always the norm in the region. Implementing national phytosanitary programmes can contribute to harmonization between contracting parties. The International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) are intended to harmonize the phytosanitary measures that are applied in international trade, and signatories to the ISPM should abide by its regulations to achieve this end.

Applying phytosanitary measures results in higher standards. Such standards must be technically justified through pest risk analyses (PRAs). When conducting PRAs for FAW, the analysis should consider all possible pathways for invasion by FAW, i.e. host crops, seeds, planting materials, packaging materials, transportation methods and as a hitchhiker through natural means (since FAW is migratory). Guidance for undertaking a PRA is provided in ISPMs 2, 11, 14 and 21.

It can be useful to use a web-based tool for conducting PRAs, such as the CABI PRA Tool. Such tools should provide access to the relevant available information and a framework for the PRA process that is closely aligned to international standards.

Systematic scanning of the invasive pests that are on the horizon, using tools such as the Horizon Scanning Tool, can also help countries prepare for future invasions by pests that are currently impacting neighbouring countries and regions.

Commit to exchanging parasitoids among nations

There should be a policy commitment to exchange parasitoids among nations. This is essential in order to effectively manage FAW, especially as high infestation in one region or country will impact other countries in the pathway of FAW migration.

4.3. Key Area 3: Advocacy, awareness and knowledge about FAW

This Key Area is aimed at government policymakers and decision makers who are responsible for designing and implementing response mechanisms about pest outbreaks, as well as other key users. The recommendations under this area support the guidance given by the IPPC on phytosanitary measures for pest surveillance, risk identification, reporting and management, and they also complement the recently published IPPC Guide to Pest Risk Communication.

The recommended actions under Key Area 3 are as follows:

► Establish coordination among ministries (agriculture, finance, information and communication).

► Ensure media work closely with national plant protection organizations to produce accurate and consistent reports on pest outbreaks, and particularly regarding responding to misinformation as it emerges.

► As part of communications planning, conduct a needs assessment to collect data about the context, characteristics and gender specificities of communities, communication habits, available resources, existing media, ongoing development communication initiatives, and internal and external communication flows.

► Establish a communication strategy. This should set out systematic communication activities that are implemented based on a well-thought-out methodology and using a variety of tools and channels. The strategy should identify the specific objectives to be met and should provide a reference document against which communication activities can be measured and evaluated. (See Box 2 on the principles to be observed when designing a communication framework for pest outbreaks.)

► Prioritize training for extension staff, agro-dealers, farmer groups, and the media to promote accurate, balanced, clear and well-targeted messages. Communication training specifically on outbreaks should involve senior managers and policymakers, who are often required to make decisions about communication planning and budgeting in such scenarios.

► Engage multiple actors involved in agricultural advisory services, including the farmers themselves, through platforms such as farmer field schools, field days, agricultural shows, plant health rallies, mobile plant clinics and farmer-to-farmer training.

► Institute an internal communication framework that will facilitate information sharing across various government departments and levels of government, research organizations and extension actors.

► Raise farmers’ awareness and knowledge of FAW to increase their willingness and capacity to participate in management.

► Increase budgetary allocations to the operations of the plant health regulatory authorities.

► Identify and involve all relevant stakeholders in regional integration and help them to appreciate the need for a regional and national commitment to addressing the threats posed by invasive pests such as FAW, and their impact on food security, trade and the economy.

4.4. Key Area 4: Technical capacity of the plant protection and expansion system

Increasing technical and institutional capacities is key to the successful and sustainable management of pests. Box 3 lists the areas where capacity must be built in Southeast Asia.

The recommended actions under Key Area 4 are as follows:

Link regional capacity building to national capacity-building efforts.

► Establish a model for capacity building. This model should include the following steps: needs assessment, training of master trainers, cascading training to field technicians, quality assurance, and backstopping of rolled-out trainings (William and Constantine, 2019).

► Training of trainers and cascading training to the ground-level officers is recommended. The figure below sets out the steps involved in developing and rolling out an IPM training programme.

► Use specific institutes within national agricultural research systems in the region as resource centres for human resources development on biological control and traditional and molecular identification techniques for FAW and its natural enemies. Examples of these institutes include the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI).

► Establish a regional network/database of FAW experts in South and Southeast Asia.

► Use the research collaboration portal for FAW to facilitate information sharing and the sharing of ongoing research.

4.5. Key Area 5: Integrating local and agro-ecological approaches in the current IPM system for smallholders

Agro-ecological approaches, which can be low-cost, sustainable and smallholder-friendly (Wyckhuys and O’Neil, 2010), should be promoted as a core component of IPM programmes for FAW, in combination with crop breeding for pest resistance, classical biological control and selective use of safe pesticides (Harrison, et al., 2019). Table 1 summarizes agro-ecological practices that have been implemented worldwide and that have been adopted to some degree in Asia as well, evaluating their suitability for use in the region (as reflected through stakeholder consultations).

The recommended actions under Key Area 5 are as follows:

► Survey local levels to identify interventions that are implemented by smallholders, in order to research, validate and refine these interventions.

► Conduct systematic research on the effect of early planting on the establishment of FAW pest pressure build-up during the cropping cycle.

► Plan trials in upscaling programmes to gain an understanding of how the performance of different options varies geographically.

► Work with a multi-disciplinary team to integrate agro-ecological practices into IPM systems as a cost-effective package for smallholder farmers.

► Conduct multi-year and multi-location studies on insect resistance management, especially in the Asia Pacific region, where Bt has been introduced.

► Conduct co-ordinated research to examine the efficacy of different intercrop configurations for FAW control in Asia.

► Evaluate technologies like push and pull and approaches like maintaining refugia using the CESAS model.

► Ensure higher-level policy action and resource allocation to bring about change at the political as well as at the community level, to encourage the maintenance of forests near maize cultivation.

4.6. Key Area 6: Implementing IPM for FAW

IPM refers to combining pest management techniques in order to reduce the need for synthetic pesticides. IPM packages are aimed at reducing yield losses and the huge expenditures incurred by farmers to purchase pesticides. They are also intended to mitigate the health and environmental risks associated with the use (and misuse) of such synthetic pesticides. Overall, the use of IPM strategies can increase the market competitiveness of the Southeast Asia region and, as a result, elevate the income and livelihoods of people involved across value chains. However, there are a few prerequisites for successful implementation of IPM for FAW that need to be considered (see Box 4), including monitoring pests and damage.

The sound management of FAW requires the use of several tactics targeting different stages of the pest’s life cycle. The recommendations under this Key Area 6 relate to implementing these tactics for IPM for FAW:

1. A management strategy. Due to FAW’s migratory nature, it is recommended that a management strategy include three approaches (as shown by the three colours in Figure 13 below).

Table 2 provides some recommendations for managing FAW at different stages of its development.

2. Increasing crop diversity. In the Southeast Asia region, maize is often cultivated by several small and medium-sized farmers over one stretch. This constitutes mono-cropping and is an ideal situation for pest expansion, both in terms of intensity and damage caused. As an alternative, mixed farming with legumes as an intercrop should be included as part of the package of practices recommended for the region.

3. Host plant resistance. The centrepiece of IPM is host plant resistance, but it takes a long time to arrive at durable resistance. There should be a focus on research through marker-assisted selection using crop wild relatives to integrate desirable resistant traits and transgenic maize. This offers the most ecologically and economically effective IPM strategy for FAW.

4. Monitoring and scouting. It is imperative to create awareness among farmers on how to identify FAW damage in the field through scouting, assessing the pest population and its threat to the crop, and making informed decisions on when and when not to apply a pesticide. Reactive interventions must be used only after proper field scouting for the pest has taken place. Scouting can be done following the standardized protocol, following a W pattern or using counts of moths caught in pheromone traps. Scouting is preferred to the use of pheromone, however, as the landholdings in the region are rather small and FAW, being a long-range flier, may be attracted by pheromone and lay eggs in previously uninfested fields. Area-wide monitoring using traps is recommended. With technological advances, automated solar traps, which have been successfully used in Bangladesh, can be used in the rest of the region and adopted for guided monitoring of FAW through regional extension departments at the local level.

5. Biological control options. The importance of conservation biological control for FAW management should be understood better in the region. FAW has many natural enemies and many of those were shown to cause substantial mortality in the first year after FAW invaded Asian countries. Surveys to measure the impact of natural enemies should be supported, ideally coordinated across the region. Actions to enhance natural enemy populations should also be supported, such as growing flower strips. Several biopesticides are efficient for FAW control, including products based on neem or Bt. These can be included in IPM strategies. Other agents are currently being researched, such as egg parasitoids from the genus Telenomus and Trichogramma, as well as predators. Results appear promising but it needs to be stressed that the release of natural enemies must consider the agronomic and social-economic contexts that farmers have to deal with in respective countries.

6. Use of low-toxic chemicals and restrictions regarding pesticides. Pesticides should be selected judiciously and used only when necessary, as part of a holistic IPM strategy. Pesticide attributes, such as environmental safety, selectivity and environmental persistence, should be considered in the decision-making process. Figure 14 describes the process of decision making, following the IPM principles

7. Knowledge bank. It is recommended a knowledge bank be established to bring together knowledge about all potential invasives, including FAW, providing full details on their biology, host plants, dispersion potential, and natural enemies (such as predators, parasitoids and pathogens), etc. In the case of FAW, much more must be learned about the ecology, natural enemy regulation, and mass multiplication of beneficial organisms and, above all, there is a need for a realistic assessment of crop losses in different agro-ecological zones.

Box 5 sets out the elements of a successful IPM strategy for FAW.

4.7. Key Area 7: Innovative research

IPM refers to combining pest management techniques in order to reduce the need for synthetic pesticides. IPM packages are aimed at reducing yield losses and the huge expenditures incurred by farmers to purchase pesticides. They are also intended to mitigate the health and environmental risks associated with the use (and misuse) of such synthetic pesticides. Overall, the use of IPM strategies can increase the market competitiveness of the Southeast Asia region and, as a result, elevate the income and livelihoods of people involved across value chains. However, there are a few prerequisites for successful implementation of IPM for FAW that need to be considered (see Box 4), including monitoring pests and damage.

Research in relation to managing FAW can be basic, strategic or applied. Surveys of farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices/perceptions are also important to capture farmers’ traditional knowledge relating to managing pests where an understanding of which can help improve pest management decisions.

The recommended actions under Key Area 7 are as follows:

► Conduct basic research on molecular detection of the invasive FAW, biotype or distinct populations or race profiling, so that valuable time is gained for the IPM decision support system. An understanding of the molecular characteristics of FAW populations can help researchers to understand introduction and migration patterns, predict host plant preferences, understand issues of pesticide resistance, and design management practices for the insect. There is currently a serious dearth of good taxonomic support to precisely identify the natural enemies of FAW. While natural enemies are often identified, mass-multiplied, and released, there is a lack of statistically valid linear and nonlinear ecological modelling to understand predator-prey relationships. Such modelling should be developed. In addition, there is a need to research how varying climatic conditions and maize-growing seasons influence FAW breeding and behaviour. This will help nations in the Southeast Asia region to better develop contextualized response strategies for FAW.

► Conduct strategic research that links EWS, rapid decision support and coordinated IPM of FAW. There is a need to conduct a life-table analysis to understand the weak links in the armour of FAW. This could be supported by the use of a genomic database.

► Conduct applied research in other areas of research that are needed. This includes action research to develop different IPM packages for different agro-climatic conditions in the region and research on the migration behaviour of FAW populations. To achieve Sustainable Development Goals 2, 12, 13 and 15 it is vital to develop a consortium of biopesticide pellet-based formulations (EPN+Metarrhizium+Bt, + corn flour). Basic and strategic research is needed on fine-tuning the ideal combination and concentration, the formulation, the application method, as well as the effect on natural enemies of FAW, etc. There is also a need for intense systematic surveys to locate regions where the natural incidence of entomopathogen (like Metarhizium sfNPV) infestation is persistent around the year and at high intensity. Establishing a biocontrol facility at such locations could ensure mass multiplication and supply of FAW’s natural enemies, with requisite quality assurance

4.8. Overarching remarks

Annex 4 provides a pest management decision guide for FAW on maize that sets out a sequence for implementing the preceding recommendations in the order of prevention, monitoring and control.

The above recommendations have been made in consultation with relevant regional stakeholders who are responsible for implementing them. Success in implementing these recommendations depends on precautions and care being taken, and on building capacity at different levels of operations. Table 3 summarizes the “dos” and “don’ts” to be kept in mind when implementing these recommendations.

5. Technical assistance and resource mobilization

There is a need for technical and scientific support from international research institutes, such as CIMMYT, CABI, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and other research institutes at the national level that can address the needs of the region. ICAR and the national research system in India can support the region in addressing diagnosis, identification and human resources development. Management of FAW at the regional level will require the financial support of organizations such as the Asian Development Bank, Australian Funds for International Agricultural Research, USAID, the World Bank, FAO, the SAARC secretariat, and many international research institutes such as IRRI, CIMMYT and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

6. Monitoring and evaluation

6.1. Monitoring and evaluation at country level

To ensure effective monitoring of FAW in each country in the South and Southeast Asia region, a task force should be created consisting of entomologists from research institutes, university professors, extension professionals and (importantly) policymakers. This could be just a small think tank. The help of retired knowledgeable officials should be solicited wherever needed. This group should constantly evaluate the monitoring of the severity of infestation, crop loss, area of spread, control measures, resistance and the development of new races. The team should include an official who is responsible for coordinating with the regional team, or a regional coordinator, to interact with countries in order to ensure knowledge transfer.

In each country, there is also a need for an organization that is responsible for collecting, managing and interpreting large datasets that can be used to conduct consolidated analyses at the national and regional levels. Social scientists should also be appointed to address issues relating to socioeconomic impacts.

In addition, there should be clear monitoring of work that has been carried out, and of the planning for the next phase of work. This will require a uniform data collection template, on-time uploading of data to a central database, scientific evaluation of hypotheses regarding agro-ecological technologies and other eco-friendly approaches, etc. It is also important to execute technical and financial monitoring to evaluate the progress of the work. Evaluations should include possible diversion of funds, duplication of research, delays in implementation, reporting of submission delays, and other factors. Also, a template should be developed for monitoring and evaluating the progress of projects. Finally, information should regularly be disseminated by issuing extension e-bulletins and pest advisories, and by publishing research papers

6.2. Monitoring and evaluation at the regional level

Regular regional monitoring should be carried out virtually as well as often as once every six months in a direct meeting of stakeholders. The focus of the meetings should be how to manage FAW at a regional level, drawing on the experience and cross-learning from different regions and countries. Every effort must be made to facilitate diagnosis, human resources development and regional analysis based on meta-analysis. The meetings should be convened and co-ordinated by SAARC, ASEAN and FAO in collaboration with international development organizations like CIMMYT, CABI, etc.

The pattern of evaluation for scientific and technical progress at the regional level should focus more on mutual coordination and cooperation between countries for managing FAW at the regional level. Helping other countries in regard to diagnosis, identification of natural enemies, sharing beneficial, and human resources development should be the criteria. As far as possible, regional evaluation, regional socioeconomic analysis and impact analysis should be the target for evaluation,

Regional platforms should facilitate regional outputs and outcomes, to ensure a global linkage, through experts from each country. Centralized management and a dashboard for implementation, coordination, and data management is needed to ensure knowledge sharing on which decisions for management can be taken. Responsibility for this should rest with SAARC/ASEAN at the regional level, while at the national level one responsible official nominated by the government should take responsibility for coordination within the country and for liaising with international organizations for regional coordination.

6.3. National forums and national task force meetings

At the national level, the relevant stakeholders from each of the technical committees from affected districts should meet once a year to share their experiences of managing FAW and using this technical guidance. This forum should also throw light on the constraints as well as the usefulness of the recommendations in a specific scenario, so that changes can be discussed by a specific technical committee, leading to recommendations that can be presented to the national task force.

A national task force meeting should be held within a month of the national forum. The task force is the steering committee, which would evaluate the recommendations presented by the technical committee regarding the criteria of cost, efficacy, safety, accessibility and scalability, and which would make a decision on the changes to be made to the implementation of the guidance. The steering committee would then issue directives through heads of technical committees and corresponding district heads to revise the guidelines to ensure they remain suitable for the region.

6.4. Publications: national and regional

Publications that combine data and analysis across regions and countries are one way of understanding FAW severity, crop loss, natural controls, decision processes, bottlenecks and policy guidances, which can help in the effective management of FAW regionally and globally. Publications also foster better understanding and exchange of ideas among scientists from different countries, which serves as a foundation for future collaboration and cooperation. Some assistance will be needed concerning written content prepared by regional international organizations.

6.5. Impact analysis: social and economic impact, and direct and indirect benefits

Impact analysis of the implementation of the guidance is critical from both an output and an outcome point of view. It is crucial to evaluate, using verifiable indicators, the success in managing FAW by following the guidances. Such analysis will help stakeholders to understand the impact on yield loss and the level of infestation due to FAW under various dimensions: socioeconomic, environmental, livelihood and gender. The impact analysis should also consider the impact of FAW on subsidiary production lines, like the food and processing industry, which is a vital link to animal husbandry and is dependent on maize for fodder.

Impact analysis requires careful planning before and after the implementation of projects, to document and monitor various indices, including those that address the Sustainable Development Goals. National systems in South Asian and ASEAN nations will be better served if the impact analysis is carried out by a third party to ensure an unbiased result. When conducting impact analyses it is vital to observe the general trend while appreciating differences across regions and countries

Bibliography

Aldemita, R.R. & Hautea, R.A. 2018. Biotech crop planting resumes high adoption in 2016. GM Crops & Food, 9:1, 1–12.

Altieri, M.A. 1980. Diversification of corn agroecosystems as a means of regulating fall armyworm populations. Florida Entomologist, 63: 18–24.

Alvarez, F., Manalo, A. & Clarete. R. 2021. Economic assessment of GM corn use in the Philippines. International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture (1): 115–128.

Anderson, K. & Yao, S. 2003. China, GMOs and World Trade in Agricultural and Textile Products. Pacific Economic Review 8(2): 157–169. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=280259

Badhai, S., Gupta, A.K. & Balram, K. 2020. Integrated management of fall armyworm (Spodoptera Frugiperda) in maize crop. Reviews in Food and Agriculture (RFNA)1(1): 27–2.

Bakthavatsalam. 2020. In Webinar – Use of agroecological approaches to manage fall armyworm, highlighting experience from parts of Africa, South America and South Asia. Agroecological management of fall armyworm: Africa, South Asia and South America | Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals. CGIAR. http://gldc.cgiar.org/agroecological-management-of-fall-armyworm-africa-south-asia-and-south-america/#:~:text=The%20use%20of%20agroecological%20approaches%20in%20the%2-0management,interventions%2C%20such%20as%20insect%20hotels%20and%20bat%20boxes

Ballal, C.R., Kandan, A., Varshney, R., Subaharan, K. & Bakthavatsalam, N. 2021. Attempts to Rub the Paw Marks of FAW Sans Chemicals. ICAR-National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources, Bengaluru & AICRP on Biological Control. 66 pp.

Bateman, M., Chernoh, E., Holmes, K., Grunder, J., Grossrieder, M., Colmenarez, Y., Babendreier, D., Faheem, M. & Mulaa, M. 2016. Training Guide on Integrated Pest Management in Tobacco. licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License. ISBN-13: 978 1 78639 238 1

Baudron, F., Zaman-Allah, M.A., Chaipa, I., Chari, N., Chinwada, P. 2019 Understanding the factors influencing fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda JE Smith) damage in African smallholder maize fields and quantifying its impact on yield. A case study in Eastern Zimbabwe. Crop Protection. 120, 141–150.

Belfield, S. & Brown, B. 2009. A guide to upland cropping in Cambodia: Maize. ACIAR Monograph. No 140. Australian Centre for Agricultural Research (ACIAR). 43 pp. https://www.aciar.gov.au/sites/default/files/legacy/node/11186/MN140.pdf

Boyles, J.G., Cryan, P.M., McCracken, G.F. & Kunz, T.H. 2011. Economic importance of bats in agriculture. Science, 332(6025): 41–42.

BPS (Badan Pusat Statistik/Statistics Indonesia). 2021. Luas Panen Jagung Menurut Provinsi, 2014–2018. Kementerian. Pertanian Republik Indonesia.

Brookes, G. 2021. Biotechnology adoption in corn cultivation in Vietnam shows positive impacts of higher productivity, increased farmer income and environmental improvement in workshop: Contributions of Agricultural Biotechnology Adoption in Vietnam: Hanoi, 2021.5p.

CABI (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International). 2018. Crop Protection Compendium. Cited 06 February 2022. https://www.cabi.org/cpc/

CABI. 2019. Framework for Strategic Communication during Pest Outbreaks: Learning from fall armyworm. First Edition. CABI. 45 pp. https://www.cabi.org/wp-content/uploads/Framework-for-Strategic-Communication-during-Pest-Outbreaks.pdf

CABI. 2020. CABI collaborates with BARI to find biological ‘weapon’ to fight fall armyworm in Bangladesh. In: CABI News. Accessed 9 March 2020. https://www.cabi.org/news-article/cabi-collaborates-with-bari-to-find-biological-weapon-to-fight-fall-armyworm-in-bangladesh/

CABI. 2021. Scientists exchange expertise on biocontrol agents for the management of devastating fall armyworm. In: Invasives Blog. Accessed 10 May 10 2022. https://blog.invasive-species.org/2021/05/10/scientists-exchange-expertise-on-biocontrol-agents-for-the-management-of-devastating-fall-armyworm/

CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2002. Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity. United Nations Environment Programme.

Danielsen, S. & Matsiko, F.B. 2016. Using a plant health system framework to assess plant clinic performance in Uganda. Food Security. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0546-6

Dutta, N.K., Chaudhary, M. Thakur, M., Begum, K. Sarkar, M.A., Prodhan, M.Z.H. & Sarkar, D. 2020. Technical Manual: Biological Control of Fall Armyworm in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute Entomology Division and CABI SA. 171 pp.

Early, R., González-Moreno, P., Murphy, S.T. & Day, R. 2018. Forecasting the global extent of invasion of the cereal pest Spodoptera frugiperda, the fall armyworm. NeoBiota 40: 25-50.

Esteban, S.C., Julio C. Rojas & Edi, A.M. 2020. A pheromone lure for catching fall armyworm males (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Mexico. Acta Zool. 36.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2020. General Guidelines for Developing and Implementing a Regional IPM Strategy for Fall Armyworm Control in Demonstration Countries. 04_GA-3rd SC_Dec2020 Agenda item 5. 25 pp.

FAO. 2020. The Global Action for Fall Armyworm Control: Action Framework 2020–2022. Working together to tame the global threat. FAO, Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9252en

FAO. 2021a. FAW Guidance Note 5: Fall armyworm Early Action Policy Guide. 4 pp. https://www.fao.org/3/ca3800en/CA3800EN.pdf

FAO. 2021b. The mechanical control intervention against the Fall Armyworm – FAO. Global farmers field school platform. In: FAO – Farmer Field Schools. Rome. Cited 06 February 2022. https://www.fao.org/farmer-field-schools/news-events/detail-events/en/c/1113777/

FAO. 2021c. GIEWS – Global Information and Early Warning System. Country Briefs: Bangladesh. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/giews/countrybrief/country.jsp?code=BGD&lang=en

FAO & CIRAD. 2018. Expert consultation on developing a methodology for assessing agricultural innovations systems (AISs). Technical report on the meeting. CIRAD, Paris.

FAO & DPPQS (Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage). 2021. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Farmer Field School (FFS) - A guide for facilitators of FFS on Maize with special emphasis on Fall Armyworm. New Delhi, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb3963en

FAOSTAT. 2021. Area, production, and yield of maize in various countries in 2019. In: FAO FAOSTAT. Cited 06 February 2022. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC

FAW Secretariat, Global Action for FAW Control. 2020. General Guidelines for Developing and Implementing Regional IPM. Strategy for Fall Armyworm Control in Demonstration Countries. FAO 04_GA-3rd SC_ Dec, 2020.

FICCI (Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry). 2018. Maize Vision. 2022: A Knowledge Report. FICCI, New Delhi.

Gebreziher, H.G. 2020. Review on management methods of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda, JE Smith) in Sub Saharan Africa. International Journal of Entomology Research, 5(2): 9–14.

Gebreziher, H. & Gebreyesus, F. 2019. Effect of integrating night-time light traps and push-pull method on monitoring and deterring adult fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda). 9–12.

Gras, P., Tscharntke, T., Maas, B., Tjoa, A., Hafsah, A. & Clough, Y. 2016. How ants, birds and bats affect crop yield along shade gradients in tropical cacao agroforestry. Journal of Applied Ecology 53: 953–963.

Grow Asia. 2020. ASEAN Action Plan on Fall Armyworm (FAW). A regional approach to managing FAW & improving IPM.

Hardke, J.T., Temple, J.H., Leonard, B.R. & Jackson, R.E. 2021. Laboratory Toxicity and field efficacy of selected insecticides against fall armyworm. Florida Entomologist. 94:272–278.

Harrison, R.D., Thierfelder, C., Baudron, F., Chinwada, P., Midega, C., Schaffner, U. & van den Berg, J. 2019. Agro-ecological options for fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda JE Smith) management: Providing low-cost, smallholder friendly solutions to an invasive pest. Journal of Environmental Management. 243: 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.011

He, L-M., Wang, T-l., Chen, Y-C., Ge, S-S., Wyckhuys, K.A.G. & Wu, K-M. 2021. Larval diet affects development and reproduction of East Asian strain of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 20(3): 736–744.

He, L., Zhao, S., Ali, A., Ge, S. & Wu, K. 2021. Ambient Humidity Affects Development, Survival, and Reproduction of Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda in China. Journal of Economic Entimology, 114: 1145–1158.

Krupnik, T.J., Hossain, K., Timsina, J., Gathala, M.K., et al. 2018. Conservation agriculture, mixed- and full-tillage systems in coastal Bangladesh: A multi-criteria analysis of three years of farmer-managed rice-maize trials. In: 13th Asian Maize Conference and Expert Consultation on Maize for Food, Feed, Nutrition and Environmental Security. Ludhiana, India.

Krupnik, T. 2021. Agroecological Management of Fall Armyworm in Asia. In Fall Armyworm in Asia: A Guide for Integrated Pest management. B.M. Prasanna, Joseph E. Huesing & Virginia M. Peschke, eds. 138–152.

Latham N. 2014. A Practical Guide to Evaluating Systems Change in a Human Services System Context. Learning for Action, Center for Evaluation Innovation. Washington D.C.

Lunagariya, M.V., Zala, M.B., Varma, H.S., Suthar, M.D., Patel, M.B., Patel, B.N. & Borad, P.K. 2020. Efficacy of poison baits against fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) infesting maize. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 8: 2251–2256.

Madhu, K.T. & Poorna Chandrika, K.S.V. 2021. Fall armyworm. Vikaspedia. Maruthadurai, R. & Ramesh, R. 2020. Occurence, damage pattern and biology of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera; Noctuidae) on fodder crops and green amaranth in Goa, India. Phytoparasitica, 48(10): 15–23.

Mertz, O., Padoch, C., Fox, J., Cramb, R.A., Leisz, S.J., Lam, N.T. & Vien, T.D. 2009. Swidden change in Southeast Asia: understanding causes and consequences. Human Ecology, 37(3): 259–264.

Nagaraju, J. 2021. Fall Armyworm attack: Dependence on maize hits Telangana farmers hard. In: Down to Earth. Accessed 27 February 2022. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/agriculture/fall-armyworm-attack-dependence-on-maize-hits-telangana-farmers-hard-63688

Naranjo, S.E, Fleischer, S.J. & Hutchison, W.D. 2011. Sustainable management of insect resistant crops. Plant Biotechnology, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06892-3_10

Nelly, N., Hamid., H., Lina.E.C. & Yunisman. 2021. The use of several maize varieties by farmers and the infestation of Spodoptera frugiperda (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera). IOP Conference Series Earth and Environment Science. 662(1):012020, 6.

Prasanna, B.M. 2019. Technical Report for the USAID-funded FAW Project (October 2018 to September 2019): FAW R4D and Stakeholder Engagement for Sustainable FAW Management in Africa and Asia.

Prasanna, B.M., Huesing, E.J., Peschke, V.M. & Eddy, R., eds. 2021. Fall Armyworm in Asia: A Guide for Integrated Pest Management. Mexico, CDMX: CIMMYT.

Reddy, S. 2019. Identification and management of Fall armyworm. In: Vikaspedia. Accessed 27 February 2022. https://vikaspedia.in/agriculture/crop-production/integrated-pest-managment/ipm-for-cerels/identification-and-management-of-fall-armyworm

Rojas, J.C., Kolomiets, M.V. & Bernal, J.S. 2018. Nonsensical choices? Fall armyworm moths choose seemingly best or worst hosts for their larvae, but neonate larvae make their own choices. PLoS One, 13(5): e0197628.

Rwomushana, I. 2019. Spodoptera frugiperda (fall armyworm). Invasive Species Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/ISC.29810.20203373913

Rwomushana, I., Bateman, M., Beale, T., Beseh, P. et al. 2018. Fall armyworm: impacts and implications for Africa. CABI Evidence Note Update, October 2018, Oxfordshire.

Shaiba, Z., Amoore, B., Amoore, I. & Renne, E. 2019. Assessing the Impact of Neem on Fall Armyworm Damage to Maize Crops: A Field-Based Study in Nabdam District, UER, Ghana. Journal of Agriculture and Sustainability, 12:185–201.

Sharanabasappa, K.C.M., Asokan, R. et al. 2018 First report of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), an alien invasive pest on maize in India. Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems, 24: 23–29.

Sharma, A., Prinja, S. & Aggarwal, A.K. 2017. Measurement of health system performance at district level: a study protocol. Journal of Public Health Research, 6: 917.

Shylesha, A.N., Jalali, S.K., Gupta, A. et al. 2018. Studies on new invasive pest Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and its natural enemies. Journal of Biological Control, 32: 1–7.

Singh, G., Waltz Jr., F.C. & and Joseph, S.V. 2021. Potassium and Nitrogen Impacts on Survival and Development of Fall Armyworm. Journal of Entomological Science, 56(3), 411–423.

Sumner, S. 2020. Use of agroecological approaches to manage fall armyworm, highlighting experience from parts of Africa, South America and South Asia. Webinar, FAO, 16 July 2020. http://gldc.cgiar.org/agroecological-management-of-fall-armyworm-africa-south-asia-and-south-america/

Thanh, Vo. 2017. Cambodia annual grain and feed report. Grain Report. 8p.

Uriartt A. 2012. The use of Trichogramma spp. for biological control of fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in maize. The biological control as practiced in ecologically-based agriculture. Rural Sustentável, 5:3, 28–29.

Valdez, E., Rillon, G., King, Donayre, D.K., Martin, E., dela Cruz, K., Sandoval, F., Ravindra J, Eduardo, Quilang, E.J., Faheem, M. & Annamalai, S. 2020. Philippine Rice Research Institute, Maligaya, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines. Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International, Seri Kembangan, Selangor, Malaysia Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda): A first record of damage on rice in the Philippines.

Varshney, R., Poornesha, B., Raghavendra, A., Lalitha, Y., Apoorva, V., Ramanujam, B., Rangeshwaran, R. et al. 2021. Biocontrol-based management of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on Indian Maize. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 128, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41348-020-00357-3

Vikaspedia 2021. Management of Fall Army Worm in Sorghum. In: Vikaspedia. https://vikaspedia.in/agriculture/crop-production/integrated-pest-managment/ipm-for-cerels/ipm-strategies-for-sorghum/management-of-fall-army-worm

Williams, F. & Constantine, K. 2019. A method for evaluating the capacity and responsiveness of a national system to address the threat of invasive species. CABI. 29 pp.

Wyckhuys, K.A.G. & O’Neil, R.J. 2010. Social and ecological facets of pest management in Honduran subsistence agriculture: Implications for IPM extension and natural resource management. Environment Development and Sustainability, 12 (2010), pp. 297–311.

Zhang, L., Liu, B., Zheng, W. et al. 2020. Genetic structure and insecticide resistance characteristics of fall armyworm populations invading China. Molecular Ecology Resources, 20: 1682–1696.

Zhao, Y-X., Huang, J-M., Ni, H., Guo, D., Yang, F-X., Wang, X., Wu, S-F. & Gao, C-F. 2020. Susceptibility of fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith), to eight insecticides in China, with special reference to lambda-cyhalothrin. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 168, 104623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2020.104623

Annex 1: List of institutions consulted

Below is a list of the institutions and stakeholders who were engaged in key informant interviews and that participated in regional consultations, as part of the development of these guidances.

Stakeholders engaged in FAW SEWR

1. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), Bangladesh

2. National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources (NBAIR), India

3. The University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences (UAHS), India

4. Bayer India Pvt Ltd, India

5. Ispahani Pvt Ltd, Bangladesh

6. Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia

7. Bureau of Plant Industry, Philippines

8. Plant Protection, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Department, General Directorate of Agriculture, Cambodia

9. National Crop Protection Center, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines

10. Philippine Rubber Research Institute, Philippines

11. Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Viet Nam

12. Pest Forecasting Institute, Indonesia

13. University of Philippines, Philippines

14. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), Kenya

In addition, independent consultations working in the agricultural sector from several countries in the region were consulted.

Annex 2: List of stakeholders consulted in the regional consultations/guidance validation workshop

Annex 3: Guiding principles for managing invasive species

Annex 4: Pest management decision guide for the fall armyworm on maize