public document - home - cabi.org...invasive species are species that, with human assistance, arrive...

Public Document

An invasive species system assessment in Kenya

Frances Williams, Kate Constantine

December 2019

An invasive species system assessment in Kenya

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the critical contributions of Florence Chege, Ivan Rwomushana, Monica Kansiime and Linda Likoko, who led the group discussions in the workshop and conducted key informant interviews. This work would not have been possible without them. CABI is an international intergovernmental organisation, and we gratefully acknowledge the core financial support from our member countries (and lead agencies) including the United Kingdom (Department for International Development), China (Chinese Ministry of Agriculture), Australia (Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research), Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada), Netherlands (Directorate-General for International Cooperation), and Switzerland (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation). The Action on Invasives Programme is supported by the United Kingdom Department for International Development and The Netherlands Directorate-General for International Cooperation.

This report is the Copyright of CAB International, on behalf of the sponsors of this work where appropriate. It presents unpublished research findings, which should not be used or quoted without written agreement from CAB International. Unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing, all information herein should be treated as confidential.

2

Executive summary Invasive species are a serious and growing problem in Kenya. The objective of this study was to understand the current status of the invasive species system in Kenya and describe, evaluate and assess the responsiveness of the system to address the threat of invasive species to the country. A methodology was developed that identifies areas to address to strengthen the system, as well as a baseline against which changes in responsiveness of the system can be assessed at a later date if required. The methodology was based on three steps: a desk review; a stakeholder workshop; and key informant interviews. All three steps are essential to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the invasives species system including the actors involved, their roles and mandates, and how the component parts of the system are functioning, as well as the system as a whole. Further, the approach and tools demonstrated here have been developed so that they are applicable to other countries’ invasive species system self-assessments.

The findings demonstrate that although the system in Kenya is operating there is room for improvement before it could be considered optimal. A prominent finding is the lack of co-ordination in the invasive species system in Kenya. A coordination body would have a central role in the management/mitigation response to an invasive species threat. This study highlights the urgent need for a national invasive species strategy which is accompanied by clear protocols that are in-line with international commitments to tackle invasive species in Kenya. A key recommendation is that an invasive species management strategy is developed that adopts a multi-species approach followed by the establishment of a permanent body responsible for regulating the system. To facilitate this, a review is needed of the current national policy framework and existing mandates in order to merge various efforts, harness mandates and recommend who can/should take the lead in coordinating invasive species. It is essential that the coordinating body ensures policy advancement which is backed by law with the establishment of an overarching inter-ministerial committee whose sole mandate is to tackle invasive species. 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.

The invasive species systems approach piloted here has facilitated stakeholder engagement in clearly defining and understanding the system in Kenya as it currently stands. Participants have successfully completed a self-assessment of system strengths and weaknesses, and planned a clear way forward based on this understanding and insight.

3

Contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................... 2 Contents ............................................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ 4 List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... 4 Acronyms .............................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 6

Action on Invasives Programme ........................................................................................ 6 The Study .......................................................................................................................... 7 Key objectives ................................................................................................................... 7 Theoretical framework ....................................................................................................... 7

Methods ................................................................................................................................ 9 Desk/ Literature Review .................................................................................................... 9 Stakeholder workshop ....................................................................................................... 9

Exercise 1: IS system functions ................................................................................... 10 Exercise 2: Actors in IS system .................................................................................... 11 Exercise 3: Actors within each IS system function ........................................................ 11 Exercise 4: Actor scoring within functions .................................................................... 11 Exercise 5: Actor mapping within system ..................................................................... 11 Exercise 6: Interaction Scoring ..................................................................................... 11 Exercise 7: IS system indicator performance scoring ................................................... 12 Planning a Way Forward .............................................................................................. 12

Key informant interviews ................................................................................................. 12 Results ................................................................................................................................ 13

Species focus .................................................................................................................. 14 Invasive species system functions ................................................................................... 14 Actors in the invasive species system.............................................................................. 14 Actors within each invasive species system function ....................................................... 16 Actor role and scoring within functions............................................................................. 17 Actor linkages within the system ...................................................................................... 30 Actor interaction scoring .................................................................................................. 32 System performance scoring ........................................................................................... 39

Examples of interactions on invasive species ..................................................................... 50 Challenges identified ........................................................................................................... 54 The way forward ................................................................................................................. 54 Summary and conclusions .................................................................................................. 56 References ......................................................................................................................... 58 Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 59

Appendix 1: Invasive systems workshop participant invite and attendance list ................ 59

4

List of Tables

Table 1: Participant examples of invasive species present in Kenya ................................... 14

Table 2: Actors identified as important for the various functions of an invasive species

system ................................................................................................................................ 16

Table 3: Actor scoring within functions ................................................................................ 18

Table 4: Key discussion points from actor scoring within functions...................................... 20

Table 5: Interaction scoring results ...................................................................................... 33

Table 6: System performance indicator scoring................................................................... 40

Table 7: Overall system performance scoring ..................................................................... 44

Table 8: Overall system performance scoring – contextual factors ...................................... 44

Table 9: System performance indicators: key points from discussion around scoring ......... 46

List of Figures

Figure 1: Invasive Species System Components .................................................................. 8

Figure 2: Function definition and outputs............................................................................. 10

Figure 3: Average function score (across all actors) ............................................................ 18

Figure 4: Average actor score (across functions) ................................................................ 19

Figure 5: Actor mapping ..................................................................................................... 30

Figure 6: Graphical example of farmer/farmer organisation interaction with other actors ..... 34

Figure 7: System performance scoring - total scores per indicator ...................................... 40

Figure 8: System performance scoring - minor and major blockers ..................................... 41

Figure 9: Participant’s overall system performance score ................................................... 45

5

Acronyms AAK Agrochemicals Association of Kenya

AFA Agriculture and Food Authority

ASAL Arid and semi-arid lands

CABI Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International

CBO Community based organisation

DLCO-EA Desert Locust Control Organization for Eastern Africa

DVS Department of Veterinary Services (under MofALF)

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention

icipe International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology

ILRI International Livestock Research Institution

IS Invasive species

JASSCOM Joint Agricultural Sector Steering Committee Mechanism

KWS Kenya Wildlife Service

KFS Kenya Forestry Service

KIPPRA Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis

KEPHIS Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service

KNBS Kenya National Bureau of Standards

KALRO Kenya Agriculture and Livestock Research Organisation

KEFRI Kenya Forestry Research Institution

KEMFRI Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute

MoALF Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries

NACOSTI National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation

NGO Non-governmental organisation

NEMA National Environment Management Authority

NPPO National Plant Protection Organisation

PCPB Pesticide Control Products Board

PDs Plant Doctors

PHS Plant Health System

PRA Pest Risk Assessment

6

Introduction Invasive species are species that, with human assistance, arrive in a new area and cause damage to crops, livestock production and other economic activities; human health; and the environment. They include microbes, weeds, insects, vertebrates and other organisms. A recent example of an invasive species is the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Africa, with potential to cause maize yield loss in the range of 8.3 to 20.6m tonnes per year if management measures are not instituted (Day et al. 2017). Only a small proportion of non-native species become invasive, but those that do cause major direct and indirect losses, including the substantial costs of managing them.

Climate change and increased trade and travel increase the risks (Early et al. 2016), while the impacts are disproportionately borne by the poor and vulnerable. Many international agreements recognise the threat from invasive species, but two are of particular relevance to CABI’s mission of solving problems in agriculture and the environment. The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) aims to secure “common and effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products, and to promote appropriate measures for their control”. Parties to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) agree in Article 8 (h) to “prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species”. CABI recognises the guiding principles on invasive species adopted by the 6th Conference of the Parties to the CBD, which include the three-tiered approach to management: (i) preventing the unintentional or intentional introduction of invasive species; (ii) early detection, rapid response and eradication of new invasions (where possible); and (iii) the control and mitigation of species where eradication or containment is not feasible.

Action on Invasives Programme “Action on Invasives” (AoI) is a global programme managed by CABI, focusing on developing countries in Africa and Asia. The goal of AoI is to improve rural livelihoods of women, men and youth, through strengthening system capacity to prevent, eradicate, control and manage priority invasive species at local, national and regional level. There are four areas of intervention:

1. Stakeholder engagement: Strengthening linkages and partnerships between different public and private stakeholders to inform policy and plans, and ensure effective and coordinated responses locally, nationally and regionally.

2. Best practice solutions: Identifying and validating sustainable technical solutions with partners, for prevention, early detection, control and restoration.

3. Community action: Supporting the availability and use of information and technologies at scale, achieving improved rural livelihoods for women, men and youth.

4. Knowledge and data: Information resources and tools for practical decision support, meeting a wide range of user needs.

Some activities are focused on selected target species that have already invaded some (but not other) countries, while other activities concern institutional issues such as regulation of pest control products. Currently the main focus is on invasives (especially arthropods, pathogens and weeds) affecting plants in cultivated and natural ecosystems.

7

The Study The log frame purpose of AoI is “System capacity strengthened to enable invasive species management practices to prevent, eradicate, control and manage priority invasive species at local, national and regional level”. Three indicators have been defined: (a) Number of men, women and youth utilising and/or benefitting from best practice solutions; (b) Number of countries using invasive species knowledge and data to inform operations for prevention and management; (c) Number of countries/regions that are more responsive to invasive threats and the need to implement control measures.

CABI is leading a study focussing on the third indicator, that is exploring and developing ways to describe, evaluate and assess the responsiveness of countries to the threat of invasives through the three-tier approach described above. As part of this study a methodology has been developed that can be applied to provide an indication of opportunities for strengthening the system, as well as a baseline against which a later application of the methodology would be able to document changes in responsiveness.

This workshop is the first time this methodology has been used with the aim to understand the current status of the invasive species system in Kenya.

Key objectives The key objectives of this workshop are to understand the existing invasive species system in Kenya including:

• Actor roles, responsibilities and mandates in delivering the system functions • Nature of interactions between actors • How the system as a whole is operating / delivering its mandate(s)

The workshop gives participants an opportunity to carry out a self-assessment of their own system strengths and weaknesses, and plan a way forward based on this understanding and insight. It can also form either a baseline assessment or a comparative assessment if repeated, to understand what changes have happened over time within the invasive species system.

Theoretical framework The assessment method is based on a theoretical description of the component parts of an invasive species system, including the actors and organisations involved, the linkages between them, and the required outputs and overall outcomes that the system should deliver. Details of the theoretical framework are given in Additional Information 1. The framework states that actors work within each of the functions, influenced by the country context (governance, staffing etc.) to deliver the outputs of prevention, detection and control of invasive species to increase or maintain productivity, biodiversity and human health (Fig. 1). Development of the assessment method was based on understanding how the actors worked within each function, worked together, and whether as a whole the system delivered its expected results.

8

Figure 1: Invasive Species System Components Source: Authors’ own conceptualisation based on literature review

9

Methods Desk/ Literature Review A desk review of the invasive species system within Kenya was obtained from key documents. The aim of the review was to assist in providing a general understanding of the system and its functioning within Kenya and to highlight what areas need particular follow-up and inquiry. The review also helped to fine tune the workshop sessions and identify workshop participants. The review assisted in identifying the government departments involved in invasive species management and control, and the various key actors who contribute to the system functioning. Contextual factors such as the policy environment were also noted. Policies relevant to agriculture, environment and invasive species specifically, as well as general policies, e.g. on governance structures and institutional mandates, that determine how policies are implemented, were considered.

A lot of information was readily available from government websites, donor and research reports and the document review was a good entry point to start to understand the context. However, official policy and institutional arrangements do not always reflect reality on the ground. Therefore, the workshop and key informant interviews helped to understand what is really happening.

A list of the general sources explored includes:

• Overview documents of government structure e.g. centrally-led, devolved government • Overview documents of structure of Ministry of Agriculture and departments responsible

for extension, crop protection, livestock management, quarantine, diagnosis and link with local government structures

• Overview documents of structure of Ministry of Environment and departments responsible for environmental protection, climate change, wildlife management etc.

• Agricultural and environment policy documents / development plans • Information on regulatory body functions, e.g. NPPO, pesticide control body • Information on any involvement in Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Health in invasive species

management • Information on any knowledge of private traders, import/ export companies, agro-dealers,

transporters on invasive species management • Information on national research organisations and universities from websites • Country NPPO information from International Plant Protection Convention • Donor country papers e.g. IFAD COSOP • Country statistics from e.g. FAOSTAT and the World Bank • IFPRI working papers and other publications • Research papers on invasive systems in the country

Stakeholder workshop The Stakeholder workshop was conducted at Sarova Woodlands Hotel, Nakuru, Kenya from 25th to 27th September 2019. The workshop was supported by a PowerPoint presentation (Additional Information 2) and a detailed method guide (Additional Information 3).

Participants were asked to write three examples of invasive species, one weed, one insect, one disease/virus and one animal on cards which were recorded on a flip chart for reference

10

throughout the workshop. Group discussion further built on the examples highlighting the breadth of possible invasive species in Kenya.

Over the course of the workshop participants were asked to complete a number of exercises in smaller groups and then come together in a subsequent plenary to discuss the activity and findings.

Exercise 1: IS system functions Participants discussed the Function definition hand-out (Fig. 2) to assess whether any of the functions needed changing, or if any were missing.

Function definition Function output

Risk analysis System for evaluation of potential pests and invasive species

Comprehensive and timely analysis of potential invasive species carried out and reported to relevant authorities

Surveillance Monitoring and reporting procedures and system

Rapid knowledge and identification of existing invasive and pest outbreaks; new invasive and pest species; and high-risk species reported to relevant authorities

Quarantine Procedures, disposal and housing facilities to contain and isolate organisms from the outside environment

Few or no incursions of identified high risk invasive species

Emergency response Knowledge, information and procedures necessary for rapid response to invasive species/pest outbreaks

Spread of pest/invasive species restricted through quick implementation of: eradication measures, control of movement of people, vehicles, equipment, planting material; containment measures; restricted access

Diagnostic Services Diagnostic knowledge, facilities and procedures, including referral systems

Timely and accurate identification of unknown pests and invasive species reported to relevant authorities

Research and technology development Research knowledge and facilities

Development of relevant management practices and technologies for invasive species when required, that are feasible and affordable for farmers and other land users to implement

Information management Extension and information materials, databases, species lists etc.

Timely creation and management of invasive species information for system stakeholders to increase knowledge to support decision making

Advisory services Agricultural extension, mass media, pest alerts, other dissemination mechanisms

Delivery of advice on invasive species, including pests, to land users, covering alerts and management options. Advice should be accessible to all who need the information, when they need it, in suitable formats

Input supply Supply of seeds, fertiliser, bio/pesticides, monitoring equipment, biocontrol products etc.

Inputs for land and farm management available when needed, at an affordable price, and meeting quality and safety standards

Policy and regulation Laws, policies and regulation relating to plant protection, movement of animals and plants, quarantine, surveillance, risk analysis, input registration and certification etc.

Laws, policies and regulations enacted, implemented and enforced, providing guidance and a framework for the invasive species system

Figure 2: Function definition and outputs

11

Exercise 2: Actors in IS system A pre-prepared list of Kenyan actors (actors can be individuals, or people at different levels of an organisation, or an organisation itself) were displayed. Participants discussed the actors listed and reviewed whether some actors were ‘too big’ and needed to be broken down further (e.g. ministry could easily be broken down into the relevant ministry departments and units), whether some actors could be grouped as they have the same role (e.g. separate NGOs could be grouped together if they perform the same role in the invasive species system), and identified actors that may be involved in multiple functions. Missing actors were identified.

Exercise 3: Actors within each IS system function Participants discussed which actors should be contributing to each function.

Exercise 4: Actor scoring within functions Participants used the pre-prepared scoring criteria (Additional Information 4) to assess how each actor currently delivers their responsibilities within each of the functions that were agreed in the previous exercise. Participants discussed the criteria for each actor/function interaction, and one score was chosen, based on what actually happens now, not what should happen. Some actors were not represented at the workshop, and there was insufficient knowledge to provide scores for that actor. This was followed up on through key informant interviews.

Exercise 5: Actor mapping within system Participants developed actor maps outlining which actors currently interact within the system, using directional arrows to indicate whether the interaction is one way or both ways, and if one-way, which way the interaction goes. This tool is not strongly analytical but gives an overall picture of the PHS and all its complexities.

Exercise 6: Interaction Scoring This exercise explored the strengths and weaknesses of the actors’ interactions in more depth. Participants considered how two actors interact in the areas of:

• Information / knowledge exchange • Coordination • Feedback • Finance / money

They scored each actor interaction on a scale of 0-4 using a pre-prepared matrix. Where participants were not able to comment on a particular stakeholder if they have no knowledge of that stakeholder then they were advised to leave the cell blank. The interaction scoring criteria was:

• 0 – no interaction (but there should be interaction) • 1 – weak interaction • 2 – average interaction • 3 – strong interaction • 4 – very strong interaction

12

Exercise 7: IS system indicator performance scoring Participants assessed the performance of the functions and the system as a whole against set performance indicators (Additional Information 5). They considered delivery against each performance indicator in the context of staffing, finance, communication and governance and whether these factors were enablers or barriers to system performance. For example: do we have enough staff right now to deliver the outputs of the function; is there sufficient communication within the function to deliver effectively; is there sufficient financing within the function to deliver effectively?

Planning a Way Forward Participants discussed the key issues and challenges identified in the workshop and the current actions related to invasive species management (activities, working groups etc.) that are already being undertaken by actors within the system. They outlined concrete plans and next steps to build on the key findings, issues and current actions.

Key informant interviews Key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted after the stakeholder workshop during October 2019. KIIs were conducted with five stakeholders that were identified at the end of the workshop either because more information was needed on their specific role or the stakeholder was not represented at the workshop. The KIIs helped to fill the gaps and identify important aspects and details that were not apparent from the workshop, as well as capturing additional information about contextual influences such as policy environment, institutional structures, donor influence, politics and organisational culture. Some interviews were used to verify and triangulate the information collected from the workshop and literature.

The KII interviews in Kenya were conducted with representatives from the Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA), JASSCOM, the Agrochemicals Association of Kenya (AAK), Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (the latter two organisations were not represented at the workshop so it was particularly important to interview them). Interviews were arranged with representatives from the identified organisations and conducted by two CABI representatives that were present and integral to the workshop. Standard questions were used concerning the actors role in invasive species management, what other actors they work with, what challenges they face in managing invasive species, and their opinion of the need for a coordination body to manage invasive species.

13

Results The desk/ literature review highlighted a number of key information sources/documents. It quickly became apparent that specific references to invasive species were limited. Examples of useful information, documents and websites included:

• Overview of the local government system in Kenya1: the local government system in Kenya, Country Profile 2017-18

• The Kenya devolution fact sheet2:

Information on ministries, regulatory bodies, national research organisations and universities etc. was obtained from their respective websites3. Key institutions included:

• The Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) is the NPPO in Kenya whose mandate is to undertake all matters covered by the IPPC convention. KEPHIS is the government parastatal whose responsibility is to assure the quality of agricultural inputs and produce to prevent adverse impact on the economy, the environment and human health. KEPHIS has a network of offices and laboratories in all major production points and entry/exit points and is responsible for: (a) regulating on all matters relating to plant protection, seeds and plant varieties; (b) administration and enforcement of sanitary and phytosanitary measures; and (c) supporting the administration and enforcement of food safety measures.

• The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MoALF) core functions include: (a) Formulation, implementation and monitoring of agricultural legislations, regulations and policies; (b) Supporting agricultural research and promoting technology delivery; (c) Facilitating and representing agricultural state corporations in the government; (d) Development, implementation and coordination of programmes in the agricultural sector; (e) Regulating and quality control of inputs, produce and products from the agricultural sector; (f) Management and control of pests and diseases, and (g) Collecting, maintaining and managing information on the agricultural sector.

• The Ministry of Environment and Forestry’s has responsibilities with regards to environmental protection, climate change, wildlife management etc.

• The Ministry of Health’s mandate includes health policy, health regulation, national referral health facilities, capacity building and technical assistance to counties.

• The Pest Control Products Board (PCPB) is a statutory organisation of the Kenyan Government established under an Act of Parliament to regulate the importation and exportation, manufacture, distribution and use of pest control products.

Internet and google scholar searches also highlighted a number of research papers relevant to invasive species (Early et al. 2016; Pagad et al. 2015); including a number specifically relevant to invasive species in Kenya, for example: (Day et al. 2017; Kumela et al. 2019) (FAW); (Odoyo Agutu et al. 2018) (Water Hyacinth); (Gitonga et al. 2010) (Liriomyza); (Deressa and Demissie 2017) (MLND); and (Pratt et al. 2017) (Chilo partellus, MLND, P. hysterophorus, Liriomyza spp. and Tuta absoluta).

1 http://www.clgf.org.uk/default/assets/File/Country_profiles/Kenya.pdf 2 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/Devolution_fact_sheet_2019.pdf 3 https://www.kephis.org/, http://www.kilimo.go.ke/, http://www.health.go.ke, http://www.pcpb.go.ke/

http://www.clgf.org.uk/default/assets/File/Country_profiles/Kenya.pdf

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/Devolution_fact_sheet_2019.pdf

https://www.kephis.org/

http://www.kilimo.go.ke/

http://www.health.go.ke/

http://www.pcpb.go.ke/

14

Species focus The introductory discussion at the stakeholder workshop on the invasive species present in Kenya gave a wide variety of species, from diseases/viruses, insects, plants, fish and birds (Table 1). Most species listed are already present and established in Kenya and considered to require management.

Table 1: Participant examples of invasive species present in Kenya Insects Diseases Weeds Animals

• Fall armyworm (FAW) (Spodoptera frugiperda)

• Fruit flies • Tomato leaf miner

(T. absoluta) • Larger grain borer

(LGB) (Prostephanus truncatus)

• Maize Lethal Necrosis Disease (MLND)

• Citrus greening • Brown streak • Mosaic virus

• Parthenium hysterophorus

• Cuscuta (dodder) • Ipomoea spp. • Salvinia molesta • Water hyacinth

(Eichhornia crassipes)

• Prosopis spp. • Lantana camera

• House sparrow (Passer domesticus)

• Nile perch (Lates niloticus)

• Crayfish (Procambarus clarkii)

• Indian House Crow (Corvus splendens)

Invasive species system functions Discussions on the ten pre-defined functions (Fig. 2) confirmed that participants thought these functions were accurate and appropriate. However, it was highlighted that co-ordination and network provision for the invasive species system was not listed in the current functions but has a central role in the management/mitigation response to an invasive species threat by providing a leading role and focal point. Another challenge was in resource mobilization, especially when new invasive species are detected (this is potentially a key function under emergency response). Further, the functions were thought to be largely reactive rather than proactive which is important when considering that once an invasive species is already within the country it takes a long time to tackle it.

Actors in the invasive species system Discussions on the pre-prepared actor list ensured all actors present or important in the Kenyan invasive species system were captured. A number of key points arose: the lack of a coordination agency on invasive species management; a need for clarification of each institutions’ mandates in order to fully understand their focus and responsibilities. Clarification was also required on whether the extension department referred to national and/or county level, and whether the national and county governments and the Ministry of Agriculture should all be grouped together. It was highlighted that humanitarian relief agencies have a role to play in the invasive species system, for example, the Larger grain borer (Prostephanus truncatus) is believed to have arrived with aid grain. Further, emergency humanitarian agencies may rapidly leave a country without checks which could also contribute to spreading invasive species. It was clarified that the term ‘land users’ referred to those responsible for safeguarding large areas of land for biodiversity rather than production purposes as for farmers (e.g. KWS, KFS, conservancies). Participants suggested land users should also

15

include prisons as the Ministry of Internal Security conduct farming, production and processing activities on large land areas and there is the potential to utilise this manpower i.e. mobilise for control purposes in the instance of an invasive pest outbreak and/or use large areas of land for control method trials. It was highlighted that there is a high amount of informal and unregulated trade between Kenya and Somalia, Ethiopia, and long distance with Rwanda and that it is unknown whether lorries are stopped for sanitation purposes (i.e. wheels sprayed etc.) and whether this is under KEPHIS’s mandate.

Discussion at the workshop and through KIIs highlighted the following additional actors:

• JASSCOM (Joint Agriculture Sector Steering Committee Mechanism) • Ministry of Trade (international) • Ministry of Foreign Affairs • Ministry of Interior (Police) (law enforcement) • Ministry of Education (include invasive species in school curriculum) • Traders, transporters/tourists • NACOSTI (research regulation) • KIPRA (policy research institute) • Ministry of Finance (budget allocation, waivers and subsidies on products) • Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) • Development organisations e.g. World Bank; Independent researchers • Certification bodies; administration arm of the government • Border control agencies • Development organisations • Humanitarian organisations • Fisheries department • Forestry department • Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KEMFRI) • Nature Kenya (NGO) • Climate change department

Further discussion clarified where some of these additional actors fit into the system. For example, humanitarian organisations and private organisation such as Precision Agriculture would fall under NGOs/CBOs; land users/managers would include KWS, KFS (e.g. conservancies running protected areas and managing land where the priority is conservation rather than food production); legislators and policy makers includes the Council of Governors/County Governments/KIPPRA; the Crop Development Board is now the Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA) who governs all the crop boards (e.g. Tea, Coffee, Sugarcane etc.); the Ministry of Health includes e.g. Port Health; the Environmental Protection Agency in Kenya is NEMA; international organisations include e.g. IPPC, Codex Alimentarius Commission, FAO, ILRI, CABI; universities and research institutions include e.g. KALRO, KEFRI, and the NPPO is KEPHIS in Kenya plus other regulators e.g. NACOSTI, KEBS.

As many of the additional actors listed fell under a ‘group’ actor already listed or had a minor role in the invasive species system they were not included separately in the further discussions. The final list of actors’ considered key in an invasive species system in Kenya are listed in Table 2.

16

Actors within each invasive species system function Table 2: Actors identified as important for the various functions of an invasive species system

Function / Actor Risk analysis

Quarantine Surveillance Emergency response

Diagnostic Services

Research/ technology

development

Information management

Advisory services

Input supply

Policy and

regulation 1. Farmers/ farmer organisations

x x x x x

2. NGOs/CBOs x x x x x 3. Agro-dealers x x x 4. JASCOM x x x x x x x x x x 5. Land users/managers x x x x x 6. Legislators, policy makers x x x 7. Extension dept x x x x 8. AFA x x x x 9. Diagnostic labs x x x 10. Ministry of Health x x x 11. Ministry of Environment x x x x x x 12. EPA (NEMA) x x x x x x x x 13. Traders, transporters x x 14. Climate change secretariat

x x x

15. Agro-input suppliers/ import companies

x x x x

16. Pesticide control body x x x x x 17. Ministry of Trade x x x x 18. Export companies x x 19. International organisations e.g. FAO, IPPC

x x x x x

20. Media x x 21. Universities and research institutes

x x x x x x x x x x

22. Ministry of Agriculture x x x x x x x x x x 23. NPPO (KEPHIS) x x x x x x x x x x

17

Key discussion related to:

Risk analysis: There is a reliance on KEPHIS to carry out risk analysis as the government arm that mostly deals with this on a regular basis. Although KALRO is available there is only one weed scientist. There is some involvement from other bodies e.g. scientists etc. from icipe to identify species and conduct risk analysis. KWS also conduct some risk analysis as part of their mandate. However, risk analysis is fragmented and not coordinated in the system with many working in isolation and very weak information sharing capacity. It was highlighted that unless the actors are working on a collaborative project it is very hard to know who to talk to.

Surveillance: KEPHIS and KALRO conduct surveillance. In addition icipe conducts surveillance i.e. sets traps in a number of locations to identify species when they arrive. NMK conducts some surveillance activities e.g. monitoring birds from Europe to South Africa for bird flu and assessing the risk.

Emergency response: No one institution has the responsibility of declaring whether an ‘invasion’ is an emergency needing urgent attention. Many actors should be involved even if they are not currently involved as they have a role to play. Emergency response needs co-ordination which is currently missing. Actors felt that emergency response should include the Ministry of Interior at national (not county) level. It was noted that some invasions are unstoppable like that of FAW while others like citrus greening could be slowed down or stopped; it is important to distinguish them and know what to do in each case.

Diagnostic services: There is no national level guide to various institutions on where difficult cases should be sent for identification. Diagnostic services (identification/diagnosing pests and diseases) are provided by NMK, private companies and often research organisations (such as KALRO, KEFRI). KEBS is involved in analysis of maize for aflatoxin contamination.

Information management: There is no one-stop-shop for information on invasive species though some books by CABI and others were noted. With the devolution of extension services and subsequent retirement of extension officers there is concern over retaining the extensive knowledge extension officers’ hold. ICT provides a good avenue to reach farmers with information on invasive species, and farmers currently receive a good amount of information through the media.

Actor role and scoring within functions Actor scoring for functions was on a scale of 1-5; indicator 1 being the lowest and indicator 5 the highest score for how each actor delivers their responsibilities within each function (see Additional Information 4 for specific indicators).

1 = no or very limited delivery of responsibilities 2 = some delivery of responsibilities 3 = average delivery of responsibilities 4 = strong delivery of responsibilities 5 = very strong delivery of responsibilities

18

Where group discussion indicated an actor has no role within the function an ‘X’ was given. Blanks also indicate no role within the function, as suggested through pre-workshop research.

Table 3: Actor scoring within functions

Function Actor* 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23

Risk Analysis 3 2 4 3 3 4 Quarantine X 4 3 4 2 2 3 Surveillance 2 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 3 Emergency response 2 3 2 4 4 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 4

Diagnostic services 5 3 3 2 5 Research and technology development

3 4 2 X 4

Information management 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 3

Advisory services 2 3 2 4 3 3 3 2 3 2 X 4 Input supply 4 2 3 4 2 3 4 3 3 5 Policy and regulation 4 3 2 3 3 4 4

*Actors: 1. Farmers/ farmer organisations; 2. NGOs/CBOs; 3. Agro-dealers; 4. JASSCOM; 5. Land users/managers; 6. Legislators, policy makers; 7. Extension dept; 8. AFA; 9. Diagnostic labs; 10. Ministry of Health; 11. Ministry of Environment; 12. EPA (NEMA); 13. Traders, transporters; 14. Climate change secretariat; 15. Agro-input suppliers/import companies; 16. Pesticide control body; 17. Ministry of Trade; 18. Export companies; 19. International organisations e.g. FAO, IPPC; 20. Media; 21. Universities and research institutes; 22. Ministry of Agriculture; 23. Regulators, NPPO (KEPHIS)

Figure 3: Average function score (across all actors)

1 2 3 4 5

Emergency response


Advisory services

Quarantine

Surveillance

Risk Analysis

Research and technology development

Input supply

Policy and regulation

Diagnostic services

Average indicator score

19

Figure 4: Average actor score (across functions)

Across all actors the average score for each function is presented in Fig. 3 where most of the functions within the invasive species system in Kenya were deemed to be performing at approximately the indicator 3 level. This level of performance suggests that there is some awareness of the need to manage invasive species within these functions. However, what is currently occurring is insufficient. The system in Kenya is not operating at the lowest level (indicator 1/2) where no or very little is contributed to the system functioning but there is room for improvement in order for the system to achieve an adequate status. Some functions were identified as operating slightly above average for example, diagnostic services, whereas others such as emergency response were perceived to be operating below average. The average actor scoring across functions (Fig. 4) indicates that most actors are delivering their work within each system function to some degree. However, some actors were perceived to be operating below average e.g. the media (involved in the functions of emergency response and information management). Diagnostic laboratories, on the other hand, were reported to be performing well above average.

Overall participants noted that in most cases, actors were delivering to some degree, but there was a general consensus that more could be done, and there were areas of improvement across all functions and actors. In particular, networking and communication between stakeholders are not very strong. This activity helped identify unknown institutions and the roles they have, the absence of a national invasive species strategy, and the known and unknown links between key actors.

Discussions highlighted that where some actors have been grouped together within this some actors may perform well and others may not; in these instances, the decision was to take an average score. Some indicators were highlighted as too broad and needed refining to be more specific. Other indicators needed further interpretation e.g. research organisations scored low as a definition of what “active engagement” means was required i.e. if it means a standing working group, policy, and a dedicated team this is missing in most institutions, hence the lower score. Table 4 details discussion around indicator scoring for this activity..

1 2 3 4 5

20. Media3. Agro-dealers

7. Extension dept1. Farmers/ farmer organisations

21. Universities and research institutes12. EPA (NEMA)

15. Agro-input suppliers/import companies8. AFA

2. NGOs/CBOs16. Pesticide control body

18. Export companies22. Ministry of Agriculture

11. Ministry of Environment19. International organisations e.g. FAO, IPPC

23. Regulators, NPPO (KEPHIS)5. Land users/managers

6. Legislators, policy makers9. Diagnostic labs

Average indicator score

20

Table 4: Key discussion points from actor scoring within functions

Actor Function Discussion around indicator score selection

1. Farmers/farm organisations

Surveillance (2)

Could be indicator 3 but not “a scientific based system”; most farmers do not have level of skill required. Farmers have knowledge and are very familiar with their environments and are aware when a new species arrives.

Emergency response (2)

Farmers use what is available but depends on what procedures are in place. For FAW, indigenous knowledge was available. Farmers are knowledgeable and familiar with environment and are aware when a new species arrives. Indigenous knowledge (which can be scientific) (farmers have high level of knowledge) and cultural control methods were available.

Advisory services (2)

“Extension services have died in this country” - many officers have retired in the last few years; it is expected that in the next two years 90% will have retired. There are no resources to reach out. If farmers have a problem they can reach out to the correct department but there is not much guidance on the ground. Private actors and the media are more involved e.g. the Catholic church provides a lot of extension services (previously indirectly but have become quite effective).

Input supply (4)

Seeds and fertiliser are available to farmers as government ensures supply. Farmers have a say in what is supplied but what’s provided in the end might not be in alignment e.g. ineffective fertilisers or pesticides (e.g. in the case of FAW, in addition to lack of affordability for farmers). Suppliers sometimes organise field days to demonstrate to farmers who can also state what they want. Indicator 4 selected when referring mostly to seeds but this is not the case for fertilisers e.g. the government subsidies two fertilisers / farmers have no choice. Government advices farmers take soils for analysis e.g. in TransNzoia farmers reported acid soils and local/county government supplied lime. Although there are a lot of new maize varieties that do better farmers still ask for one they’re used to (611). Indicator 4 might be too high.

2. NGOs/CBOs Surveillance (3)

For most NGOs/CBOs, there is a missing communication link making it difficult to get the information to the people who need it in good time.


The fact that information that can help with rapid response normally awaits approval from other partners or agencies delays action most of the time.


(3)

Sharing of information between different NGOs/CBOs is the biggest problem. Many will protect their information to prevent competitors from taking up their ‘space’.


Most of them lack official procedure of information dissemination.

Input supply (2)

“In some cases, NGOs/CBOs are involved in input supply but this depends on the NGO/CBOs”.

3. Agro-dealers Emergency response (2)

Agro-dealers have limited knowledge on invasive species and respond in an ad hoc manner.

21


Agro-dealers don’t have adequate information and it’s not regular.

Input supply (3)

Agro-dealers know the local needs and source products that are demanded but they don’t have contracts. Agro-dealers may not have good control of what they stock as manufacturers often withhold previously existing products in order to push new products into the system and maximize on their sales and profits.

5. Land users/managers

Surveillance (4)

Do have local and regional networks and allocated resources/staff to officially work on surveillance with information officially recorded.


Questioned indicator 3 but moved to 4 as have “high levels of knowledge” e.g. KWS/KFS have very highly trained officers who have some resources but not as much as needed and some political support. Other land users/managers may have some (inadequate) skills and no/few resources. There is general knowledge and some (limited) response on the ground but information sharing is not clear. There are developed protocols but they are not effective e.g. Lake Victoria is closed each year as water hyacinth expands/contracts. However, livestock diseases such as rift valley fever have been successfully controlled and highlights the need to look at all aspects of a system. In most cases emergency response not effective and 4 may be too high a score.


Everyone in Kenya has a mobile phone resulting in advisory services having a wide reach (because of technology, information is available) but unlikely there is an established system in place everywhere. Question, what is an established system? If it is regulated/official this isn’t the case it is unofficial – if change indicator wording from “established” to “unofficial” score 4 stands.

Input supply (4)

Trained officers but very little control over manufacturers/suppliers and receive what is available on the market. However, if KWS wants something they would contact the manufacturer directly i.e. procurement systems are very strong, but cannot get something if it’s not available. Quality of products might be questionable, and not available in quantities required. Further, do not have full control as there can be a long chain/delays and people get impatient.

6. Legislators, policy makers


Mandate of the Ministry, but not often done in a timely manner and policy usually moves fast on a case by case basis. Initially scored 5 but downgraded to 4: as limited powers (includes finances etc.), they do not work with all relevant authorities. Devolution challenges e.g. universities doing research but isolated. When trying to develop policy they do not work in collaboration.

Policy and regulation (4)

Mandate of the Ministry, but enforcement remains a challenge. Enforcement is the role of the County government; happens very well with livestock, but less so with crops. Funding is not provided for enforcement.

7. Extension department

Surveillance (3)

Mostly reactive to invasive issues. DVS is more active in surveillance. Invasive species are a transboundary issue so mostly a Ministry of Agriculture mandate, few species are covered depending on donor interest and priorities.


PPSD does the response on behalf of the Counties e.g. quelea, locusts. Counties have no resources for emergency responses.

22


(2)

Information developed centrally by National Government and disseminated to the Counties, information within Counties tends to be ok, but limited sharing with other Counties. DVS information more centrally coordinated.


Extension departments of very few Counties working well, Counties prioritizing investment in other areas at the expense of advisory services (hardware vs software). No more field days.

Input supply (2)

Agro-dealers stock according to the area of operation and the pest issues that are prevalent, what they stock is driven more by the needs of input suppliers to make profit rather than extension requirements. Extension advises farmer based on experience, agro-dealers are registered by PCPB rather than the extension department.

8. Agriculture and Food Authority (AFA)

Research and technology

development (3)

AFA are not doing research per se but can sanction research activities through their research arm e.g. coffee/tea research centres (which are under KALRO).


Information is not really comprehensive.

9. Diagnostic labs

Diagnostic services (5)

Kenya has a national diagnostic lab, e.g. KALRO and international laboratories such as at icipe, ILRI and BECA.


development (4)

“Diagnostic labs work with some research and technology development organisations to develop control options for newly identified pests or invasive species”, but this is not rapid (as per Indicator 5).


(4)

“Diagnostic labs have solid digital system developed and maintained/managed by team of individuals working in the laboratory; yearly analysis of data in order to provide reports for national and international partners”, but instant analysis of data doesn’t occur and they are not necessarily linked to other public systems (as per indicator 5).

11. Ministry of Environment

Risk analysis (3)

Note: indicator should be worded the other way around, farmer states problem then Ministry of Environment goes to check i.e. they don’t provide initial information but they do then take that forward.


They have good knowledge, information and procedures but response is not rapid.


(3)

Information management is hard to score as not sure of the mandate (follow up interview to clarify).

23


Capacity/areas work limited. E.g. NMK research programme tried to bring together a database to get a list of invasive species in county, this was shared but Ministry capacity to share limited. Knowledge and databases are scattered within the country - the question is how to centralise information? (i.e. may have good information but a comprehensive list not available). Need some support whether from government or research organisations to have central databases. Indicator 3 is appropriate as suggests good but not optimal (even though capacity is there) i.e. there are resources and political will but they can do better i.e. in terms of invasive species there is a limited level of knowledge available on the spread of species (whereas lions are tracked so know when one is killed). When asked for invasive species information for Laikipia only limited information was provided. Indicator 3 selected but argument for 2.


Making many statements in public is easy but making policy is hard and takes time. There are 47 county governments - how many have a functioning Ministry of Environment? There is no good policy document stating policy on invasive species in the country so environmental policies are not enacted and enforced across country down to village level. The current status (real laws and regulations on IAS): there is a lack of policy and regulation e.g. for suppression of a noxious weed (one closest to having an elaborate plan) there are only 9 species listed but there are 79 noxious plants so it is not up to date.

12. Environmental Protection Agency (NEMA)

Risk analysis (2)

There are maybe two personnel trained in the broad area of invasive species but not exactly on risk analysis.

Quarantine (4)

NEMA’s mandate allows it to form technical committees to advise the government and collaborators on situation of new and existing cases of invasive species but their communication on issues is not direct but through collaborating agencies like KWS, KEPHIS etc.

Surveillance (2)

NEMA doesn’t deal directly with identification due to limited knowledge and personnel capacity. They rely on lead research and diagnostic institutions e.g. KEPHIS.


The role here is more of coordination and there is a limited number of personnel.


“The EPA has some diagnosis capacity with a limited number of trained personnel who can make accurate identification of unknown pests and invasive species and can also seek assistance via a referral system to the relevant authorities (i.e. NPPO, diagnostic services)”.


(3)

No comprehensive species lists.


This function for EPA is not necessarily agricultural extension related but can provide information to agricultural extension whenever they have it. They check and regulate experiments before allowing introduction of new species but their advisory role is normally one of coordination.

24


NEMA Act gave them the mandate of approving introduction of alien species into the environment after performing regulated experiments on them. Much of the Act is yet to be implemented because regulations haven’t been fully formulated. NEMA works with other lead institutions to tackle the issue of invasive species. NEMA’s role at the moment is highly reactive as they only start acting when they see a new species becoming a menace to the environment and do nothing for prevention. What is happening on the ground is much less than what the mandate requires them to do. There is no specific policy on invasive species.

15. Agro-input suppliers/import companies

Quarantine (3)

“Agro-input suppliers / import companies adhere to quarantine procedures; only provide officially registered products They have some procedures in place to ensure they comply with quarantine regulations”.


The control options availed to combat invasive species is dependent on the species being dealt with and the cost of intervention affordable to the market.

Input supply (3)

Agro-input suppliers/import companies have a long way to go in areas of surveillance and safety advisory to end users (farmers) about their products. They should find a way to have a working link with the county extension system so that they are all available to give farmers a one-stop shop advisory opportunity e.g. being present during farmer field days and chief barazas to advise farmers on a whole range of inputs and how they work together to contribute to successful intervention.

16. Pesticide control body (e.g. PCPB)


PCPB have some knowledge but limited resources. Need training on different resources available to control pests. In an emergency they can register a product especially bio-pesticides and there is an option in emergency situations for temporary registration (up to a year): subsequently technical/scientific information must be supplied (if not provided after a year, the product can be removed) e.g. T. absoluta product sold for use on that pest only. Post surveillance go to agro-vets and sample products to analyse contents (not whole country, a sample). PCPB has a number of regional offices (around 7 and planning to introduce two more). Most work post-surveillance but for Nairobi both post-surveillance and risk analysis of what is being brought into Kenya. Main problem is resources.


(3)

In collaboration, PCPB train farmers on levels to use, spraying, following PHI and regulations. Ground cover/distribution across country is limited.


PCPB has established communication channels e.g. use newsletters, have annual reports, use media.

Input supply (4)

PCPB cover chemical and biological control products. In an emergency they can send a circular to all suppliers to see if there is a product that can be used and then instigate registration (all products need registration by pesticide control body). Often issues occur around biological/biopesticide products to provide more information that is not available. Biological organisms must have passed via KEPHIS first.

18. Export Companies

Surveillance (3)

“Export companies have a good working knowledge of key invasive species and a rigorous system in place for monitoring and reporting pest incidence / new pest incursions with this information recorded and shared with public officials” but information is only shared if requested.

25


“Export companies have good knowledge, information and procedures necessary for rapid response to invasive species/pest outbreaks with a number of personnel trained in implementing emergency response procedures and good capacity to prevent the spread of pest/invasive species within their own value chain”, however, the procedures are not regularly updated and linked with other key organisations (as per indicator 4).

19. International Organisations

Risk analysis (4)

FAO/IAPSC etc. provide technical and some financial support to countries on risk analysis based on international standards.

Quarantine (4)

International organizations recognise the sovereignty of countries with regard to quarantine, provide best practice to the countries which is largely adopted.


International organizations do play some role in regional coordination of the response, and mobilization of resources, information sharing, but the country leads the response.


International organizations provide some support to inform development of policy documents; documents are based on international standards.

20. Media


The media currently have limited involvement in emergency response to invasive species/pest outbreaks but have the potential to be more involved with guidance. The media frequently reports incorrect information due to lack of communication with experts. The media has no official links established with key experts/relevant authorities.


(2)

“The media has some involvement in information management for invasive species/pest outbreaks and are provided with information through various routes (which may not be official)”. Group unclear what is meant by information management.

21. Universities and Research Institutions

Risk analysis (3)

Involved but not very active. Fewer universities/research doing risk analysis compared to total number mandated.

Quarantine (2)

Lack resources to do this.

Surveillance (3)

Information sharing and channels are ad hoc.


There are no established communication channels; usually there is rapid response for livestock outbreaks and communication channels are clear; for invasives where establishment is slow such as weeds, there is less structured response and communication.


Fewer trained personnel for identification of invasives; lack DNA diagnostic services.

26


development (2)

There are dedicated teams on some invasives e.g. Prosopis; NACOSTI providing funding for research on invasives but only focus on those that have been classified in policy (developed in 2012).


(2)

Limited sharing of information.


Struggling to strengthen linkage between academia and farmers.

Input supply (3)

Research institutions supply clean planting materials e.g. citrus, forest tree seed, banana etc which are resistant to pests/diseases; however, they don’t support enforcement of quality and safety.


There is no up to date research on some invasive species.

22. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MoALF)

Risk analysis (3)

Across all the line ministries, several officers are skilled in PRA.

Quarantine (2)

DVS has some minimal quarantine facilities. However, quarantine has become difficult to enforce with devolution. For crops, KEPHIS has the facilities.

Surveillance (4)

Many partnerships including with DLCO for national surveillance, regularly communicates with respective agencies.


Very active, with response in national activities like locusts, quelea, bird flu virus but less active with response to agricultural pests. However, active with knowledge and information aspects across counties.


Present particularly with DVS for livestock, and for species such as quelea, locusts etc. For other species that require confirmation, this is dependent on respective agencies but inadequate.


development (X)

Involved in identifying research agenda which is done by the respective agencies, and dissemination of technologies. Not a mandate of the MoALF; 1 (could be zero).


(3)

Mostly dependent on donor funding (limited resources are a constraint), is more regular when Government of Kenya has a keen interest on the invasive species and other partners are operating in the same space. Research and information sharing rely on research institutions.

27

Advisory services (X)

Capacity building, pest alerts, producing other dissemination materials the main role of the Ministry. Ensures that consistent information is supplied to the Counties; 1 (could be zero because Min does not deal with extension at the County level).

Input supply (3)

Beyond no 4 is the role of the regulator. Therefore, maximum score is 3.


Mandate of the ministry, but some stages involve the legislature, which is beyond control of the ministry.

23. NPPO (KEPHIS, plus regulators e.g. KEBS)

Risk analysis (4)

“NPPO has established a system for evaluation of potential pests and invasive species that is actively used and results disseminated (locally/nationally) involving relevant experts from other departments and organisations (i.e. universities, research institutes etc.)”, but system is not regularly updated (as per indicator 5).

Quarantine (3)

“The NPPO has good quarantine facilities and procedures in place and in most instances is able to prevent incursions of identified high risk invasive species although this is not always the case and low risk invasive species (with potential to become high risk once introduced) may be missed”. In some cases they have destroyed infected import materials e.g. mealybugs in sugarcane. For traded commodities, the NPPO is integral to the development/implementation of quarantine procedures and shares with appropriate authorities as required.

Surveillance (3)

“The NPPO has good monitoring and reporting procedures and systems in place with trained personnel and good knowledge for the identification of existing or new invasive species / pest outbreaks with adequate response times”, however, the current systems doesn’t ensure rapid response to potential threats and mainly deals with what has already arrived.


“The NPPO has good knowledge, information and procedures necessary for rapid response to invasive species/pest outbreaks with a number of personnel trained in implementing emergency response procedures and good capacity to prevent the spread of pest/invasive species. The procedures are regularly updated and links with other key organisations are maintained to ensure an effective response”, but there is no coordinated response in the country.


NPPO have a high number of trained people and high-quality laboratories (e.g. Aruba quarantine station) to the extent that they can conduct molecular identifications, they have a reference laboratory, and are certified to ensure quality of their results. Most diagnostic services ensure information is regularly updated and widely disseminated by supporting trade (NPPO protecting trade for the country). However, KEPHIS have a lot of information in databases they can’t release or put on a public domain as releasing such information could threaten trade and result in loss of market. E.g. if KEPHIS diagnostic services identified an invasive species that it is known is trade sensitive they would contact the ministry and it would be up to them to take up issue and cascade. Once confirmed threat to citizens KEPHIS can do a lot of awareness raising – they do disseminate information but in a controlled manner. KEPHIS has to work strategically i.e. they couldn’t go out telling farmers they had FAW as would comprise all stakeholders, need to approach the public in a coordinated way so not cause alarm/panic. Address wording of the indicators: indicator 5 to change from “coordination” to “collaboration” and sharing information with relevant bodies/widely disseminated “to relevant bodies”.

28


development (4)

There is a team that deals with IPPC, trade and setting standards; actively involved in implementing procedures in ISPM and development of standards. The NPPO shares information with the Ministry of Agriculture but is not pro-actively directing research. The team recently received training on horizon scanning but is not yet implementing.


(3)

The NPPO has a high level of information management capacity and what can be provided online is available online however there is some information only shared with relevant authorities that strategically cannot be put online.


The NPPO provides information to advisory services on invasive species and their management to land users via official routes (reports to the ministry of agriculture) in accessible formats in a timely manner with a good number (10-15 people) of personnel dedicated to development of advice. They don’t have >20 people and don’t manage to act before a new species takes hold, usually work on what is already there (as per indicator 5).

Input supply (5)

The NPPO is involved in input supply by, for example, recommending crop varieties and regulating plant health inputs (seeds, herbicides, fertilisers, bio/pesticides, monitoring equipment, biological control products etc.), liaising with other regulatory bodies (e.g. PCPB) to ensure quality input supplies (biocontrol providers like Koppert, Kenya biologics etc) and coordinating a regularly updated database of recommendations (KEPHIS certifies seed and other inputs as well as monitors the quality of inputs being sold by agro-dealers. Participant from Kajiado noted that there is a lot of counterfeit seed which KEPHIS has not yet managed to deal with. There is room for improvement but according to description it is a score 5 (indicator needs addressing).


The NPPO takes a leading and active role in ensuring laws, policies and regulations are enacted, implemented and enforced and works with other relevant authorities to ensure this is the case (across counties) – though just starting to work directly with counties – e.g. working on Ipomoea management in Laikipia. Does not have a country wide-approach and providing a framework for the invasive species system (as per indicator 5). Also doesn’t address animals. Have a legal office with 6 staff.

29

The roles and level of performance of some key actors was not clear from the workshop, especially those that were not represented. Follow up interviews highlighted the key roles of AFA, JASSCOM, the Ministry of Environment, KWS and AAK as follows:

• Agricultural and Food Authority (AFA) includes 8 directorates: coffee, sugar, tea, industrial crops, horticultural, food, nuts and oils, and fibre (coconut & sisal) and is responsible for implementing the Crops Act which includes an amalgamation of various agricultural and subsidiary laws including one on invasive weeds. A key role of AFA is the development and enforcement of regulations e.g. provision of licences to export companies, processing plants, factories etc. and liaising with the directorates. AFA works at the county level and the technical department contributes to developing capacity in production using their prior expertise (from the old Boards). Invasive species, especially weeds are challenging for the various commodities. For food crops AFA works on capacity building for invasive species management (not prevention or eradication) especially FAW (particularly in the counties) and striga in Western Kenya. Capacity building consists of training extension workers and training of trainers and is conducted by the technical team (the manager and two officers). The focus in managing invasive species is on preventing further spread and controlling them. In terms of the policy environment for invasive species management within AFA they work on a commodity basis and approach invasive species in this way however, there is no overall mandate on invasive species. The national government, through the Plant Protection Services Division of the Ministry of Agriculture has a mandate on transboundary pests, but other pests are supposed to be dealt with at county level. However, it is still not clear to all parties who should do what.

• Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) activities are guided by laws specifically the Wildlife Act 2013 which outlines their responsibilities on invasive species. This Act gives them more power (from prevention to eradication etc.) Schedule 7 of the Act gives a list of invasive species (plants, animals etc.) that they are supposed to control and manage. The list consists of 21 plant species including Prosopis and Opuntia, and the animal list includes the Indian house crow. KWS have had a problem with invasive species for a long time: they have an invasive species management strategy and action plan (although this expired last year). Their mandate is to conserve wildlife and as such they manage habitats and are directly involved in managing both animal and plant invasive species (but are mainly involved with plants). KWS consider invasive species to be the 2nd key issue they have to address, after habitat loss. However, invasive species are one of the key drivers of habitat loss, and therefore part of the most important issue being addressed by KWS. They consider habitat loss as a greater issue than poaching. Key species they are currently addressing vary by region and include: Opuntia, Prosopis, Indian house crow, Solanum spp., Parthenium, Mauritius thorn cactus, and Elephant grass. KWS has management plans for every park, including surrounding areas, which includes invasive species management. However, resources are limited for implementation.

• The Ministry of Environment and Forestry’s involvement is guided by multilateral agreements (MLAs). Invasive species management forms part of many different conventions e.g. UNCCD, CBD etc. The Ministry’s mandate is to domesticate the MLAs (some key ones are funded by donors e.g. there is an ozone unit). Most MLAs require reporting back where it is possible to identify gaps which need some funding. If the MLA

30

concerns ecosystems, it should be implemented by NEMA, which is the key instrument for implementing all environmental policies in the country and falls in this ministry.

• The Joint Agriculture Sector Consultation and Cooperation Mechanism (JASSCOM) was set up in 2017 with the aim of bringing together national and county governments in relation to agriculture. JASSCOM, as the secretariat, does not get involved in implementation but organises and facilitates between the county and national governments. They have four joint agriculture sector working groups: 1) policy legislation and standards; 2) inputs, joint projects and programmes; 3) research, extension and capacity building; and 4) M&E and communications. JASSCOM can create and abolish committees and form ad hoc committees to handle certain issues that are only there for a specific task e.g. there are currently committees on FAW, acts and regulations, and input subsidies. So if a new issue is raised by the Ministry that needs to be communicated to counties, the Ministry will ask JASSCOM to run the communications.

• Agrochemicals Association of Kenya (AAK) is a membership and stewardship organisation, which ensures that its members adhere to regulations on the use of pesticides. They undertake some farmer capacity building, but have no specific team working on invasive species management, although all four staff have the technical capabilities, especially with regards to agricultural invasive pests.

Actor linkages within the system Several different actor maps for the whole system were produced by the participants and discussed. There was consensus that the system was very complex and that the complexities were best reflected in the map below.

Figure 5: Actor mapping

31

Comments on this map:

• Blue lines indicate a lot of communication and strong links e.g. the Ministry of Agriculture; black lines indicate not much communication, weak links and in need of improvement in interactions e.g. Ministry of Environment; blue and red boxes indicate no interactions/communication and working in isolation e.g. Transport and Infrastructure, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Internal Security/Foreign Affairs, Humanitarian agencies; the central red line on the map indicates key organisations.

• The group considered two key ministries: Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment as central although the links between them were considered weak.

• Farmers and biodiversity are considered central on the map although it is recognised that farmers are the centre in most (if not all) initiatives.

Discussions on all the maps produced certain key points of note:

• The Ministry of Finance, although currently not focussed on invasive species, needs to be involved in any programme through its role in budget allocations. However, the application and delivery of funds would be carried out by the other relevant ministries e.g. Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Environment.

• It is good to unpack the key departments under the Ministries in order to understand the key players to talk to e.g. there is a connection between the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Foreign Affairs on invasive species.

• On the ground, Internal Security and the Ministry of Internal Affairs are involved through the Chief’s office. Any work done at the local level has to be coordinated through the Chief’s office.

• Discussion occurred around whether it is inappropriate for some organisations to talk to others i.e. international organisations should not talk directly with farmers. However, on the ground international organisations are often able to move policy faster as they come in to implement programmes rather than from an enforcement perspective. In addition, they often come in with adequate budgets as opposed to Kenyan research organisations.

• If an invasive species occurs that is of health or economic concern, KALRO must inform other government bodies through established internal channels of communication.

• The media interacts with all actors, and in particular the media targets farmers and farmers then raise the alarm for the rest of the actors.

• Farmers do have direct links with MoALF (via KENAFF representative).

• Research institutions are not well linked to extension and policy, as such their results/innovations remain unutilised. There is a need to understand the existing interactions, and how these can be facilitated to ensure that research results are utilised by farmers and at policy level.

• The key players involved in many of the functions (and as such responsible for food security) were: the regulatory agents, research organisations, the MoALF and the Ministry of Environment.

32

• Participants agreed that Kenya is reactive to pest invasions although they also recognised that the country needs to get to point where it can work pro-actively to address invasive species. It was hoped that this workshop would help enable this process.

Participants also reflected on the mapping process and noted that:

• mapping helps in thinking about whether actors are communicating and, if they are, how they are interacting, the strength of these interactions and whether they achieve anything.

• where there are many interactions it is difficult to record these in mapping activities and it is easier to think about what we would expect in a fully functioning system rather than the current situation on the ground.

• this activity highlighted that there is no central body/coordinator to bring all stakeholder’s issues together and that Kenya doesn’t have a strategy for invasive species as a whole (although many participants assumed the country had one).

• some actors may not be supposed to have a direct link with others but still interact via an intermediate actor.

Actor interaction scoring Participants assessed the level of interactions between actors, regardless of which function the actors were operating in. They assess the interaction as follows:

0 = no interaction (but there should be interaction);

1 = weak interaction;

2 = average interaction;

3 = strong interactions;

4 = very strong interaction.

In a number of instances two groups provided scores for interactions between the same two actors therefore, in these cases, an average score is reported. In most instances participants were able to assign a score for each of the actor interactions with the other actors. In a few instances participants put a question mark to indicate they were unsure whether there is a current interaction, whether an interaction is necessary, or whether more information was required on the actors mandate (e.g. the climate change secretariat’s interaction with traders/transporters, agro-input suppliers/import companies, the PCPB, the Ministry of Trade and export companies) (Table 5).

33

Table 5: Interaction scoring results

Actor # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 2 3 3 3 1 4 1 1 1 5 3 3 0 0 6 4 2 0 2 3 7 2.5 3 2 2 1.5 1.5 8 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 3 9 2 1.5 0 0 1 1 2 3

10 0 0 0 0 1 0.5 1 2 3 11 2 3 0 0 3.5 2 1 1 2 3 12 1.5 2 0.5 1 2.5 2 1 2 1 0 3 13 1 0.5 ? 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 14 1 1 0 1 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 0 1 2 1.5 ? 15 3 2 3 0 1 1.5 3 2.5 1.5 1.5 1 0.5 0 ? 16 2 2 2.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 3 1.5 1.5 2 2 1 ? 3 17 0 1 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 2.5 0 1 2 1.5 0 ? 1 1 18 3.5 2.5 2 0 0.5 2 1.5 3 2 0.5 0.5 1 0 ? 1 2 2 19 4 3 1 1.5 2 2 3.5 1.5 2.5 0 3.5 3 0 1.5 1 1.5 1 0 20 1 1.5 1 0.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 2 1.5 1.5 0.5 1 2.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 21 2.5 2.5 0.5 1 2 2.5 2.5 2 3 0.5 3 2.5 0 1 2.5 3.5 0 1 4 1 22 4 2.5 2 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 2 1 1 1 0.5 1 3 3 2.5 2.5 3 1 3 23 2.5 2 2 1 1 3 3 2.5 3.5 1 1.5 1 1.5 0.5 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3

1. Farmers/ farmer organisations; 2. NGOs/CBOs; 3. Agro-dealers; 4. JASSCOM; 5. Land users/managers; 6. Legislators, policy makers; 7. Extension dept; 8. AFA; 9. Diagnostic labs; 10. Ministry of Health; 11. Ministry of Environment; 12. EPA (NEMA); 13. Traders, transporters; 14. Climate change secretariat; 15. Agro-input suppliers/import companies; 16. Pesticide control body; 17. Ministry of Trade; 18. Export companies; 19. International organisations e.g. FAO, IPPC; 20. Media; 21. Universities and research institutes; 22. Ministry of Agriculture; 23. Regulators, NPPO (KEPHIS)

34

Figure 6: Graphical example of farmer/farmer organisation interaction with other actors

In a number of instances participants thought that there were either no interactions currently happening (but there should be an interaction) or there was a weak interaction on invasive species issues. For example, traders and transporters received a zero score for eight interactions with other actors. Many interactions were thought to be average i.e. the actors are interacting but there is quite a lot of room for improvement. Some interactions were thought to be strong such as between land users/managers and legislators/ policy makers, the extension department and AFA, and the Ministry of Agriculture and the PCPB. A small number of interactions were also currently thought to be very strong e.g. interactions between farmers/farm organisations and legislators/ policy makers, international organisations and the Ministry of Agriculture (Fig. 6) as well as between universities/ research organisations and international organisations.

Participants reported that this activity helped them to see the need for interactions between the various actors and the value of improving interactions in order to effectively manage invasive species. Specific information on the interactions between actors is given below, though it is worth noting that many of the interactions are more related to agriculture or environmental management in general, rather than invasive species specifically.

NGOs/CBOs. Farmers interaction with NGOs/CBOs was given a high score (4) based on FAW introduction and NGOs such as Precision Agriculture who were able to interact with farmers through SMS platform, and FAO farmer field schools. In addition, there are a lot of interventions underway especially on plants e.g. Opuntia and Prosopis where things are already being done at almost the optimal level and there are strong linkages/interactions and networks. The high score means there is little room for improvement and it was felt that the high score was justified in one or two instances with a couple of NGOs. However, this is not

35

the overall picture everywhere, and things must be looked at from a broader perspective along the whole spectrum. NGOs/CBOs have a very low level of interaction with agro-dealers as these organisations are likely to go direct to the larger suppliers (input companies). Some NGOs/CBOs have strong links to policy makers with good feedback channels. There is a weak interaction between NGOs/CBOs and NEMA as the latter organisation has low numbers of staff in the field. CBOs are the first line of defence and play a different role compared to NGOs, and to obtain an accurate answer it was suggested that NGOs and CBOs must be separated.

Agro-dealers interact directly with farmers e.g. actively sharing information via loud speakers, field days in market place etc., and farmers purchasing products. However, agro-dealers are reported to have a weak interaction with land managers (e.g. Opuntia problem in Laikipia), universities and research institutes. It was also thought that agro-dealers would stock certain products to deal with invasive species but there is little interaction at policy level, so they are not always informed of what pesticides are recommended for emerging pests. There is currently no interaction between agro-dealers and the Ministry of Health on invasive species with health impacts such as Prosopis, Parthenium and Opuntia. This role is likely to be under the PCPB’s mandate to ensure agro-dealers have suitable products to deal with invasive species with health implications, in addition to ensuring provision of products that do not have negative health implications for farmers. Participants thought that agro-dealers should interact with the Ministry of Environment in order to ensure the products they stock do not have negative environmental impacts, again however, this role is likely to be under the PCPB’s mandate. There is currently an interaction with traders and transporters on business related matters but not on invasive species (although participants were unsure whether they should have a direct interaction).

JASSCOM interacts directly with the Ministry of Agriculture and is in a strategic position to link national and county governments in the control of invasive species. Currently JASSCOM scored low for interactions with land users/managers (e.g. KWS, KFS), diagnostic labs, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Environment, EPA (NEMA), agro-input suppliers/import companies and the media on matters of invasive species. There is no clear interaction between JASSCOM and universities/research institutes. Currently JASSCOM doesn’t have links with other ministries but is in the process of forming these through technical committees and discussion with partners. JASSCOM works with extension departments through the working group on extension. However, farmers are unlikely to know about JASSCOM as the organisation interacts with farmers through intermediaries. KENAFF stated JASSCOM does talk directly with farmers but the interaction is currently very weak.

Land users/managers may take materials for diagnosis and identification to diagnostic labs although this is not very common. They interact with agro-input suppliers and the PCPB on what products they can use in order to control an invasive species e.g. the chemical and/or biocontrol options for Opuntia in Laikipia. They do not interact with traders and transporters who are also likely to be unknowingly transporting invasive species. Land users/managers should be interacting with regulators such as KEPHIS as they are identifying invasive species on the ground and should be sharing information with KEPHIS to identify and confirm. Interactions with farmers tend to be negative although there is a relationship i.e. if monkeys/elephants are eating farmers crops they may suggest that if farmers want to grow xx they must put xx first as elephants don’t like it, or don’t plant xx as attracts xx. Some land

36

users/managers conduct outreach programmes where they work with neighbouring communities. They have some information sharing/feedback with the media.

Legislators/policy makers have strong interactions with extension in some counties e.g. the work on Prosopis in Baringo is championed by county governments working together with extension. They interact with agro-input suppliers who come to lobby (tax free products etc.), request waivers etc. and sometimes give subsidies. Legislators/policy makers interact with AFA on food policy issues and development. There are some interactions between legislators/policy makers and the Ministry of Health e.g. on Prosopis although this interaction is not very common. Policy makers interact with farmers e.g. policy on tea/coffee where the provision of information and knowledge is high and there is coordination and feedback but usually no finance (although in the case of FAW the government got money to support farmers via providing funds to Ministry of Agriculture). Legislators/policy makers interact with the climate change secretariat where pest and diseases are recognised as one of the challenges due to increase as their spread is facilitated by climate change.

Extension department: extension is considered to be private nowadays with an average level of interaction with farmers. It was noted that extension services are delivered in a group approach and it is therefore not possible to reach individual farmers however, innovations such as e-extension and plant doctors have helped improve the interaction between extension and farmers. The extension department interaction with the media is unclear because the interaction is governed by government protocols; however it was agreed that not much information on invasive species seen in the media had originated from the extension department. The extension department interaction with policy makers is strong in some counties e.g. the work on Prosopis in Baringo is championed by county governments working together with extension.

AFA (CDB) works with extension on food safety committees in the counties, with the Ministry of Health on monitoring food health, and policy makers on food policy issues and development. AFA interacts with farmers providing information, coordination, finance and feedback via crop directorates (e.g. coffee, tea, pyrethrum) on matters of standards required for products which are cascaded to farmers. AFA scores high for interaction with agro-input suppliers, the PCPB, the Ministry of Trade and export companies. AFA has established a national committee to talk about dodder which it needs to expand to other plants. Although AFA and NEMA are both regulatory bodies the strength of their interaction was not easily assessed.

Diagnostic labs exchange information but do not communicate directly with farmers (although farmers know the services are there) i.e. KALRO may take a sample to the diagnostic lab for identification. The lab does not coordinate or provide finance (need to pay for sample analysis) but gives feedback on the analysis.

Ministry of Health was reported to have a strong interaction with the extension department. However, a number of zero scores were recorded where the Ministry has no interaction on invasive species but as the Public Health Department there should be an interaction e.g. on the health issues caused by Parthenium and the problems due to Prosopis thorns. The

37

Ministry of Health is reported to do a lot on human health/animal health but not on invasive species although aflatoxin and invasive species with health issues have a direct link and interaction is needed i.e. no public health messages on parthenium allergy. There is no communication between the Ministry of Health and farmers on invasive species issues; KEPHIS declare outbreaks of health concern. There is some interaction with policy makers though this is not very common e.g. Prosopis.

EPA (NEMA) is the policing arm of government and has some interaction with farmers groups by sharing information although not specifically on invasive species issues. NEMA has no interaction with exporters as it is not present at boarders since this function is delegated to KEPHIS.

Traders and transporters have low levels of knowledge on invasive species as their role is to collect/deliver produce. However, trader/transporter activities are likely to be contributing to the spread of invasive species via produce and/or seeds in lorry wheels etc. Traders/transporters do not interact with farmers on invasive species although this is greatly needed as they are likely to significantly contribute to spreading, for example, fruit flies, T. absoluta and Prosopis seeds. There may be a need to separate transporters and traders as they have different roles. Overall their interactions are very weak and need to be improved.

Climate change secretariat was not represented at the workshop, but subsequent research established it is a department (not secretariat) within the Ministry of Environment. Based on limited information, it was thought that the climate change department has knowledge and information on climate specific issues but does not deal with invasive species specifically. The department does not talk directly with farmers but delivers advisory services through the extension system. The department interacts with the Ministry of Health i.e. on awareness of climate change and mental health issues in dry land areas where they target farmers/pastoralists suffering loss of cattle due to climate change. NEMA reported working with the department. It was highlighted that interaction with this actor is very important as many invasive species are spreading/becoming invasive due to climate change. The overall view was that the climate change department is not interacting with most other partners/stakeholders on matters of invasive species and that the role had been fairly recently established.

Agro-input suppliers/import companies interact with farmers directly and also have large budgets for advertising and work directly with the media.

Pest control products board interacts with groups of farmers directly by sharing information, coordinating farmer field days and providing feedback but not finance to farmers. The PCPB works directly with the extension department on registered chemicals and interacts with international NGOs on invasive species matters e.g. chemicals to use for FAW. The PCPB works directly with AFA in testing and approval of chemicals e.g. the horticulture crop directorate. The PCPB works directly with Ministry of Health on issues such as pesticide residual effects on public health e.g. recently on the health effects of the roundup herbicide.

38

Ministry of Trade is involved with issues such as the detection of high levels of pesticides e.g. residues on flowers, fruits and vegetables for export. Although there is a relationship between the Ministry of Trade and NGOs/CBOs e.g. if a new pest occurs on a flower farm they may share information via the Trade Association under the Societies Act, there is no direct link. The Ministry of Trade provides trade licence/permits to agro-dealers but does not interact with them on invasive species. They work with AFA on the movement of food (AFA focuses on quality of produce/food being traded) and the Ministry of Environment and NEMA in order to implement Multi Environment Agreements (MEAs). Participants felt more information on this actor’s mandate was required.

Export companies work directly with the extension department on out grower schemes and with the Ministry of Health on port health regulation (although the interaction is weak). The Ministry of Environment issues permits to export companies for trading/transportation of goods e.g. timber movements from other countries into Kenya (KEPHIS at boarders). Export companies have a strong interaction with farmers e.g. by providing training on certification and also interact with NGOs/CBOs (as per farmers). Export companies interact with agro-dealers to make sure they stock registered products which is important in ensuring produce meets safety standards for export (residues etc.). There are no specific interactions on invasive species.

International organisations e.g. FAO, IPPC have a strong interaction with farmers providing high levels of information and knowledge, coordination and feedback, in addition to financing (e.g. FAO, IFAD). There is a heavy interaction with extension through training, development of extension materials etc. International organisations work with AFA on the development of policies and capacity building (though this is still weak). They provide funding for diagnostic lab infrastructure development and capacity building for scientists.

Media interacts directly with farmers who provide them with information that the media can use to help highlight farmer issues (i.e. via farmers TV). The media interacts directly with extension to help disseminate information to farmers e.g. digital information services, shamba shapeup, e-clinics, climate advisories, seeds of gold, farmers TV etc. In terms of invasive species the media has covered, for example, papaya mealy bug (PMB) (Paracoccus marginatus), Prosopis, Opuntia and FAW. Although NEMA is expected to be pro-active giving information on invasives that affect environment and biodiversity, their linkage with the media is currently weak.

Universities and research institutes interact with farmers and extension by providing information and knowledge, coordination and feedback, but sharing of research findings is still weak. There is capacity for interaction between various research and diagnostic institutions however, diagnostic facilities are not always affordable thus less utilised by research institutes. There is potential to collaborate with the Ministry of Health on invasives that have human health implications but to date this has been minimal. It was suggested that the inclusion of invasive species management into the college/university curriculum be implemented.

39

Regulators, NPPO (KEPHIS) interacts with NGOs/CBOs on export related issues, AFA on trade diagnostics, the Ministry of Environment on certifications, transporters through the interception of illegal commodities and export companies to ensure they meet export requirements. KEPHIS has a very strong interaction with agro-input suppliers/import companies and the PCPB. KEPHIS interacts with international organisations on certificates/permits for import/export. Although KEPHIS interacts with the Ministry of Agriculture, participants agreed that this interaction needs to be upgraded so that invasive species are a priority.

Participants noted that there has been little interaction on invasive species in the country. In cases where interactions were taking place these were often on general issues and not specific to invasive species. It was highlighted that more information was required for some actors in order to understand their mandates and how they can be integrated into the invasive species system, for example, the Ministry of Trade and the Climate Change Department. In addition, some actors need to be broken down further to clearly understand their respective roles, for example, traders need to be separated from transporters and NGOs from CBOs. In addition the Council of Governors was placed within the Ministries but they might need to singled out as a key actor.

System performance scoring The participants’ assessment of system performance was determined by scoring the system functions by four system performance indicators; i) availability, ii) access and coverage, iii) acceptability, and iv) timeliness and affordability (Table 6) (see Additional Information 5 for specific indicators); presented graphically in Fig. 6.

System performance indicator scoring was on a scale of 1-5; indicator 1 being the lowest and indicator 5 the highest score for how the overall system performs under the four system performance indicators. Contextual factors (finance, staffing, governance and communication) were scored as follows: B1 = minor blocker; B2 = major blocker; D1 = minor driver; and D2 = major driver.

The results indicate that participants felt that the invasive species system in Kenya is currently operating at approximately the indicator 2 level and in most instances this was for all four of the system performance indicators. Some aspects of the system are operating above this level e.g. a score of 4 was reported for advisory services for both affordability and acceptability; input supply for acceptability; and information management for affordability.

40

Table 6: System performance indicator scoring

B1 = minor blocker; B2 = major blocker; D1 = minor driver; and D2 = major driver.

Figure 7: System performance scoring - total scores per indicator

1 2 3 4 5

Risk analysis

Quarantine

Surveillance

Emergency response

Diagnostic Services



Advisory services

Input supply


System function performance indicator score

Affordability

Timeliness

Acceptability

Availability, access, coverage

Performance indicator Contextual factors

System functions

Availability, access, coverage

Accept-ability

Timeliness Afford- ability

Finance Staffing Governance Commun-ication

Risk analysis - 3 2 - B2 B1 B2 B2

Quarantine 2 3 2 3 B2 B1 B2 B2

Surveillance 2 2 2 2 B2 B1 B2 B2 Emergency response

2 2 2 2 B2 B1 B2 B2

Diagnostic services

2 3 3 2 B2 B1 B2 B2


3 2 2 2 B2 B2 B2 B2


3 3 2 4 B2 B2 B2 B1

Advisory services

2 4 2 4 B2 B2 B2 B2

Input supply 3 4 3 3 B2 B2 B2 B2


1 2 1 2 B2 B2 B2 B2

41

Participants’ scoring of contextual factors (finance, staffing, governance and communication) highlighted that these are in most cases (85% of the time) considered major barriers to the effective functioning (and therefore outcome) of the invasive species system (Fig. 7). In some instances, contextual factors were considered minor blockers i.e. staffing for half of the system functions (risk analysis, quarantine, surveillance, emergency response and diagnostic services).

Figure 8: System performance scoring - minor and major blockers

Detail of the discussion that took place in determining the scores for the system performance indicators is presented below.

Risk analysis is not routine or systematic and there is no high-level capacity to undertake risk analysis and no dedicated budget. Finance, governance and communication were viewed as major blockers.

Quarantine: several institutions have quarantine facilities e.g. NMK, KEPHIS, KALRO and KEFRI however, these are physically concentrated in the centre (Nairobi) and not easily available for everyone. There are no clearly negotiated procedures for quarantine due to lack of an invasive species strategy and poor coordination. Any existing procedures are institutionally based and as such fragmented. It was noted however that finance tends to be allocated for institutions that run quarantine facilities. Finance, governance and communication were viewed as major blockers.

Surveillance is sporadic, inconsistent and there is no strategy for invasive species management which differs from the livestock sector where routine surveillance occurs. Finance, governance and communication were viewed as major blockers.

15%

85%

B1 (minor blocker)

B2 (major blocker)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

System performance scoring - contextual factors

42

Emergency response occurs in isolation and there is a lack of ability to control the spread of invasive species. A response happens but typically takes a long time and as such may not qualify as an emergency response. There are not sufficient financial resources to facilitate emergency response with resources only usually deployed when it is of economic importance (i.e. response motivated by economic importance of pest).

A number of different species were discussed in relation to emergency response. For example, response measures have been put in place to manage citrus greening in Mombasa.

It was also noted that livestock is a different system with different protocols in place for response, so that even though they move between countries, there is a good system in place for responding to diseases as loss of livestock is more noticeable.

The workshop noted that coordination is missing and that there should be structures and systems in place before an emergency situation occurs. Capacity (staffing) is not a big challenge but finance was seen as a major blocker.

Diagnostic Services: There are limited resources in diagnostic services, however, most of the time there are good levels of training and quality diagnostic services are available where identification usually occurs in a reasonable amount of time. Diagnostic services are affordable to around half of stakeholders but high cost is an issue. Governance, leadership was highlighted as a major blocker and the fact that in the past a lot of coordination has been initiated and led by international organizations.

Research and technology development resources are not spread across the county (too centralised). Research and technology development for relevant management practices and technologies for invasive species is not a high priority (e.g. no solution yet found for Ipomoea spp.). Research is happening but it takes time for the results to become accessible to use. Often solutions are unfeasible or inappropriate for farmers and other land users to implement as seen with recommendations for water hyacinth and Prosopis (Mathenge Tree). There are regular delays with available management solutions for invasive species not being available when required and limited (insufficient) financial resources available. All the contextual factors are major blockers.

The case of FAW The emergence of FAW was discussed. The response was considered to be slow and by the time action was taken, the pest had already entered a number of counties. It was then argued that the case for FAW actually provides a good example to learn from for the future as there were: 1. coordinated pathways via which information was disseminated to the final consumer (farmer), and 2. KALRO and government officials worked with all stakeholders, including universities and research institutions, to determine a list of appropriate chemicals which was then disseminated in a variety of accessible formats (poster, social media etc.) down to county level. Although it was not possible to contain or restrict FAW, it was argued that FAW is a difficult case as it is a flying insect that is difficult to restrict or contain early on.

43

Information management: there is good quality information validated by reputable organisations and accessible through various means when of national importance i.e.

stakeholder meetings. Information on animal diseases is disseminated in a timely manner but this is not the case for crop pests or invasive plants. Here the pace of information validation results in delays in the timeliness of information dissemination. It is therefore not a case that the information is not available, but that there is a lack of structure in place to implement use of this information. Information on invasive species is also fragmented with some information available from various sites but no coordination. If there was good communication within the function and a driver to help the system deliver then all the pieces would be connected and the system function would be delivered. Communication was viewed as a

minor barrier . However, finance is seen as a major barrier with less investment at county level and reallocation of funds to other emergencies; Staffing is also a major barrier as there are insufficient staff to deliver; and Governance, leadership is also a major blocker because of lack of investment / leadership.

Advisory services: Resources are a major constraint e.g. transport, limited staffing at county level to deliver efficient advisory services and adequate information. Information is of good quality (although still room for improvement) but often targeted at higher levels. Extension workers are knowledgeable and skilled. Advice is sometimes provided late due to delays in getting direction from the Ministry with many consultations at the higher level without making a firm decision. Advisory services are free to the farmer in most cases (payment for advisory services is not yet widespread in Kenya) with some private practitioners charging for their services but this is affordable to some farmers as they are increasingly being seen to pay for it. Staffing is a major barrier as extension staff are ageing and counties are not employing new staff. Governance, leadership is a major blocker as there is a lack of investment. Finance is a major blocker when comes to communication, capacity building and extension services.

Input supply: participants stated that it is impossible to find 5-8 agro-dealers within 5-10km distance of each other and that farmers (stakeholders) do not have much influence on supply as this is determined by the agro-input suppliers. Participants believed that inputs currently reach at least 50% of farmers. It was reported that there is a range of high-quality, registered products available that are safe to use (products are tested, certified and safe) with few counterfeits (i.e. PCPB does its regulatory job) although it was pointed out that DDT is still available. To counter this argument however, it was highlighted that for tomato many farmers often prefer Tanzanian products as opposed to Kenyan ones (products may be approved in

Use of information – the good and the bad In some instances, information does help in decision making for example, a CABI book provides examples of the various methods that can be used to control invasive species in Laikipia; this information is high quality and relevant to universities but inaccessible to many farmers. This suggests there is good information available but a need to use appropriate tools (i.e. posters in the local dialect) to communicate effectively with the target group. In order to conduct a pest risk analysis, relevant information must be available and this was not the case for FAW. For Ipomoea spp., although information has been provided, no management decisions have been made therefore it did not appear to support decision making. One of the parameters used to declare a pest is its level of economic importance but by the time this information is available, the pest is already established.

44

Tanzania but not Kenya, unregulated and/or counterfeit) and that farmers prefer chemicals that kill fast. Indeed, there are many challenges around the safe use of chemicals from a human health perspective. Subsidies tend to be only on fertilizers with any government subsidized pesticides usually arriving too late. Government registered products tend to run out very fast and/or are often unaffordable to farmers. Participants agreed that over 50% of farmers can afford pesticides and that packaging in small sachets helps to make them more affordable. Staffing and governance were seen as major blockers since agro-dealers need to have some basic qualifications and better policies are needed.

Policy and regulation: there are very few laws, policies and regulations related to invasive species management and there are frequent, long delays and inconsistencies in enactment, implementation and enforcement. Invasive species are part of strategic plans for 2021/22. In terms of timeliness participants stated the indicator should say instead of ‘frequent and long delays’ should be ‘permanent long delays’. There is some capacity nationally (NMK, KALRO, KEPHIS) but all the contextual factors are seen as major blockers.

The performance indicator scores provided for the system functions prevention, detection and control confirm that overall participants rated the current invasive species system in Kenya at indicator level 2 (Table 7 & Fig. 7). The system as a whole is operating but has much room for improvement before it could be considered to be optimal.

Table 7: Overall system performance scoring

Performance indicator

System functions

Availability, access,

coverage

Acceptability Timeliness Affordability Sustainability Coherence

Prevention 2 3 2 2 2 2 Detection 3 3 3 3 3 2 Control 3 2 2 2 3 2

Overall system: 2

In terms of contextual factors a number of major blockers were identified for the system functions. For example, for prevention and control participants stated that finance, governance and communication were all major blockers, and for detection governance and communication were major blockers in achieving an effective invasive species system. For all three functions staffing was viewed as a minor blocker (Table 8).

Table 8: Overall system performance scoring – contextual factors

Contextual factors System functions Finance Staffing Governance Communication Prevention B2 B1 B2 B2 Detection B1 B1 B2 B2 Control B2 B1 B2 B2

45

Figure 9: Participant’s overall system performance score

2.2

2.8

2.3

0

1

2

3

4

5

Prevention Detection Control

IND

ICAT

OR

SYSTEM FUNCTION

Overall system performance

46

Table 9: System performance indicators: key points from discussion around scoring

System function

Performance indicator

System level indicator and discussion points

Prevention Availability, access, coverage

Participants agreed with indicator 2: “Some prevention measures in place for new/invasive pests. Limited access to resources or networks needed to act effectively with most action occurring in isolation.”

Acceptability An example of Prosopis was given and that it has some uses (can make chapati, feed to livestock etc.). KEPHIS is conducting prevention activities. The point was also made that often people know about a threat (e.g. banana moth) even if it subsequently escapes.

Timeliness The example of a good response to avian flu was given: a ban on eggs and chickens from Uganda. For plants, response is slow (if at all) i.e. if asked for help for Prosopis you would be unlikely would receive it. However, for FAW and T. absoluta action was quite fast. Participants reported that timeliness depends on visible impacts, for example, if food crops are being affected the response if immediate (although this refers to control rather than prevention).

Affordability Participants questioned whether it is affordable for the government to prevent an invasive species. In the case of FAW the government was aware the pest was coming however, it was present for three months before it was reported in Kenya and could get funding. A document was submitted requesting help and providing a list of pesticides, but the government has no funding for an emergency of that nature (the government only have budget for emergencies such as floods etc.), the funding for FAW (control rather than prevention) was obtained from the World Bank.

Sustainability A suggestion was made (for the future) that to assist in prevention people should be asked not to keep certain animals in ‘disease free zones’.

Coherence Participants agreed with indicator 2: “Stakeholders work together in a limited way, make some resources available and have some understanding of the need to prevent incursions of invasive species. Some incursions prevented.”

Contextual factors

The major blockers were identified as: financing (as there is no budget for prevention), a lack of governance/ leadership as many are working in isolation, and communication which occurs in a very scattered way probably due to the lack of governance. Staffing was viewed as a minor blocker and there were mixed views on whether KEPHIS has enough staff at borders

Detection Availability, access, coverage

Participants believed that KEPHIS has good procedures, system and capacity to detect new/invasive pest outbreaks. For some pests KEPHIS are already aware it is present but have to keep silent for strategic purposes as they need to share information by the appropriate channels. It was also highlighted that Plantwise is another platform that helps in the detection of new/invasive pests/diseases and that this programme covers a wide area.

Acceptability Participants thought it was debatable whether there was good awareness and ability to control new pest/invasive species since people are still seen selling water hyacinth for ponds and farmers also exchange planting materials that could potentially spread problems (such as exchanging cassava tubers where brown streak will not be apparent until harvesting). Information is also not available to the wider general public.

47

Timeliness Participants believed early detection occurs in a timely manner but still experiences some delays. These delays are not due to the pathway of communication (as per indicator). For example, if staff in Baringo saw a new/invasive pest that they were not aware of they would report it to the chief or go to the county office i.e. communication pathways are known (institutionalised) but questions arose on whether these pathways are effective. In the case of FAW, the relevant authorities acted very fast as they knew it was coming; however some information was missing and there were delays in action. Considering the system as a whole there may be clear pathways of communication but the time it takes to respond is the problem (relevant authorities have to go and identify/confirm the problem, feedback is not two-way, and the devolved government also contributes to delays).

Affordability Participants thought there was some provision made for early detection since KEPHIS have a mandate for this. They do visit farms and sample in order to detect if there are any new problems. This is funded by the government’s standard budget.

Sustainability Participants agreed that resources/systems for detection can be created that are economically viable. Further, if farmers themselves conduct detection then the system will be more sustainable in the long-term (which is likely to be the case as high value is placed on crops of economic importance). Currently livestock issues are reported much faster than crop/weed problems as they are much more visible (i.e. a cow dying) but since devolution, food security reports are no longer produced (reducing the visibility of crop losses due to pests/diseases). It was proposed that sustainability is not a suitable indicator for a system that is not yet established. The current invasive species system in Kenya is not well established, connected or fully functional. Flexibility is a strong indicator of sustainability i.e. if a system can adapt (i.e. to a hurricane can’t do xx but can do xx) then it can be seen as sustainable.

Coherence Participants reported that stakeholders do work together in a limited way but do not control or eradicate new invasive species/ pest outbreaks.

Contextual factors

The major blockers to detection were identified as governance/leadership as the system is not coordinated. Everyone works in isolation on an ad hoc basis with no strategy. Communication only occurs in a very scattered way which is probably due to the lack of governance. Financing and staffing were viewed as minor blockers: there is no budget for detection and although KEPHIS have regional offices at regional entry points with a minimum two officers they would do better with more staff.

Control Availability, access, coverage

Participants agreed that there are: “Good procedures in place for control and management of invasive pest outbreaks. Wide access to resources or networks needed to respond effectively with communication between stakeholders within counties resulting in county-wide action.”

Acceptability Participants reported that there is awareness of the need for control of pest/invasive species but they do not have the ability to control outbreaks since, as a country, there is no system in place. The example was given that for FAW in the 1st year impact caused 20% losses but in the 2nd year losses were reduced to 5%. However, there has been rapid and uncontrolled spread of T. absoluta and water hyacinth (via fishing nets).

Timeliness There are clear pathways of communication but timeliness/delays are a problem e.g. the trial permits for Opuntia biocontrol took a lot of time to secure; funding for MLND took a whole year to secure.

48

Affordability Participants agreed that although some financial provisions were made there are not sufficient amounts when needed for control and management.

Sustainability In terms of control, sustainability is still a problem e.g. biocontrol in Laikipia is too expensive and chemical or manual control are not sustainable.

Coherence Participants agreed with the indicator: “Stakeholders work together in a limited way, make some resources available and have some understanding of the need to control and manage invasive species/ pest outbreaks. Some species are managed with reduced spread, but most species still spread without control.”

Contextual factors

The major blockers were a lack of finance (e.g. the issue in Baringo was a lack of finance but they had a land rover/plane to apply the spray), governance/leadership and communication. Staffing was considered a minor blocker since for control, unskilled labour could potentially be used (i.e. Prosopis control) but this also depends on the method of control used i.e. chemicals need to be mixed in correct ratios so some skill is required.

50

As a country Kenya does not have an emergency response system in place to effectively respond to an invasive species outbreak. Although a response happens it is typically after delays and only when the problem becomes economically important and affects livelihoods. Participants felt that as a whole, Kenya is better at detection than prevention i.e. they go to farms when farmers are experiencing problems and complain, but do not have the capacity to prevent incursions in the first instance. There is a lack of coordination and an invasive species strategy which affects negotiations for resources and relevant capacity building and detrimentally impacts on information sharing. However, there is a generally a large pool of qualified technical staff to undertake the functions.

Examples of interactions on invasive species There is a range of work already taking place in Kenya on invasive species however, much of this work is being conducted ad hoc and on goodwill because those involved recognise that the invasive species issue urgently needs addressing. The following examples were provided by participants:

• Kajiado universities in the county organised a workshop to discuss the Ipomoea problem. Currently, there is a technical working group tasked with presenting solutions to the county government but not much has been achieved.

• Nakuru county plant health unit has formed an early warning and rapid response team (comprised of different organisations4) for surveillance and monitoring of existing and new pests and diseases. They report on a quarterly basis, which includes looking through plant clinic data. The county has drafted a county plant health bill which also proposes that the team is formalized in order to get funding and a mandate. With assistance of FAO, community-based monitors have been trained and equipped with traps for FAW and are responsible for monitoring pest status and sensitizing the chiefs who pass the information to the community to be on alert or take specific steps. The next step is to link the monitors with plant doctors and other extension officers to facilitate quick diagnosis, identification and action in interventions.

• Plant Protection Services Division (PPSD) has mobilised an informal multi-institutional technical committee where national institutions, Universities, NGOs and INGOs sit together to tackle invasive species (e.g. recent invasions of FAW and MLND). When a new pest is detected or known to be approaching, a policy brief and new technical materials are developed to facilitate intervention. Briefs include information on the expected economic impacts and are presented to senior officials in the MoALF in order to lobby for funding (which was achieved for FAW). The committee has worked with support from international organizations like CABI, icipe and FAO. The team also conducted surveys on the extent of spread, developed training materials and carried out training of trainers at county level, developed and harmonized extension/awareness materials, lobbied for funds from government and others through project proposals. The challenges include that they have no formal mandate, but rather are working in an ad hoc manner depending on the good will of members and they

4 IPPC, University, Laikipia, county director of agriculture, department of livestock, veterinary department, representation from seed companies, AAK and KALRO

51

have narrow representation as they are not able to bring on board all institutions due to lack of funds.

• Livestock department conducted a survey, through FAO funding, in the ASAL counties that shows a considerable part of the herding land is covered by invasive species resulting in reduced fodder availability. It is proposed the same exercise will be completed for the remaining counties. The palatability of invasives is also being considered in order to gauge if they could be considered as feed. A proposal has been developed to establish the extent of the spread of invasives. They are also developing a strategy for the feed industry and the management of rangelands in order to address invasive species.

• AFA has constituted a committee to tackle land invaders (alien species such as Cuscuta) but are concerned there is no legal framework. AFA collaborates with KALRO and together they provide information and training for counties. The horticultural crop directorate is working with icipe and KEPHIS on traps for fruit flies and on false codling moth on capsicum which is especially affecting exports.

• NMK had participated in committee meetings mobilized by AFA to deliberate on Cuscuta. They have been working with CABI and other players to come up with a strategy document on invasive alien species / list of priority invaders.

• KENAFF had approached and received funding from FAO to translate FAW extension materials/information sheets into some local languages. They are currently working in four counties (aiming for ten) and conduct training on how to detect and report incidence of FAW.

• NEMA has a mandate to vet and authorize introduction of new flora and fauna after conducting environmental impact assessments and has facilitated the introduction of a biocontrol agent for Opuntia, with CABI. NEMA had collaborated with KEPHIS in addressing the issue of Prosopis (after they had been sued for losses attributed to the weed in Baringo). Some of its staff sit on a biodiversity committee constituted by the Ministry of Environment & Forestry. NEMA has had talks about invasive species being a big threat and on formulation of regulations and guidelines to address the problem. NEMA largely relies on partners to help them on such issues to enable them to work on interventions. Ranking the introduction of invasive species as one of the key things causing extinction and threatening biodiversity is important.

• Ministry of Environment (biodiversity matters) has a team to look into invasive species as a threat to biodiversity and a main cause of extinction.

• KWS has a strategy for addressing invasive species in protected areas. KWS are now sensitised to the issue but they still need to work further with parks management. In some cases e.g. in Tsavo they work with the local conservation NGOs and with county government. The activity of managing invasive species has been cascaded from the top by the Director General who has set clearance targets which are then cascaded down to park managers etc. and it is the park wardens’ responsibility to remove invasive species.

• KEFRI has three departments (plant pathology, entomology and forest products) focusing on invasive species (surveillance, monitoring and management) and has been involved in seeking management solutions on invasive species in the forest ecosystem working closely with other institutions such as NEMA, CABI, Kenya Forest Service (KFS). KEFRI has also worked with FAO, JICA, ASARECA, MoALF to pool

52

resources and work on invasive species. KEFRI is putting together a national strategy on Prosopis management. The department focuses on forestry invasive species and rarely gets involved in crop related issues (unless relevant to both).

• PAD/Precision Agriculture set up and manage a free SMS platform for Safaricom and Airtel on behalf of MoALF, working with CABI. A set of messages are sent out to farmers, initially about FAW, but now more general agriculture advice is given. They currently have 360,000 farmers registered.

• KALRO has worked a lot on invasive species that are pests and diseases, but not much on weeds and is particularly interested to collaborate on this angle.

• KEPHIS partners with many institutions and also has a mandate to carry out prevention checks at the borders. Under Plantwise the information captured by plant doctors is evaluated by a multi-institutional working group who develop pest management guides for different pests. Taking advantage of the information from PDs, a lot of invasive species can be tackled at an early stage. KEPHIS use clinic data as a monitoring tool.

• AAK has worked in partnership with PCPB, KEPHIS, CABI, KALRO, MoALF, etc. For instance, there have been unconfirmed reports to AAK that T. absoluta might be resistant to some of the registered products with the prescribed alternative reported as ‘not very effective’. AAK is working with research organizations to validate the information.

• CABI has been engaged in work on invasive species in Kenya working with the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MoALF), and other institutions - KEPHIS, KALRO, KEFRI, and PCPB, and other stakeholders in research and academia. CABI has also worked with private sector partners particularly in the dissemination of messages and testing of management technologies e.g. Precision Agriculture for Development (PAD), Koppert, Provivi and AgBitech. CABI’s work on invasives has to date focussed on; diseases (MLND), pests (FAW, T. absoluta and PMB), and woody weeds (Opuntia and Prosopis). For each of these invasive species all relevant stakeholders have come together to produce a technical brief informed by impact studies, and to define communication and research plans. Evidence notes have also been published for FAW and T. absoluta (Rwomushana et al. 2018; Rwomushana et al. 2019). A recent impact assessment has taken place for PMB but is not yet published. CABI through the AoI programme has piloted area-wide management activities for the control of FAW, as well as participatory farmer testing of low-risk options. Various papers have been published relevant to Kenya, in addition to the book: ‘Invasive alien plants and their management in Africa’ (Boy and Witt 2013). CABI provides various resources including the Invasive species compendium (ISC)[1], and are in the process of developing a free tool to enhance awareness and uptake of biopesticides, the Biopesticide Portal[2], for which Kenya is a pilot country.

The Ministry of Environment and Forestry’s various departments address invasive species relevant to their specific areas of mandate. However it was also noted that many government departments are addressing invasive species without being aware what others are doing, which could be leading to duplication, time and resource wastage (e.g. Cuscuta – University of Nairobi, KALRO, KEFRI, etc.). A number of institutions were constantly mentioned in a [1] https://www.cabi.org/ISC [2] https://site.cabi.org/biopesticides-portal/

https://www.cabi.org/ISC

https://site.cabi.org/biopesticides-portal/

53

number of initiatives and were working with many players in the system: MoALF, MofE, KEPHIS, KALRO, NMK, Universities, KEFRI, KWS, KFS, NEMA and PCPB; and hence these actors are central in the management of invasive species. This highlights the urgent need for coordination to have all resources brought together to tackle invasive species.

Although there is a lack of a national strategy on invasive species, participants reported current legislation includes: KWS 2018-2020 invasive species strategy on protected areas; the National Monitoring and Surveillance strategy 2018; KEPHIS phytosanitary policy; KEFRI strategy (currently in process); AFA – Act 13, 2012 for the provision for noxious invasive weeds.

54

Challenges identified One of the key challenges preventing action on invasive species in Kenya was identified as the lack of a central coordinating body in relation to invasive species management. Although invasive species are hugely problematic in Kenya, current work is occurring in isolation. There are no structures, systems or clear authority to guide invasive species management with lots of fragmented pockets of work on invasive species through different institutions with no coordination. The lack of any clear policy or regulatory and legal framework for invasive species management compounds the isolated working. There is no common objective or any overarching or specific legislation on invasive species management. Currently, it is only when a new invasive species arrives and causes problems that people react. Participants also reported a lack of awareness of different institutions’ mandates and a subsequent lack of collaboration with respect to invasive species management. Many organisations have invasive species management in their mandates and strategies e.g. KFS, KEPHRI and KALRO (due to crop losses) but this is not known to all actors, nor are the actions being taken. This has been compounded by devolution (although that is improving with more synergy between national and county levels). This is particularly the case as currently management of plant and animal diseases are viewed as the role of the county, whereas migratory and cross-border species are the national government’s responsibility.

At the moment there is a species approach to management, but it would be good to have a multi-species approach. In addition, there are limited approved intervention measures for new reported pests. Farmers can take a long time before utilising proposed measures, resulting in big losses. However, this can be due to the low level of sensitization and awareness raising of new invasive species, so farmers are unaware of them, and may use ineffective control measures. Forecasting and detection are challenging without early warning systems, therefore, the prevention of invasion by pests is difficult.

In addition, there is a lack of resources and inadequate funding, and the perception that interest in the biological professions like taxonomy, entomology and agriculture is declining in Kenya, and globally.

The way forward The timing is right for bringing invasive species to the forefront when considering international commitments being made towards tackling invasive species, for example, the CBD. In Kenya an invasive species management strategy should be developed followed by the establishment of a permanent body that is responsible for regulating the system (i.e. the equivalent to the climate change department). Recommendations from the workshop and key informant interviews include the following:

• A review of current national policy framework in order to merge various efforts and harness mandates to address invasive species.

• A review of existing mandates in order to recommend which institution (existing or to be formed) can/should take the lead in coordinating the others.

• Government to establish an overarching inter-ministerial committee with the sole mandate of tackling invasive species.

55

• Review and learn from other countries ‘best-practice’ for invasive species management and identify case studies on how some invasive species have been tackled in the past which could help articulate opportunities and challenges.

• Establish a national technical working group or coordinating body on invasive species building on what is already happening e.g. FAW technical working group.

• The coordinating body should produce a high-quality dossier of information/ guidance document including convincing data to be presented to Cabinet Secretaries from key ministries and leaders of all key institutions to convince them of the need to constitute the overarching inter-ministerial committee. The guidance document should include data and statistics that provide detail about what is happening and what is likely to be lost without action to manage invasive species.

• The coordinating body should develop a framework clearly identifying who is responsible for invasive species in the various systems within the country e.g. invasive species in crops, rangelands, forests etc. to ensure a clear roadmap for action. A national strategy would be useful to map the problem (this would require the engagement of all stakeholders). The framework or strategy should indicate how the different agencies should work and their individual mandates to ensure a clear and united approach to invasive species management.

• The coordinating body should be provided by a government agency as decisions need to be based in policy and backed by law. The coordinating body needs to have a clear mandate, and should be guided by the strategy. It should be effective, empowered and neutral.

• It was noted that the coordinating body should have adequate representation from the environment, agriculture and other sectors involved in invasive species management.

• The coordinating body should bring all stakeholders together, including research, laws and regulations and identify where the main blockers are and rapidly increase the profile of the invasive species issue.

• It was noted that an ‘outside’ body maybe better placed to push for the establishment of a coordinating body as opposed to a staff in any of the ministries. CABI was requested to support the technical team.

• Potential options include the Ministry of Environment or the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries where a secretariat could be formed under either Ministry, or a research institution. It was identified that NEMA, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, the Ministry of Environment, PPSD, and JASSCOM can contribute at a national level to push the policy agenda to the next step.

• As invasive species are a very broad issue, there is a need for awareness raising and sensitisation at all levels (public and institutional), including training in the identification of invasive species. Champions could be established e.g. to work with hotels in parks, and the managers of community conservation areas educated on how to manage invasive species.

• A more coordinated response system, good partnerships, quick response and flexibility is needed in registering tested products by the government whenever there are invasions as that would help fight pests before they spread widely.

56

• Resources should be set aside for research into understanding the extent or scale of invasive species, and appropriate control measures as well as to stay current with developments and innovations in the field of invasive species management.

Summary and conclusions Invasive species are a serious and growing problem in Kenya. The objective of this study was to understand the current status of the invasive species system in Kenya. The findings demonstrate that although the system in Kenya is operating there is much room for improvement before it could be considered optimal. For instance, there are a number of actors involved in invasive species management but in most instances these actors work in isolation and are unclear of specific mandates, roles and responsibilities with regards to invasive species management. Further, in general there were weak to average linkages and infrequent interactions between actors. In instances where interactions between actors occurred these were on an unofficial, ad hoc basis.

Workshop participants reported learning about other organisations’ roles was interesting and informative since they are used to working in silos often unaware of each other’s activities. Further, where possible during the workshop, unpacking actors in order to fully understand their responsibilities and mandates provided some clarity on the roles various organisations should have within the system and the current strength of interactions.

A key finding which rapidly became apparent is the lack of any co-ordination and network provision for the invasive species system in Kenya. A coordination body would have a central role in the management/mitigation response to an invasive species threat. The absence of leadership or a focal point on invasive species contributes to Kenya’s reactive rather than proactive approach to an invasive species threat and hinders system performance. In addition, contextual factors such as governance/ leadership and finance were identified as major barriers to effective system functioning. There are also very few laws, policies and regulations related to invasive species management with frequent, long delays and inconsistencies in enactment, implementation and enforcement.

Invasive species are part of Kenya’s strategic plans for 2021/22 with the timing right to bring them to the forefront especially considering international commitments being made towards tackling invasive species, such as the CBD. This study highlights the urgent need for a national invasive species strategy which is accompanied by clear protocols to tackle invasive species in Kenya.

It is recommended that the country develops an invasive species management strategy adopting a multi-species approach followed by the establishment of a permanent body responsible for regulating the system. Key recommendations (highlighted above) include the need for a review of the current national policy framework and existing mandates in order to merge various efforts, harness mandates and recommend who can/should take the lead in coordinating invasive species. The coordinating body should be provided by a government agency to ensure policy advancement which is backed by law with the establishment of an overarching inter-ministerial committee whose sole mandate is to tackle invasive species. Further, the coordinating body should 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.

57

The coordinating body, it is hoped, would help to assist in addressing the serious resource issues that prevent current management and effective mitigation of new / invasive pest outbreaks at the detection and prevention stage, rather than relying on emergency response measures aimed at control once the pest has already established.

This invasive species systems approach piloted here has facilitated stakeholder engagement in clearly defining and understanding the system in Kenya as it currently stands. Defining functions and indicators helps partners to see what is critical, potential collaboration opportunities and joint work to ensure effective system functioning which all form a basis for future system assessment. Participants have successfully completed a self-assessment of their own system strengths and weaknesses, and importantly planned a clear way forward based on this understanding and insight. The results can also form either a baseline assessment or a comparative assessment if repeated, to understand what changes have happened over time within the invasive species system. Further, the approach and tools demonstrated here have been developed so that they are applicable to other countries invasive species system self-assessments.

58

References Boy, G., & Witt, A. (2013). Chaper One: Confronting the Problem, Alien invaders and their

impacts. In Invasive alien plants and their management in Africa (pp. 17–46). Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP/GEF Removing Barriers to Invasive Plant Management Project, International Coordination Unit, CABI Africa.

Day, R., Abrahams, P., Bateman, M., Beale, T., Clottey, V., Cock, M., et al. (2017). Fall armyworm: Impacts and implications for Africa. Outlooks on Pest Management, 28(5), 196–201. doi:10.1564/v28_oct_02

Deressa, T., & Demissie, G. (2017). Maize Lethal Necrosis Disease (MLND) - A Review. Journal of Natural Sciences Research, 7(7), 38–42. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2016.506.011

Early, R., Bradley, B. A., Dukes, J. S., Lawler, J. J., Olden, J. D., Blumenthal, D. M., et al. (2016). Global threats from invasive alien species in the twenty-first century and national response capacities. Nature Communications, 7, 12485. doi:10.1038/ncomms12485

Gitonga, Z. M., Chabi-Olaye, A., Mithöfer, D., Okello, J. J., & Ritho, C. N. (2010). Control of invasive Liriomyza leafminer species and compliance with food safety standards by small scale snow pea farmers in Kenya. Crop Protection, 29(12), 1472–1477. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2010.08.007

Kumela, T., Simiyu, J., Sisay, B., Likhayo, P., Mendesil, E., Gohole, L., & Tefera, T. (2019). Farmers’ knowledge, perceptions, and management practices of the new invasive pest, fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) in Ethiopia and Kenya. International Journal of Pest Management, 65(1), 1–9. doi:10.1080/09670874.2017.1423129

Odoyo Agutu, P., Karoki Gachari, M., & Ndegwa Mundia, C. (2018). An assessment of the role of Water Hyacinth in the water level changes of Lake Naivasha using GIS and remote sensing. American Journal of Remote Sensing, 6(2), 74–88. doi:10.11648/j.ajrs.20180602.13

Pagad, S., Genovesi, P., Carnevali, L., Scalera, R., & Clout, M. (2015). IUCN SSC invasive species specialist group: Invasive alien species information management supporting practitioners, policy makers and decision takers. Management of Biological Invasions, 6(2), 127–135. doi:10.3391/mbi.2015.6.2.03

Pratt, C. F., Constantine, K. L., & Murphy, S. T. (2017). Economic impacts of invasive alien species on African smallholder livelihoods. Global Food Security, 14(January), 31–37. doi:10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.011

Rwomushana, I., Bateman, M., Beale, T., Beseh, P., Cameron, K., Chiluba, M., et al. (2018). Fall Armyworm: impacts and implications for Africa. Evidence Note Update, October 2018. doi:10.1564/v28

Rwomushana, Ivan, Tambo, J., Pratt, C., Moreno, P. G., Beale, T., Lamontagne-Godwin, Julien Makale, F., et al. (2019). Tomato leafminer (Tuta absoluta): impacts and coping strategies for Africa, (March). doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.28169.70247

59

Appendices

Appendix 1: Invasive systems workshop participant list Name Institution Gender

Dr. Daniel Mwendah M’Mailutha

Kenya National Farmers’ Federation (KENAFF) M

Teresia Karanja PPSD F Emmanuel Bakirdjian PAD M Benson Ngigi AAK M Mr. Lucas Suva Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) M Dr. Eunice Ringera Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) F Erick Were Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) M Maureen Waswa Pest Control Products Board (PCPB) F Dr. Adan Ali Umma University M Hannah Oduor Nakuru County (Crops Officer) F John Wanyoike Joint Agricultural Sector Streeting Committee

(JASSCOM) M

Halima Nenkari Representative – Kajiado County (Livestock department)

F

Joyce Karanja Seed Trade Association of Kenya (STAK) F Wilson Busienei National Environment Management Authority

(NEMA) M

Itambo Malombe National Museums of Kenya M Dr. Staline Kibet University of Nairobi M Dr. Hottensia Mwangi KALRO F Dr. George Muthike KEFRI M Mr. Patrick Munyua MoALF, Livestock department M Ivan Rwomushana CABI, Kenya M Frances Williams CABI, Kenya F Monica Kansiime CABI, Kenya F Linda Likoko CABI, Kenya F Florence Chege CABI, Kenya F Kate Constantine CABI, UK F

All additional information available on request

Additional Information 1: Invasives systems assessment theoretical framework

Additional Information 2: PowerPoint presentation

Additional Information 3: Invasives system assessment detailed method and approach

Additional Information 4: Actor scoring criteria

Additional Information 5: System performance indicators

60

Africa Americas Asia Europe

Ghana

CABI, CSIR Campus No.6 Agostino Neto Road Airport Residential Area P.O. Box CT 8630, Cantonments Accra, Ghana T: +233 (0)302 797 202 E:[email protected]

Kenya

CABI, Canary Bird 673 Limuru Road, Muthaiga P.O. Box 633-00621 Nairobi, Kenya T: +254 (0)20 2271000/20 E:[email protected]

Zambia

CABI, Southern Africa Centre 5834 Mwange Close Kalundu, P.O. Box 37589 Lusaka, Zambia T: +260967619665 E: [email protected]

Brazil

CABI, UNESP-Fazenda Experimental Lageado, FEPAF (Escritorio da CABI) Rua Dr. Jose Barbosa De Barros 1780 Fazenda Experimental Lageado CEP: 18.610-307 Botucatu, San Paulo, Brazil T: +55 (14) 3880 7670 E: [email protected]

Trinidad & Tobago

CABI, Gordon Street, Curepe Trinidad & Tobago T: +1 868 6457628 E: [email protected]

USA

CABI, 745 Atlantic Avenue 8th Floor Boston, MA 02111 T: +1 (617) 682-9015/ +1 (617) 682-9016 E: [email protected]

China

CABI, Beijing Representative Office Internal Post Box 85 Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences 12 Zhongguancun Nandajie Beijing 100081, China T: +86 (0)10 82105692 E: [email protected]

India

CABI, 2nd Floor, CG Block, NASC Complex, DP Shastri Marg Opp. Todapur Village, PUSA New Dehli – 110012, India T: +91 (0)11 25841906 E: [email protected]

Malaysia

CABI, PO Box 210 43400 UPM Serdang Selangor, Malaysia T: +60(0)3 894329321 E: [email protected]

Pakistan

CABI, Opposite 1-A, Data Gunj Baksh Road Satellite Town, PO Box 8 Rawalpindi-Pakistan T: +92 51 929 2064/ 2063 / 2062 E: [email protected]

Switzerland

CABI, Rue des Grillons 1 CH-2800 Delemont Switzerland T: +41 (0)32 4214870 E: [email protected]

Head Office

CABI, Nosworthy Way Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8DE, UK T:+44 (0)1491 832111 E: [email protected]

UK (Egham)

CABI, Bakeham Lane Egham, Surrey TW20 9TY, UK T: +44 (0)1491 829080 E: [email protected] E: [email protected]

public document - home - cabi.org...invasive species are species that, with human assistance, arrive...

Documents