Desert Locust Surveillance and Control Programmatic Environmental Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DESERT LOCUST SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT October 2020 Prepared for: Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance US Agency for International Development DESERT LOCUST SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OCTOBER 2020 Prepared by: The Cadmus Group LLC (Cadmus) and ICF Cadmus 100 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Waltham, MA 02451 USA +1-617-673-7000 Fax +1-617-673-7001 www.cadmusgroup.com ICF 9300 Lee Highway Fairfax, VA 22031 USA +1-703-934-3000 www.icf.com The Cadmus Group LLC and ICF prepared this Programmatic Environmental Assessment under USAID’s Environmental Compliance Support (ECOS) Contract, Contract Number GS00Q14OADU119, Order No. 7200AA18N00001. ECOS is implemented by ICF and its subcontractors. 2 USAID APPROVAL OF PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROJECT/ACTIVITY NAME: DESERT LOCUST SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Approval: Clearance by email 11/02/2020 Taylor Garret, Director, BHA, Office for Africa Date Clearance: Clearance by email 11/02/2020 Dennis Weller, BHA, Acting Sudan Team Leader – East Date African Desert Locust Group Clearance Clearance by email 11/02/2020 Gina Vorderstrasse, BHA, Regional Advisor - East and Date Central Africa Clearance: Clearance by email 10/30/2020 Yene Belayneh, BHA, Senior Technical Advisor – Pests and Date Pesticides Concurrence: 11/02/2020 Erika Clesceri, BHA, Bureau Environmental Officer Date DISTRIBUTION: CC: BHA Ag; MEOs for Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan; E Africa/Kenya REA; AFR BEO; RFS BEO; BHA Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan Teams, Environmental Compliance Database (ECD) i | USAID DESERT LOCUST PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT | OCTOBER 2020 | USAID.GOV East Africa Locust PEA Topline Outcome This Programmatic Environmental Assessment (or “PEA”) evaluates foreseeably significant environmental and human health impacts of USAID support to desert locust control, including pesticide procurement and/or use. The PEA evaluated desert locust operations in the three East African countries of Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia. The PEA now permits USAID to support the procurement and/or use of nine (9) pesticides, an expansion of seven pesticides from the two that were rapidly approved. While the USAID suite of pesticide tools have been expanded, not all that were requested met the criteria. Two (2) of the pesticides requested were deemed too high of a risk for broadcast aerial and land based application in the three countries. Chlorpyrifos and fipronil were NOT approved under USAID’s pesticide safety procedures. It should be well-noted that the environmental and human health risks of such campaigns (including with the nine approved) are extremely high, without appropriate measures, as outlined in this USAID environmental regulatory PEA documentation. Pesticide Class Nine (9) USAID Approved AIs for Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia Biopesticide Metarhizium anisopliae var acridum (also as: Metarhizium acridum) (1) Insect Growth Regulators Diflubenzuron, Teflubenzuron, Triflumuron (3) Pyrethroids Deltamethrin, Lambda-Cyhalothrin (2) Carbamates Bendiocarb (1) Organophosphates Malathion, Fenitrothion (2) ii | USAID DESERT LOCUST PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT | OCTOBER 2020 | USAID.GOV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Desert Locust PEA team (Annex 1) thanks USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) for its support, and particularly Shawntel Hines, Tran Que Nguyen, Patrick Robin, Yene Belayneh, and Cara Christie. We also thank Erika Clesceri, BHA Bureau Environmental Officer (BEO), Bill Thomas (BEO, USAID Bureau for Resilience and Food Security), Brian Hirsch (BEO, USAID Bureau for Africa) and David Kinyua (USAID Regional Environmental Advisor, Nairobi) for their leadership and technical assistance. While limited due to COVID-19, in-country consultations played a critical part in developing this analysis. The United States-based members of the team extend our gratitude to our East African colleagues for the consultations conducted in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Somalia. Finally, but not least, the team thanks the numerous actors and stakeholders, inside and outside of USAID, who generously shared their time and knowledge. iii | USAID DESERT LOCUST PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT | OCTOBER 2020 | USAID.GOV TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................................. IV LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................................... VII 1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Abstract ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 3 2 ORIGIN, SCOPE, INTENT, AND APPLICATION OF THIS PEA .................................................................................. 9 About 22 CFR 216 Programmatic Environmental Assessments ........................................................................ 9 2.1 Origin and Context ......................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Scope of Interventions Assessed: Current and Potential USAID Support to Desert Locust Surveillance and Control ............................................................................................................................. 11 2.3 Geographic and Species Scope ................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Intent ................................................................................................................................................................ 12 2.5 Application by Missions and Operating Units other than BHA ......................................................... 12 3 BACKGROUND: DESERT LOCUSTS, THE CURRENT EAST AFRICA OUTBREAK, CONTROL TECHNIQUES .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14 3.1 Desert Locust Biology and Behavior ........................................................................................................ 14 3.2 Current East African Upsurge as of May 2020 ....................................................................................... 16 3.3 Understanding of Effective, Responsible Practice for Desert Locust Response and Control .... 18 3.4 FAO's Desert Locust Guidelines and SOPs ............................................................................................ 22 4 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................................................................... 25 4.1 Statement of Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................... 25 4.2 Discussion of Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................. 25 5 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ......................................................................................... 26 6 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND COUNTRY CONTEXT FOR DESERT LOCUST CONTROL ................... 28 7 ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH RISKS AND CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................ 29 7.1 Potential Environmental & Health Impacts of Locust Control ........................................................... 29 7.2 Approach to Characterizing Risk and impacts ....................................................................................... 30 7.3 Extent to which Assumptions Result in Comparable Risks vs US Standards, Part 1: Analysis of Pesticide Risk Profiles .................................................................................................................................. 33 7.3.1 Background: PRG Pesticides and their US EPA Registration Status ............................................. 33 7.3.2 Review of FAO Pesticide Referee Group’s 2014 Methodology and Analysis. ........................... 37 7.3.3 Toxicology and Physical Properties Comparison. ............................................................................ 38 7.3.4 Pesticides Registered for Locust Control in Australia ..................................................................... 52 7.3.5 Synthesis: Comparative Risks of Pesticides ........................................................................................ 54 7.4 Extent to which Assumptions Result in Comparable Risks vs US standards, Part 2: In-principle Risk Mitigation Provided by FAO DL Guidelines and SOPs .................................................................. 56 iv | USAID DESERT LOCUST PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT | OCTOBER 2020 | USAID.GOV 7.4.1 Extent to which FAO’s DL Guidelines and SOPs Meet US RUP requirements ........................... 56 7.4.2 Extent to which FAO’s DL Guidelines and SOPs Address Potential Adverse Impacts