|
| ||||||||||
The Regional Fruit Fly Projects An evaluation of the export benefits of the Regional Fruit Fly Projects. The overall impact of fruit flies on domestic fruit consumption and nutrition. Mitigation and control measures for domestic fruit production Fruit fly eradication: the Nauru Program The importance of surveillance and emergency response programs for domestic fruit production. Consolidating and sustaining Project activities Mechanisms to ensure sustainability Mechanisms to ensure sustainability The tapping of funding from industry
Fruit flies constitute one of the world’s major insect pests of fresh fruit and fleshy vegetables. In every Pacific island country and territory (PICT), there is at least one, and usually more, damaging endemic fruit flies present. These are serious pests infesting a wide range of edible fruits and vegetables. It has been recognized for some time that unless fruit flies are understand and managed effectively the prospects for improving the production and quality of fresh fruits and vegetables are limited, and the possibility of developing horticultural exports, for which there are market opportunities, is virtually non-existent. The vast majority of rural households grow fruit for their own consumption. Thus the adverse consequences of exotic fruit flies are potentially far greater on domestic consumption and markets than on the export sector. The Regional Fruit Fly Projects Contents To ameliorate the problems of fruit flies, the Regional Project on Fruit Fly Control Strategies in the South Pacific was launched in September 1990 in Fiji, Tonga, Western Samoa, and Cook Islands. The primary justification of this Regional Fruit Fly Project (RFFP) was to develop export markets for PICT produce. This was done through:
The first priority was to set up a fruit fly database and quarantine surveillance systems. The quarantine treatment development work of the RFFP has involved two distinct areas:
Field control development work focused almost entirely on the protein bait spray trials in Fiji, Tonga, and Cook Islands. Despite the good progress that was made, particularly in generating the fruit fly database, it became clear that the Project objectives could not be achieved within the allotted 3-year period. Thus, the RFFP was extended for a further 3-year phase and expanded to include Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, and FSM. In addition to continuing the database, quarantine surveillance and quarantine treatment work, greater emphasis was given to developing protein bait sprays as a means of field control of fruit flies. The introduction of field control components broadened the potential benefits beyond exports to enhanced domestic fruit consumption. In May 1997, the Project was extended to cover all 22 PICTs. The activities of the expanded project include establishing and monitoring quarantine surveillance and improving emergency response preparedness in all PICTs, developing and demonstrating technology on field control of fruit flies, expanding the use of existing quarantine treatments for fresh fruit and vegetables exports based on non-host status and high temperature forced air (HTFA), increasing public awareness on the risk of exotic fruit flies entering the countries, and transferring technology between countries. The name of the project was changed to the Project on Regional Management of Fruit Flies in Pacific (RMFFP). Thanks to this regional effort over nearly a decade, there has been solid achievement in expanding produce exports. However, the magnitude of export expansion and the range of beneficiaries from this expansion have been less that might have been envisaged. New Zealand remains the overwhelming dominant market for fruit and Fiji remains the overwhelming dominant supplier. From the outset, it was recognized that, if the RMFFP was to have a widespread sustainable impact it would need to contribute significantly to domestic fruit production and consumption. However, in contrast to export production, very little was known about domestic fruit consumption, and the effect of losses resulting from fruit flies have on food security and nutrition, and rural poverty and employment. These areas are the focus of this study. The study follows a companion study conducted in 1996 by the same author, which evaluated the benefit and costs of the RFFP in terms of generating exports. For completeness, the 1996 study is reviewed briefly and updated. An evaluation of the export
benefits of the Regional Fruit Fly Projects. The 1996 Study covered the period 1993 to 2002. The benefits were measured entirely in terms of increased export earnings. The analysis had to be interim in nature due to the time lags involved. There can be a substantial lag between the achievement of a Project output and the realization of benefits in terms of increased exports. The 1996 Study estimated the total consolidated benefits over the 10 year period to be USD24.5 million, of which Fiji contributed USD8.9 million, Tonga USD6.9 million, Vanuatu USD4.3 million, Samoa USD2.4 millions, and Cook Islands USD1.5 million. With the exception of small quantities of bananas from FSM to Guam, neither FSM nor the Solomon Islands exported fresh fruits or vegetables. When compared with Project costs, this benefit flow generated an internal rate of return (IRR) of 37%. These projections assumed that the minimum funding of core Project funding was maintained. The 1996 Study results were re-evaluated three years on. Overall, the total estimated benefits over the period 1993 to 2002 falls by some 40 percent to USD12.6 million. Approximately half of these benefits are attributed to Fiji, which now has a viable HTFA business. However, even Fiji has not performed as well as had expected due largely to a significant shortfall in papaya exports. The agonizingly slow progress of the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) and USDA approval process for Fiji’s HTFA treated papaya can in part be explained by the fact that this is a minor product from a small country. It is given low priority when it comes to allocating scarce resources to the necessary pest risk assessment. Furthermore, MAFF Quarantine has not been sufficiently proactive in pushing the process along. Fortunately for Fiji, much of the short fall in papaya has been taken up by eggplant. Eggplant, originally seen as a relatively minor product, has become the cornerstone of the viability of the Fiji’s commercial HTFA facility. Breadfruit is now also looming as a far more important crop than was envisaged in 1996. The 1996 Study assessed Tonga’s RMFFP’s benefits to be USD6.9 million. However, in 1999, these had to be reassessed downward to USD3.8 million. This decrease is largely due to the decline in Tonga’s squash export earnings. Also watermelon and papaya exports were also significantly less than what was assessed in 1996. Of all HTFA treated products, breadfruit now probably offers the best prospects for Tonga. Samoa was the only country where the 1999 assessment exceeded the 1996 assessment, thanks to a better performance in the export of bananas to New Zealand than was expected. There is now has in place a quarantine protocol for export of all bananas of the genus Musa to New Zealand, thanks to the host status surveys of the RMFFP. The 1996 Study assessed Cook Islands RMFFP benefits to be USD1.5 million. However, in 1999 these had to be reassessed downward to USD890,000. This decrease was due to the declining level of Cook Island papaya exports to New Zealand. Cook Islands, as with Fiji, has found the barriers to entry for papaya beyond New Zealand much more intractable than was envisaged in the 1996 Report. Cook Islands and Fiji are still awaiting AQIS certification of their HTFA facilities and treatment. Vanuatu, disappointingly, had the most substantial gap between the 1996 and 1999 assessment of benefits. In 1996, the fledgling Vanuatu fruit fly program was identified as a major success story, with assessed benefits of USD4.3 million. In 1999, these were reassessed downwards to only USD840, 000. This huge shortfall was attributed almost entirely to the sudden closure of Vanuatu squash industry. The FSM assessed benefits in 1996 were estimated at USD465, 000. This was based on the possibility of exporting fruit and vegetables to the adjacent territories of Guam with its military population, and the CNMI with large tourist numbers. However, none of these projections have materialized, or look likely to in the near future. The internal rate of return (IRR) at the time of the 1996 assessment was a very substantial 37%. The 1999 assessment saw a downward revision of benefits. Also, the actual donor contributions (cost) for the years 1997 to 1999 were substantially more than what was projected in 1996. Thus the internal IRR in the 1999 assessment declined by half to, albeit a still healthy, 19%. The experience of the last few years has shown that, without Fiji it is unlikely that the RMFFP based on exports alone, is viable. This has been made even more so with the inclusion of new countries such as Papua New Guinea and those in the Northern Pacific and Micronesia. These new Project entrants have little realistic prospects of exporting in the foreseeable future and have only increased the total cost of the Project. Thus, if the project is to achieve widely dispersed viability, it needs to make a significant contribution to domestic fruit production and consumption. The RMFFP economic returns from exports could be increased, and distribute them more widely, if more attention was placed in the following areas:
Evaluating the domestic
benefits of the Regional Fruit Fly Projects. The determination of domestic losses due to fruit flies has to be considered in a number of stages. These are:
The analysis was undertaken in terms of the current fruit fly situation and if there is an incursion of a damaging exotic fruit fly such as the Asian papaya fruit fly. It is clear that fruit flies do considerable damage to fruit throughout the region. To assess the nutritional and economic significant of this damage, it is necessary to determine the nature and level of fruit production and consumption in the PICTs. Fruit consumed by Pacific Islanders can be broadly classified into staple and non-staple food. The main staple fruits are breadfruit and cooking bananas. These staples are considered "real" food that make a major contribution to the diet and food security. Breadfruit is an important seasonal staple throughout the region. Breadfruit is cultivated on both high islands and atolls. The tree bears a profuse supply of food in season, that make a major contribution to the diet in most locations, particularly on atolls and smaller islands where it is the every-day staple. Thus any pest or disease that has a significant impact on breadfruit production can have serious nutritional and financial implications for households. In some locations, fruit flies are serious breadfruit pests. Worldwide, the most import fruit is banana (Musa spp.). Roughly half of the bananas of the world are eaten cooked as a starch. The Pacific Islands are no exception to the world-wide situation. For much of Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, island and coastal Papua New Guinea, and Samoa, banana is often the major food crop. In some locations, bananas are a fruit fly host – although not in most PICTs. Banana fruit fly is major pest in bananas in Queensland and PNG, where it lays its eggs in immature green fruit. The major concern is Asian papaya fruit fly. This particularly damaging fruit fly has recently become established in Irian Jaya and Papua New Guinea, and was introduced to north Queensland. The further incursion of this pest into the Pacific Islands could have major food security implications – particularly through its known impact on bananas. As breadfruit is also a host, then the consequences could be devastating. On the high islands, a wide range of other fruits and fleshy vegetables that can be classified as non-staple fruits, is grown. Non-staple fruits are of distinctly secondary importance compared with the staple breadfruit and bananas. Yet, this fruit makes an important contribution to the nutrition of Pacific Island households. The contribution of fruit to nutrition is often underestimated because most of this fruit is consumed as "snacks" and not as meals. In times of natural disaster, certain non-staple fruit can assume critical nutritional importance. A pest or disease for a particular non-staple would not be expected to have a major impact on the household’s overall food consumption and nutrition. A particular fruit is unlikely to be a major part of the household’s diet and in most situations there are likely to be a number of alternative fruits are available. The staple fruits are, by definition, high in energy. These fruit staples contribute more to household nutrition than just energy. Breadfruit is the leading staple in terms of dietary fibre, while cooking bananas beats all starchy staples and imported cereals in terms of potassium. In terms of vitamins, cooking banana is the best performer of all in providing vitamin A and b -carotene. Breadfruit also does well in terms of vitamin A and provides more riboflavin than any other staple. In contrast to staple fruit, most non-staple fruits, while sweet, tend to be low in calories. However, they are an available source of dietary fibre and packed with nutrients – especially vitamins. The volume and value of fruit and vegetable exports are readily quantifiable. These data are obtainable from several sources, including quarantine records and the trade statistics of the exporting and importing country. For domestic food consumption, no such data are available. The predominant self-sufficiency nature of Pacific Island food production system accentuates measurement problems. Most food grown by Pacific island households is not traded for cash. It is much more often consumed, or exchanged, by the household that grows or harvests the food. Estimating household food consumption can be approached from either the production or consumption side. A timely and comprehensive Agriculture Census is the best tool available to estimate levels and trends in national fruit production and consumption. However, the Agricultural Census of most PICTs have shortcomings that undermine their usefulness in measuring self-sufficiency food consumption. The total estimated valued of fruit production in Fiji, using Census data, was FJD 134 million. This is a large number indeed, and is probably a considerable overestimation. Yet even if the true value of Fiji fruit production is only half this estimate, it still represents a considerable economic value. Data from Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu also indicate high levels of fruit consumption. This study undertook some household surveys focused specifically on fruit consumption. Sample surveys were completed for Fiji and Vanuatu. The Fiji survey covered Fijian rural households in the Province of Cakaudrove on the island of Vanua Levu and Indian households at Votualevu on the outskirts of Nadi. In Cakaudrove, quite high fruit consumption was apparent despite a severe drought at the time of the survey. By far, the most important fruit was breadfruit. As expected, most of these non-staple fruits were consumed as snacks and not at meals. The Votualevu survey indicated a much lower level of fresh fruit consumption amongst the rural Indo-Fijian community. The Vanuatu household surveys confirmed banana to be the most important every day staple. Breadfruit did not feature because it was out of season. The overall impact of fruit flies on
domestic fruit consumption and nutrition. The overall conclusion is that fruit flies at present do not have a significant impact on fruit consumption and nutrition at the household self-sufficiency level. The reasons for this can be divided between staple and non-staple fruit. Bananas for many households in the region is the most important food staple. Breadfruit is also an important staple throughout the region, particularly for small islands and atolls. However, in most locations fruit flies do no, or little, damage to bananas. The experience in PNG and Palau are important exceptions and show the danger that fruit flies pose to this most important staple. In some places, fruit fly can do considerable damage to breadfruit as shown by the data from Kiribati and FSM and by the North Ambrym case study. On atolls, there are no real alternatives to breadfruit, other than imported rice. Thus, high breadfruit loses have a significant food and nutrition and financial impact on the households. However, in most situations fruit fly damaged breadfruit, even when considerable, is unlikely to have a major food and nutrition impact. This is due to the large surpluses of breadfruit are usually available and that fruit fly damaged breadfruit can still usually be utilized. At present, generally the damage caused to non-staple fruit by fruit flies does not have a major impact on subsistence consumption and nutrition. This is due to a combination of factors:
Indications are that the impact of fruit flies is likely to be significantly greater at the domestic commercial level than on self-sufficiency consumption. Thus, by implication, they have greater impact on urban than rural consumers. However, reduced urban fruit consumption does have implications for the income generating capability of rural people. The incursion of an exotic species such as Asian papaya fruit fly or Oriental fruit fly could have a devastating impact on domestic fruit sales. The recent establishment of Oriental fruit fly in Palau provides an indication of the extent of these losses for a small island economy. In cases like Samoa, where a fruit is the main traded staple, the commercial losses would be even greater if there was the incursion of a serious exotic fruit fly. Mitigation and control measures for
domestic fruit production. The study identified a lack of traditional control and mitigation measures. This can be explained by the fact that fruit flies were not perceived as a major problem by village communities. Bait sprays Bait spray technology has also been identified as having potential in terms of expanded domestic consumption of fruit and vegetables. Both a village based and commercial production bait spray trial were conducted in Vanuatu as a part of this study. The village trial involved breadfruit and nakavika in North Ambrym and the commercial trial involved a commercial guava orchard near Port Vila. The objectives of North Ambrym village bait-spray trial objectives of this trial were:
As a formal experiment the village bait-spray trial proved not to be successful. This North Ambrym trial confirmed the difficulties that were encountered in Pohnpei undertaking bait spraying in extremely wet conditions. Such difficulties are compounded in a village situation where the discipline of re-spraying cannot be assured. Even if better results had been achieved, serious doubt is raised about the applicability and sustainability of bait spraying in isolated villages. The most positive lesson to be drawn from the North Ambrym trial is the capability of a Pacific Island NGO to carry out fruit fly field research if the right training is provided. This experience augers well for the sustainability of fruit fly research in the region. A bait spray demonstration was undertaken on a commercial guava orchard in Vanuatu. In contrast to the village trial, this was successful. Fruit bagging was the other technology examined at the village level. For a village bagging has a number decided advantages when compared with bait spraying. Some of these are:
The overriding difference is that the bagging of fruit depends on individual household responsibility, while protein bait spraying depends on communal responsibility. The standard bag used in Malaysia is constructed from a double layer of newspaper sown together to make the bag. This is both cheap and effective. However, in many Pacific Island villages, newspaper is not available. Thus, if bagging is to succeed, a suitable local available material must be found. The most obvious candidates for bagging are leaves – and a preliminary assessment was given to a wide range of these as a part of this study. Fruit fly eradication: the Nauru Program One technique for eradication is based on the annihilation of the male fruit fly of a particular species. This technique is applicable to the special case where male flies cannot migrate from untreated area into the area being treated. A small isolated island fits this requirement. Nauru presented itself as an ideal candidate for male annihilation, with the necessary conditions of need and technical feasibility being in place. The main aims of the Nauru Fruit Fly Eradication Program were to:
In a little over a year from the commencement of the eradication program, Nauru was declared free of Oriental fruit fly and melon fly. The efficacy of the male annihilation technique has been proven for a small isolated island. The eradication exercise has shown that a powerful tool is available to stop the spread of an exotic fruit fly if an emergency response program can be mounted quickly enough. For the first time in a decade, Nauruans can now enjoy some fruit grown on Island. The benefits of the Nauru eradication program can be listed as:
Overall the Nauru fruit fly eradication project was shown to provide a very high economic rate of return. The importance of surveillance
and emergency response programs for domestic fruit production. The overall conclusion is that fruit flies at present do not have a significant impact on fruit consumption and nutrition at the household self-sufficiency level. There are, however, important exceptions where there has been an incursion of a particularly damaging exotic fruit fly. These include Oriental fruit fly in French Polynesia, Palau and Nauru, Asian papaya fruit fly in parts of Papua New Guinea, and melon fly in parts of the Solomon Islands. The incursion of these fruit flies have considerable food and nutrition consequences, particularly if bananas and breadfruit are major food staples. Furthermore, Asian papaya fruit fly is known to infest coffee cherry. If this fruit fly becomes established in the coffee growing areas of the Highlands of PNG, then the economic consequences could be catastrophic. Coffee is not only PNG’s largest agricultural export commodity, it is arguably the country’s most important industry. It was conservatively estimated that the economic value of fruit production in Fiji is around FJD 65 million (approx. USD 33 million). If Asian papaya fruit fly became established, it could be expected that a high percentage of this production would be lost. To the domestic fruit consumption losses have to be added to losses in export earnings (current and foregone future). The magnitude of these losses justifies high priority being afforded surveillance and emergency response programs. The recent experience of New Zealand with the incursion and subsequent eradication of Mediterranean fruit fly show how effective such programs can be. Thanks to the Nauru fruit fly eradication Project staff from the Departments of Agriculture in the region are equipped with the necessary skills to mount rapid reaction programs in response to the incursion of an exotic fruit fly. By August 1998, a basic quarantine surveillance system based on permanent strategically located traps, baited with male lures was established in each of the 22 PICTs. This system acts as an early warning system for exotic fruit flies and needs to be maintained by the governments of the PICTs. Continuation of the development of emergency response planning is essential at a national and regional level, so quick responses to incursions of exotic fruit flies can occur. Consolidating and sustaining
Project activities A high economic rate of return can be attributed to the RMFFP in terms of expanding export earnings and protecting domestic food production. To fully capture and sustain these benefits, there is strong justification to continue the regional component of the RMFFP to work in collaboration with national fruit fly programs. The continuation of the RMFFP beyond its current phase needs to be based on consolidation, back-stopping national programs and focusing on activities that are likely to provide the highest rates of return. A number of highly beneficial activities were identified that meet these criteria. These activities, which can be broadly divided into those that expand the level and distribution of export earnings and those that expand and protect domestic food production, are listed as follows:
Of all these activities the highest priority needs to be given to providing support for quarantine surveillance and emergency response programs. Mechanisms to ensure sustainability The ongoing sustainability of the activities generated by the RMFFP depends on the self-reliance of national fruit fly programs. To achieve this, it is incumbent on national governments to provide adequate numbers of trained personnel and sufficient financial support. National governments, in allocating resources, need to give priority to quarantine surveillance and emergency response programs. These are, however, an ongoing regional responsibility in these areas because the consequences extend beyond national boundaries. The tapping of funding from industry To-date, what national funding and resources for country fruit fly programs have come from the government. In most cases, there is need for increased government funding if these programs are programs are to be sustainable. However, sustainability also requires greater industry and community participation. There is no guarantee that sufficient public funding will be available to sustain core activities in the future. The 1996 Report made recommendations on mechanisms for industry funding on a country by country basis. Initial responses with the private sector have yielded mixed results. The means of effectively imposing levies on industry need to be again addressed by the RMFFP. To date, virtually all the implementation of fruit fly project activities have been undertaken by staff from Departments of Agriculture under the supervision under guidance of the RMFFP. A great deal of effort and resource has been devoted to training these staff and a strong cadre of competent personnel is now in place. In the interest of sustainability, some of these activities, particularly in the area of quarantine surveillance, need now to be devolved to civil society. Page updated on: 17 October, 2002 |