Agriculture and Human Values 18: 413–428, 2001.

© 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

IN THE FIELD

Assessing the feasibility of biological control of locusts and grasshoppers in

West Africa: Incorporating the farmers’ perspective

Hugo De Groote,1,2 Orou-Kobi Douro-Kpindou,2 Zakaria Ouambama,3 Comlan Gbongboui,2

Dieter Müller,2 Serge Attignon,2 and Chris Lomer2
1 CIMMYT, Nairobi, Kenya; 2 Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Locust and Grasshopper Biological Control Project
(LUBILOSA); 3 Comité Permanent Interétats de Lutte contre la Sécheresse au Sahel (CILSS-AGRHYMET), Niamey

Accepted in revised form January 30, 2001

Abstract. A participatory rural appraisal in three West African countries examined the possibility for replacing
chemical pesticides to control locusts and grasshoppers with a biological control method based on an indigenous
fungal pathogen. The fungus is currently being tested at different sites in the Sahel and in the humid tropics of
West Africa. Structured group interviews, individual discussions, and field visits, were used to obtain farmers’
perceptions of locust and grasshoppers as crop pests, their quantitative estimation of crop losses, and their will-
ingness to pay for locust control. Farmers as well as plant protection officers generally perceived locusts and
grasshoppers as important pests that cause significant damage. Farmers were aware of some of the risks of the
use of chemical pesticides, but not of the potential alternatives. The use of the fungus in an oil-formulation and
standard Ultra Low Volume (ULV) equipment was demonstrated, and the results discussed with farmers. Their
impressions of biological control were favorable, and they expressed an interest in using the technology. Farmers’
expressed willingness to pay for locust control is small, but not negligible. Locusts and grasshoppers are very
visible pests and thus amenable to pressure from farmers to local administrators, as well as by farmers’ relatives
in the city on the national government. Therefore, political pressure for locust control is strong, although national
governments spend little on it, depending mostly on foreign donors. Donors are increasingly worried about the
environmental effect of the large amounts of chemical pesticides used on locust control, and are pushing for
more benign alternatives. The results of the present survey indicate that there may be a potential market for a
biopesticide against grasshoppers and locusts on cash crops in the humid areas. The potential market in the Sahel
depends on a reduction of costs or a subsidy of its price. This subsidy could be justified by the expected reduction
in environmental and health costs when replacing chemical pesticides. Since donors are the current purchasers of
chemical pesticides for the Sahel, they would also be expected to be involved in the purchase of the biological
product.

Key words: Biological control, Grasshoppers, Locusts, Participatory rural appraisal, West Africa, Willingness to
pay

Hugo De Groote is from Belgium and is an agricultural economist, with focus on participatory research
and pest control, and was previously coordinator of IITA’s biological control and biodiversity project. He is
currently with CIMMYT’s Insect Resistant Maize project in Nairobi, Kenya.

Orou-Kobi Douro-Kpindou is a Bénin agronomist-entomologist with IITA, Cotonou, in charge of field

operations in Mali of the collaborative project on biological control of locusts and grasshoppers (LUBILOSA).

Zakaria Ouambama is an agronomist-entomologist with CILSS-AGRHYMET in Niamey, in charge of

LUBILOSA’s field operations in Niger.

Comlan Gbongboui is a lawyer with IITA, Cotonou, in charge of LUBILOSA’s field operations in Bénin
of the collaborative project on biological control of locusts and grasshoppers (LUBILOSA).

Dieter Müller is a Swiss trainee agricultural economist, working on LUBILOSA’s participatory learning and
action program in Bénin. He left for Brazil to start a dairy farm.
414 H UGO D E G ROOTE ET AL .
Serge Attignon is a Bénin agronomist with IITA, Cotonou, and a research assistant for economic analysis and
Geographic Information Systems.
Chris Lomer is from the UK and is an entomologist and LUBILOSA project leader.
Introduction
The desert locust plague of 1986–1989 in North and
West Africa was the first in over 30 years, and caused
considerable concern amongst farmers, the public, and
decision makers. The upsurge found the authorities
and the regional locust control organizations unpre-
pared: funds had been cut for many years, trained
teams were dispersed, and the most effective pesti-
cide, dieldrin, was no longer being used because of
its toxicity and persistence. The substitute organophos-
phate pesticides, such as fenitrothion and malathion,
had shorter environmental persistence and were often
repeatedly applied as blanket treatments over large
areas. Ironically, such treatments may have caused
greater environmental damage than dieldrin (Rowley
and Bennett, 1993).
To counter the locust threat, $275 million was
raised and a total area of 25.9 million ha was
treated (OTA, 1990). Most multi-lateral assistance
was channeled through the FAO, which worked
with national and regional organizations and private
contractors to carry out the control operations. At
the same time, dissatisfaction with the heavy and
continuing use of chemical pesticides was growing
(Louis Berger and Associates, 1991), and several
projects were initiated to investigate the environmental
impact of the treatments and to research alterna-
tive control methods (Lomer and Prior, 1992). The
LUBILOSA (Lutte Biologique contre les Locustes et
les Sautériaux) project was designed as a consortium
to develop a biological pesticide based on oil formu-
lations of indigenous, specific fungal pathogens of
locusts (Prior and Greathead, 1989).
In the initial phase of the project a biopesticide was
developed based on the spores of a fungus, Metar-
hizium anisopliae var. acridum, a natural pathogen of
locusts that is virulent but highly specific (Lomer et al.,
1997). A pilot plant was developed for the production
of large quantities of spores, and an oil-based applica-
tion formulation was developed (Bateman, 1997b). In
the second phase of the project (1993–1995) field trials
were carried out on different locusts species in several
African countries (Lomer et al., 1997), including those
of the humid tropics of South Bénin (Douro-Kpindou
et al., 1995) as well as the Sahelian species in Niger
(Langewald et al., 1999) and Mali (Shah et al., 1998).
The results are promising, with mortality rates of
80% or higher being reached after one or two weeks.
Moreover, the product is easy to produce (Jenkins et
al., 1998; Cherry et al., 1999), and it can be stored as
dry spores, which are easily applied in an oil formu-
lation with standard spraying equipment (Bateman,
1997a).
An ecotoxicological study in the millet produc-
tion system in Niger (Peveling et al., 1999) showed
that the Metarhizium biopesticide poses low risk to
all taxa monitored, which included 16 species from
three different insect orders, as well as to other arth-
ropods. In Mauritania, Peveling and Damba (1997)
showed that fungal control of locusts in dates is an
environmentally safe and economically viable alterna-
tive to chemical control. The developed biopesticide,
however, does not provide a direct substitute for chem-
ical pesticides in emergency situations, but represents
a powerful technology for integrated pest management
(Lomer et al., 1999, 2001). Preliminary assessments
of its economic viability were difficult as the imple-
mentation pathway, production costs, and operating
characteristics had to be tested and defined (Swanson,
1997; Stonehouse et al., 1997).
To bring the technology to the end user, stake-
holders’ interest in this new technology needs to be
assessed. More specifically, the interest of the farmers,
policy makers, plant protection agencies, and donors
needs to be assessed, the benefits of the technology
need to be compared to the costs, and potential soci-
ological constraints examined. Earlier studies showed
that farmers in different Sahelian countries gener-
ally consider locusts and grasshoppers as major pests
(Stonehouse et al., 1997). However, farmers find locust
control to be beyond the individual’s capacity, and so
consider it the government’s responsibility. Govern-
ment intervention is only justified if the benefits to
society would outweigh the costs, but unfortunately,
few data are available to make such an analysis. In
Niger, a three-year national crop loss survey on millet
indicated that locusts and grasshoppers cause relatively
small losses, questioning the economic justification of
their control (Krall et al., 1995). Similarly, pooling the
limited available data on desert locust supplemented
with modeling concluded that the cost of desert locust
control is higher than the benefits in most foreseeable
circumstances (Joffe, 1995, 1997).
 B IOLOGICAL CONTROL OF LOCUSTS AND GRASSHOPPERS IN W EST A FRICA 415
Table 1. Sites of the PRA and number of villagers participating.

Country District Village Date (1997) Longitude Latitude Paticipating

villagers
Men Women

Niger Maine-Soroa Gel Adoua August 29 12◦ 16 40 N 13◦ 22 00 E 21 0
Maine-Soroa Kayaya August 30 12◦ 40 15 N 13◦ 22 00 E 12 0
Maine-Soroa Bara August 31 12◦ 16 40 N 13◦ 10 59 E 9 0

Mali Goundaka Koa June 9 14◦ 29 31 N 4◦ 01 08 W 11 0

Kani Golokanda June 10 14◦ 19 31 N 3◦ 44 28 W 16 5
Dourou Yawa June 10 14◦ 17 59 N 3◦ 25 08 E 12 1
Dourou Nombori June 11 14◦ 19 47 N 3◦ 24 16 E 22 0

Benin Aplahoue Hontuoui March 12, 13 6◦ 54 50 N 1◦ 41 12 E 30 35

Djakotome Zouzouvou May 21 6◦ 54 05 N 1◦ 41 12 E 28 25
Eglime Eglime May 22 7◦ 5 17 N 1◦ 40 59 E 25 20

In the present debate, the farmers’ voice is seldom
heard. Therefore, the present study was undertaken
to incorporate the perspectives of the farmers and
other stakeholders in locust prone areas of Niger,
Benin, and Mali, as part of the participatory research
by the LUBILOSA project. Elaborating on previous
work (Stonehouse et al., 1997) and extending it to
the humid zones, we studied farmers’ ranking of
crop pests and their quantitative estimates of crop
losses, their interest in and willingness to pay for
locust control, and their evaluation of the biopesti-
cide in locust and grasshopper control. The opinions
of other stakeholders such as extension officers, plant
protection agencies, non governmental organizations
(NGOs), and officials were also sought. To reflect
the large difference between sites, in the physical as
well as in the human environment, we chose the flex-
ible approach of Participatory Rural Appraisals, and
adjusted the intensity of the participatory approach
according to the requirements of the situation.
Methodology
Background
Before starting the participatory component of the
LUBILOSA project, the technical feasibility of the
technology was tested in a number of field sites
in Niger, Mali, and Bénin (Douro-Kpindou et al.,
1995, 1997; Kooyman et al., 1997; Lomer et al.,
1993; Lomer, 1997). Sites selection was based on a
consistent presence of important grasshopper or locust
species, good accessibility, and a good geographic
distribution. Since farmers in those sites had first-hand
experience with the new technology, the most prom-
ising areas were retained for the participatory research,
namely the Dogon country in Mali, the northern half
of the Mono province in Bénin, and the subdistrict of
Maïné-Soroa in Niger (Figure 1).
The control method used in all sites was based on
the same pathogenic fungus, Metarhizium, applied as
an oil formulation of spores. The use strategy and
application technology, however, differed consider-
ably between sites, depending on the locust and pest
control strategies found in the different countries. In
Niger, large fields were sprayed by airplane without
any farmers’ participation, whereas in Mali, the test
sites were treated with hand held sprayers by village
brigades – farmer groups who have been trained and
equipped for locust control. In South Bénin, neither
airplanes nor village brigades are commonly used, so
an appropriate strategy still had to be designed and
different application technologies were tested.
Because of these differences, a flexible approach
in the participatory rural appraisal was indicated,
and although the appraisal covered the same topics
(farming systems, pest problems, and evaluation of the
technology) the level of detail needed differed consid-
erably between sites. In Niger, where farmers’ active
participation was not required, group interviews taking
about two hours were sufficient. In Mali, the farmers’
experiences with village organizations and chemical
control needed more attention, and group interviews
were combined with other techniques, which took
about half a day per village. In Bénin, where farming
systems are more complex and a use strategy still
needed to be developed, one or two days per village
were necessary.
416 H UGO D E G ROOTE ET AL .
Figure 1. Survey sites for the Participatory Rural Appraisal.
Concepts
Regardless of the intensity, the objectives of the
participatory research remain the same: to improve
efficiency of the research by paying more attention to
the preferences and the opinions of its final clients,
the farmers (Chambers et al., 1989). Although the
evidence of the expected efficiency increase from
participatory research is not well documented (see
Bentley, 1994, for a critical overview), farmers’
participation in agricultural technology development is
increasingly solicited. The different levels of intensity
used in the appraisals can best be understood by
placing them in a conceptual framework based on
the four categories of participatory research by Biggs
(1989), according to the level of farmers’ participation.
The most basic type of participatory research
is called contractual, where the trial is designed
and managed by researchers, and the farmers only
provide land or services for the field trials. The
initial trials of LUBILOSA in Niger, Mali, and
Bénin fall in this category. In a second type, called
consultative, scientists consult farmers about their
problems before developing solutions, often by using
Rapid Rural Appraisals, a reaction against the tedious
and costly traditional assessment surveys. In this
method, multidisciplinary teams assess a rural area
within a short time using various techniques such as
group discussions and interviews of resource persons.
This method was used for this study in Niger, in
combination with demonstration trials. The term is,
however, no longer popular, since it emphasizes speed
over participation, so we will refrain from using it
further.
Lately, the emphasis has been on involving farmers
in the earlier stages of technology development, so
research can focus more on their problems and become
more efficient (Kamara et al., 1996; Sperling et al.,
1993). Biggs (1989) groups these approaches in a
third category, the collaborative approach, in which
scientists and farmers collaborate as partners in the
research process. Similarly, Rapid Rural Appraisal
became Participatory Rural Appraisal, moving from
an appraisal from the researcher’s point of view, to an
appraisal conducted by the farmers. LUBILOSA’s later
efforts in Mali fall into this category, where the tech-
nology is tested by farmers’ organizations, with the
support of an NGO. Farmer’s opinions and suggestions
are actively sought and incorporated into the research
agenda.
In a fourth category of participatory research,
collegial, scientists work to strengthen farmers’ own
research and development systems in rural areas. In
this sense, Participatory Rural Appraisal moved from
 B IOLOGICAL CONTROL OF LOCUSTS AND GRASSHOPPERS IN
appraisal to learning and action, implying a joint effort,
now often called Participatory Learning and Action
(since this term has not yet gained popularity we will
again refrain from using it further). This rather intense
approach is only feasible where researchers are rela-
tively close to the farmers, which for LUBILOSA
means close to the International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture station in Bénin. Here, farmers partici-
pated in the design as well as in the evaluation of the
field trials.
Data and methods
The research methods used on all sites followed a
common strategy, and for reasons of simplicity we
will refer to this as Participatory Rural Appraisals
(PRA), albeit with different levels of intensity. In each
country, villages were visited with multidisciplinary
teams, consisting of entomologists, economists, agro-
nomists, and extension agents. Crop protection and
extension experts were interviewed, and secondary
data and technical reports were collected on agri-
cultural production, pests, and insecticide use. In
each country, three or four representative and access-
ible villages were selected together with local collab-
orators, in the region most prone to grasshoppers
and locusts (see Table 1 for details, and the map
in Figure 1). When possible, the meetings were
announced a day beforehand, and all farmers were
invited. On average, 27 farmers per village partici-
pated in the discussions, conducted in the local
language. In all sites, the discussion followed an open
guideline and started with an overview of the ecolo-
gical and socioeconomic environment, followed by
farmers’ ranking of their constraints and pest prob-
lems, concluding with an estimation of the frequency
of locust attacks and the resulting crop losses. After
the meeting, a few individual farmers were visited
for clarification and verification. If the new tech-
nology had not yet been demonstrated in the village,
a demonstration or a participatory trial was organized.
The farmers subsequently evaluated the technology
and compared it with other control methods. Finally,
their willingness to pay for this technology was
assessed and compared with the expected cost of the
biopesticide.
In Niger, the LUBILOSA project had chosen the
Maïné-Soroa subdistrict (arrondissement) of the Diffa
district (département) (Figure 1), to conduct a large-
scale trial, consisting of three 800 hectare plots in three
adjacent villages. In the beginning of August 1997,
one plot was treated with the Metarhizium biopesticide
and a second plot with a chemical pesticide (fenitro-
thion), both by airplane, while a third plot or control
received no treatment. The area was visited for a PRA
W EST A FRICA 417
one month later by a team of IITA scientists, officials
of the Niger Plant Protection Service (PPS), and of
the agricultural extension service. After first visiting
the area around each treatment, group discussions with
farmers were organized in the three places, next to the
millet fields of the trial. The owner of the field would
usually participate, as well as the village headman and
several council members, assisted by some interested
farmers. Apart from the villages, the major ministries
and departments in Maïné-Soroa, Diffa, and Niamey
were visited. The plant protection and agricultural
officers of Maïné-Soroa were also invited to the treated
fields to discuss the results with the farmers.
In Mali, the biopesticide had previously been tested
in Mourdiah and in the Dogon country, areas prone
to grasshopper attacks (Douro-Kpindou et al., 1997),
but only the Dogon area was retained because of the
locust control program of a local NGO. The area was
visited for a PRA in June 1997 by a multidisciplinary
team, consisting of IITA scientists, NGO field workers,
and agents from the PPS. Four villages were selected
along with those where the biopesticide had previously
been tested, based on heavy grasshopper problems and
a good geographical distribution. Together with the
villagers, a village map was drawn and transect walked
with key informants, leading to informal discussions
with farmers along the walk. In each village, the
usual structured group interviews were conducted. In
two villages, groups of women were interviewed on
their role in agriculture and grasshopper control and
their perception of pests. In two villages, individual
farmers were visited for more in-depth discussions.
The team also visited the major agricultural services
and projects in the area to discuss the potential of the
biopesticide.
In Bénin, the northern part of the Mono province
has high potential for biopesticide use: the variegated
grasshopper is a common pest here (Paraïso et al.,
1992), and many farmers produce cotton, a cash crop
that provides access to pest control technology and
credit. After collecting secondary information about
the region, an interdisciplinary team executed a PRA
in three villages during March and May 1997, the first
one lasting two days, the others each one day. Village
maps were elaborated with the villagers, and the team
walked over a transect of the territory with key inform-
ants. Separate group interviews were conducted with
older men, women, and younger men, followed by
two or three individual discussions with men and
women. The team presented a summary of findings
to the village assembly for discussion, and the PRA
concluded in a demonstration trial and the planning
of a collaborative research, the results of which are
presented elsewhere (Müller et al., 1999).
418 H UGO D E G ROOTE ET AL .
Table 2. Characteristics of research villages in Maïné-Soroa (Niger).
Gel Adouage
Treatment Control
Number of inhabitants 500
Number of families 61
Land in millet (%) 20
Millet production in good years >50
(sacks of 100 kg/hh)
Village self-sufficiency No
Non-agricultural sources of revenue Sales of wood,
trade, labor in city
Number of small ruminants in the village 1000
Number of cattle in the village 200
The Senegalese grasshopper in Maïné-Soroa, Niger
Locusts and grasshoppers in Niger
In Niger, locusts and grasshoppers are consistent pests
of agricultural crops in many areas, and the country
has developed an extensive control program. The
Senegalese grasshopper (Oedaleus senegalensis) is the
most important species, and usually occurs with other
grasshopper species in what is known as the Sahelian
grasshopper complex. In contrast with the sporadic
outbreaks of desert locust, these grasshoppers cause
major yield losses in millet on a regular basis. The
country has a well-trained Plant Protection Service
(PPS), which has for many years received support
from the international donor community for training,
capital, and working funds. Over the last 10 years,
the PPS has been able to treat an average of 440,000
hectares each year, including 300,000 hectares against
locusts and grasshoppers (Direction de la Protection
des Végétaux, 1997, with annual reports). The treated
area is highly variable, and during locust invasions
such as in 1988, more than 600,000 hectare can be
treated.
Most of the locust and grasshopper control is done
by plane, although participation by the rural popula-
tion has been encouraged through village brigades.
These volunteers receive training in pest control and
are provided with basic equipment such as sprayers.
In the past, the brigades also received free pesticides,
which they used to treat up to 50,000 hectares a year.
Unfortunately, these brigades were created in response
to the needs of the PPS and its donors, not of the
farmers’ (De Groot, 1995). As a result, their structure
and their activities are not sustainable without donor
Kayeya Bara
Biological control Chemical control
with Fenitrothion
150 500
30 100
30 <10
30 15
No No
Sales of animals, Sales of animals
work in Nigeria
2000–2500 15000
1250 3000
support. Recently, some NGOs have also been organ-
izing brigades, but the area treated is small compared
to the area treated by PPS sponsored brigades. The area
treated by all brigades combined is still only a fraction
of that treated by plane.
Village brigades do actively involve the local
farmers, although so far, farmers have only contrib-
uted labor. Unfortunately, the variable cost of one
hectare treated by a brigade is much higher than one
treated by plane ($28 versus $4.6 in 1991, PLUR-
ITEC/EDUPLUS 1993). Treatment with sprayers
mounted on cars is still slightly cheaper, but many
areas are not accessible by car. Fixed costs, including
training and salaries, add another average of $20 per
hectare treated (all prices are converted into dollars
using the average exchange rate of that year). Clearly,
these costs are not within the means of the farmers
or even of the national government. The international
donor community covers most of the costs, and polit-
ical and bureaucratic factors rather than economic
analysis dominate decisions in pest control.
The farming system of Maïné-Soroa
Maïné-Soroa has a typical Sahelian climate with an
average yearly rainfall of 323 mm (average for 1995–
1997). Diffa is the least populated district of Niger, and
people make their living from livestock and agricul-
ture, especially millet, and to a lesser extent, beans,
and sorghum. Three villages were visited next to the
trial sites, one month afterwards (Table 2).
The people we visited were mostly Fulani, tradi-
tionally nomadic herdsmen, who settled only recently
to engage in crop production. Their villages are not
very structured and their main income is from live-
 B IOLOGICAL CONTROL OF LOCUSTS AND GRASSHOPPERS IN
Table 3. Farmers’ perceptions of pests in Maïné-Soroa (Niger).
Name
Principal pests
Millet production after
grasshopper invasion
(MT/household)
Number of invasions over the last
10 years
Damage to pasture (%)
Willingness to pay per household
stock. In most years, cereal production is insufficient
and livestock sales are necessary, supplemented with
some income from labor in the city and sales of
wood. Inputs for livestock are regularly purchased,
especially salt and vaccinations, but inputs for crop
production other than manure are rare. As a result of
low rainfall and input use, yields are low and vari-
able. Average millet yield in the district for 1994 to
1996 was 353 kg/ha (Ministère de l’Agriculture et de
l’Elevage du Niger, 1996). Cereal production (millet
and sorghum) is calculated at 149 kg/person, far short
of the 250 kg/person needed for self-sufficiency. The
number of cattle estimated by the villagers varies from
4 to 41 per family.
Locusts and grasshoppers in Maïné-Soroa
Grasshoppers are generally considered the major crop
pest on millet, the major crop (Table 3). Others pests
mentioned are stem borer, millet head miner, and army
worms. The Fulani do not have a unit for area measure-
ment, so crop loss estimation per hectare was not
possible, only per family. The harvest in a good year
(with good rains and no grasshoppers) was estimated
at 1500 to 5000 kg/family of 5 to 15 people. This
would be slightly above the minimum requirement of
250 kg/person/year. A heavy grasshopper infestation
can reduce this production to 300–1000 kg, or a loss
of 80%. At $0.2/kg (average millet price in 1997), a
family could lose $400.
As a result of these potentially high losses, farmers
expressed a willingness to pay for grasshopper control.
Answers were similar in the first two villages: 2–
3 sacks (of 100 kg) and 3 sacks kg/family, with an
estimated value of about $50. This is almost 10%
of the expected harvest of 30 sacks in a good year.
Assuming a yield of 600 kg/ha for those years, the
area can be estimated from their estimated harvest at
5 ha. Dividing farmers’ willingness to pay by this area
W EST A FRICA 419
Gel Adouage Kayeya Bara
Grasshoppers, Grasshoppers Grasshoppers,
caterpillars, head miners
birds
5–10 0–3 4
6 4 7
80 50–80 >80
2–3 sacks 3 sacks 3 kg
result in $8/ha, which can be interpreted as the amount
farmers find reasonable to protect their crops against
locusts. In the third village, however, farmers indicated
a willingness to pay for the whole village, estimated
at $67. For an estimated 100 families, the average
becomes $6.7 or 3 kg of millet per family, very low
compared to the estimated losses.
The farmers’ evaluation of the biopesticide was
positive. They considered it superior to the chemical
pesticide because of its persistence of several weeks,
compared to only a few days for the chemicals.
Economic analysis of locust control
The production of millet in the Sahel does not generate
a high income: the average yield in Maïné-Soroa
during 1994–1996 was 353 kg/ha and, with an average
price of $0.17/kg, generated an average of $60/ha.
Estimates from the Ministry of Agriculture put the
average crop value of Maïné-Soroa at $3 million per
year (for 90,000 people), and $7 million for the whole
district of Diffa (average for 1991–1995). Plant protec-
tion expenses for the district in 1991 were estimated at
about $0.5 million, or roughly 7% of the crops’ value.
In other words, at least 7% of crop losses need to be
avoided to make the treatments cost effective. Direct
measurements estimate the average yield loss on millet
caused by locusts at 15% (Krall et al., 1995), much less
than farmers’ estimates but higher then the interven-
tion cost. Unfortunately, no data are available on the
efficacy of plant protection measures to compare costs
with benefits.
Discussions with resource persons
We interviewed people in research institutes, plant
protection agencies, extension services, regional
administrations, and projects. Apart from the scient-
ists, who doubt that any pest control could ever be
420 H UGO D E G ROOTE ET AL .

Table 4. Agriculture in the Dogon country (Mali), villagers’ estimates.

Koa Golokanda Yawa Nombori

Households/village 20 37 45 101
ha cultivated/hh 10 5–15 12 2–15
hh with oxen (%) 100 55 75
% of land in millet 1 (50%) 1 (75%) 1 (>80%) 1 (75%)
Sales (field crops) 1/3, especially Only peanuts (40%) None Peanuts,
sorghum bambara nut
Sales (horticulture) Onions, most Onions, most All
other crops other crops
Yield of millet (kg/ha) 1000 480 200–600 100–500
Price of millet 70 37.5 (at harvest) 80
(FCFA/kg) 90 (at survey time, 100
August)

economical in the Sahelian cereal production, the
general perception was that locusts are such a major
problem that the government has to act to prevent
major losses that result in famine and rural emigra-
tion. For our respondents, economic analysis is of
minor importance compared to social considerations
and political factors. At times of locust outbreak, the
government is under strong pressure to react. The
pest is very visible, and farmers put pressure on local
extension and PPS officers and village chiefs, and
the pressure moves through the district and provincial
administrations to the national level. At the same time,
villagers and their relatives in the city exert influence
on elected representatives in town councils and in the
parliament. Politicians and administrators, who do not
want to be perceived as insensitive, need to show some
action, even if it is not effective. And since the efficacy
of locust and grasshopper control is extremely difficult
to measure, any action is better than no action at all.
to the LUBILOSA project is to develop a use strategy
in which farmers can pay their contributions, to be
supplemented by the international donor community
with technical support of local services.
Maïné-Soroa, however, is not a good target area for
developing such a strategy, even though grasshopper
infestation is high and relatively predictable. Human
population density is low, farms are spread out far
and wide, crop production is not the main activity
here, and extension services are spread very thin. The
project should move to an area with a higher popula-
tion density, where farming is the major occupation.
This would avoid having to treat fallow, and exten-
sion and distribution of biopesticides would be a lot
cheaper.
The Sahelian grasshoppers in Dogon Country,
Mali

Further research The farming system

The attitude towards biological control in Niger is
quite positive. Most people, farmers as well as PPS and
Ministry of Agriculture officers are interested; they are
open to it and are willing to give it a chance. The study
also showed that although farmers are willing to pay
something for locust control, these amounts will be
small because of their very limited income. Even when
biological control of locusts would overall be cost
effective, it is unlikely that farmers would be willing
or able to pay its full cost. In the best possible scen-
ario, farmers would make a substantial contribution,
with the rest of the cost covered by the government,
up to the level of economic feasibility. The challenge
The Dogon live in the eastern part of the Mopti admin-
istrative region, with a typical Sahelian climate and
one rainy season with 350 to 750 mm of rainfall.
Average rainfall has decreased over recent years, and
the region suffers from chronic deficiencies in basic
food production, especially cereals (DNSI-PADEM,
1994). Population density is low, 15.6 people per km2 ,
reflecting the harsh living conditions, which push
people into emigration. Villages are scattered, and
the visited villages varied in size from 20 to 101
households.
The economy of the Dogon country is based on
agriculture. The households consist of an extended
 B IOLOGICAL CONTROL OF LOCUSTS AND GRASSHOPPERS IN
Table 5. Tanking of major pests reported on field crops by village (Dogon country, Mali).
Koa
Locusts and 1 (on cereals,
grasshoppers not on legumes)
Blister beetles 2 3
Lepidoptera 3 (on peanuts)
Coleoptera
Striga
Rodents
Monkeys 4
Yield loss after locust 60–100%
attack
Locust history of last 10
years
family and are large (average size in the Bandiagara
subdistrict is 12 people). Villagers estimate that house-
holds have between 2 and 15 ha of land in cultivation.
Apart from the household fields, individuals can have
small private plots, on which they are allowed to work
one or two days a week. The group discussions with
farmers in 4 villages showed that millet, the major
crop, takes up between 50 and 80% of the cultivated
land (Table 4). Other important crops are sorghum,
fonio, cowpea, peanuts, and bambara nut. Millet is
strictly for home consumption, but peanuts, and to
a lesser degree, sorghum and bambara nut, are sold.
Farmers complain that their production can no longer
feed the population, and statistics indicate a cereal
deficit of 42% (DNSI-PADEM, 1994). Horticulture
in the dry season becomes increasingly important for
generating cash, especially onions, which have a long
tradition in the area.
During the survey, farmers estimated their millet
yields vary between 100 kg/ha and 1000 kg/ha. The
department of agricultural statistics’ estimates for
1993 to 1995 was 447 kg/ha (DNSI, 1996). Farmers
estimate the millet price between $0.07 and $0.17/kg.
Prices in Mopti at the time of the survey were at the
high end of that range, and stayed at around $0.17/kg
even after the 1997 harvest. At the average price of
$0.12/kg, the value of millet production can be esti-
mated at $50/ha, and even at the highest price a hectare
of millet would only generate $80.
Pests
Villagers generally considered locusts and grasshop-
pers as their major pests, except for one village where
W EST A FRICA 421
Golokanda Yawa Nombori
1 (on millet) 1 1 (from 88–90)
3
3 (but 1 on 2 (ear borers, 1 (90–96)
onion) miners)
2 (millet)
4
4
23/24 2/3 Almost
everything
4 medium bad 1996 was good, 1988 to 1990
years, 1 year the other years were very bad
very bad (1995) bad
it was blister beetles (Table 5). The other major pests
mentioned were beetles, stem borers, and head borers.
Farmers estimate the yield reduction caused by locusts
somewhere between 60 and 100%. The locusts do
damage on most farms, although not on all fields:
fields closer to fallow are reportedly attacked more.
The damage due to locusts and grasshoppers is very
variable from year to year and from village to village.
In the past, villagers controlled locusts by beating
them with sticks or by digging trenches to bury them.
Farmers complain, however, that the locusts changed
their behavior in recent years, “they are a lot smarter
now,” so there are few alternatives to the use of
chemical pesticides.
A local church-supported NGO, PDAD (Projet
Diocésain d’Agriculture Durable), has a locust control
program, in which all villages visited participated. In
the past, villages had to provide the labor for the
village brigades, plus a cash contribution of 20,000
FCFA per year. The NGO then provides the pesti-
cides and the spraying equipment. From 1997 on,
the villages are asked to pay 25% of the cost of the
chemicals.
The farmers who had attended the demonstra-
tion trials of the biopesticide reacted positively. Most
farmers recognized its comparatively slower action but
acknowledged its longer persistence. They declared a
modest willingness to pay. Although not all villagers
agreed, a figure of $8/ha was often mentioned, roughly
half of the production cost of the biopesticide, but 10
to 16% of the crop value. Some people declared they
could not pay this, or only if they had the cash, while
others offered to pay up to $17, even $32 per hectare.
The willingness to pay is clearly linked to cash avail-
422 H UGO D E G ROOTE ET AL .
Figure 2. The agricultural calendar as developed by the villagers of Hontoui, Mono Province.
ability, strongly influenced by income, which again
is strongly influenced by onion production. Access to
credit could also play an important role here.
Different types of hand held sprayers were
discussed, but the results were inconclusive. The ULV
formulation requires expensive batteries, but does not
need water while the Emulsifiable Concentrate (EC)
formulation does not need batteries, but substantial
amounts of water that need to be tranported to the field.
Locust politics
Locust swarms can be very spectacular and a field can
be devastated in a short time, so farmers can bring
this pest easily to the attention of government officials.
During our discussions, government officials consist-
ently expressed great concern for the farmers whose
fields were attacked by this pest. As in Niger, there
was a feeling that something really had to be done, but
more out of social concerns than based upon economic
considerations. This is influenced by Mali’s recent
change to a multi-party democracy, with free presid-
ential and parliamentary elections, and its move to a
more decentralized government in which local offi-
cials are elected instead of appointed by the central
government.
Further research
Grasshoppers and locusts are clearly major problems,
at least in the villages interviewed. Unfortunately,
the value of the crop is quite low, so treatments are
only economically justified at high yield losses. More
structured and quantitative research is needed on a
representative sample to estimate yield losses and link
them to insect population densities to determine the
intervention threshold.
Contrary to a previous survey (Stonehouse et al.,
1997), it was found that farmers are willing to
contribute to locust control. These potential contri-
butions, although not negligible, will generally not
cover the cost of the biopesticide, or any other pesti-
cide for that matter. Tests need to be conducted to
see if doses can be reduced without losing efficacy,
but some subsidy will most likely be necessary. Fortu-
nately, the local NGO, PDAD, is already subsidizing
locust control. Moreover, their German donor organi-
zation Misereor has strongly encouraged them to look
for alternatives to chemical control, so collaboration is
clearly indicated. Further study needs to address the
socially optimal subsidy level.
Most of the crop losses caused by locusts occur
in the households’ millet fields, not on individual or
on the more intensive onion fields. Locust control, on
the other hand, is organized through village brigades.
Unfortunately, the brigade members are typically
young men who hold little power in village politics.
Moreover, they are likely to emigrate to the city, and
replacements need to be found and trained. Therefore,
village brigades should have some supporting structure
or committee with older, more stable farmers. This
could be supported by the NGO, which has a solid
extension organization with motivated workers. This
model could be extended with several other organiza-
tions that are active in the region and showed some
interest.
The variegated grasshopper in the Mono
Department, Bénin
The farming system
The Mono Department is situated in the derived
savanna of southwestern Bénin. The area has a
high population density of 169 inhabitants per km2
(INSAE, 1998), growing at a rate of 3.2% per year.
The rainfall pattern is bimodal, with an average yearly
rainfall between 1000 and 1200 mm. In the first
season (March–July), farmers grow mainly maize,
cowpea, and peanuts (Figure 2), and during the second,
 B IOLOGICAL CONTROL OF LOCUSTS AND GRASSHOPPERS IN
Table 6. Garmers’ ranking of the four most important field pests, by village (Mono
province, Bénin).
Ranking in order of Hontoui
importance
1 Grasshoppers
2 Crickets
3 Parridges
4 Rats
short rainy season (September–November) they grow
mostly cotton, often planted between the maize rows.
Cassava is planted in the first rainy season but only
harvested after the second rainy season. Farmers
usually have two to three fields at a time, with oil palms
mixed in with the crops. When the soil is depleted, the
field is left in fallow except for the palm trees. The
farmer then moves on to an old palm orchard, fells the
trees for palm wine production and clears the land to
plant crops.
The variegated grasshopper
The variegated grasshopper (Zonocerus variegatus) is
the only serious grasshopper pest in the humid areas
of West Africa. It can attack almost any crop, but
causes most damage to cassava. It is a non-migratory
pest with a preference for humid lowland forests,
where it is restricted to the sunlit edges and clearings
(Modder, 1994). From the 1950s onward, deforesta-
tion and agricultural intensification opened new areas
for this grasshopper species, and its economic impact
is increasing (Modder, 1994).
In all villages, the variegated grasshopper was
ranked among the three most important pests (see
Table 6). Other pests, mentioned in at least two
villages, were aphids, rodents, caterpillars, and the
larger grain borer. In the group discussions, villagers
remarked that although the grasshoppers have always
been around, they had become a major problem only
over the last five years. They described how grasshop-
pers typically emerge at the end of the first rainy season
to reach a peak at the end of the second rainy season.
The population then slowly decreases over the dry
season to disappear quickly at the beginning of the
rainy season (Figure 2). Contrary to a study in Nigeria
where farmers understood the egg laying behavior and
the life cycle of the grasshoppers (Page and Richards,
1977), the farmers in Mono have little knowledge
of grasshopper biology. Most farmers assumed that
grasshoppers reproduce through eggs, although none
of the villagers in the group discussions had ever seen
them. Similarly, in all villages concerned, farmers
W EST A FRICA 423
Eglimé Zouzouvou
Rats and aphids Snails
Aphids
Grasshoppers Grasshoppers
Caterpillars Stemborers of maize
considered the larvae and the adult grasshoppers as two
different species. They do observe a high mortality at
the end of the main rainy season, which they attribute
to the rainfall.
Damage and pest control
In all three villages of the study, farmers observed
defoliation by the variegated grasshopper of all plants
except for the neem tree. They noticed that grasshop-
pers first eat the leaves and continue with the bark,
especially of cassava, and kill the seedlings. The
defoliation decreases yields, but mostly in the second
season when the grasshoppers are abundant. Crops
most affected are thus the maize planted in the second
season and especially cotton. Some farmers made
individual estimates of yield losses, such as 90%
for cowpea, 30% on maize and cotton. Estimates of
losses varied widely between and within groups, and
many farmers were hesitant to give estimates, so no
consensus could be reached. Apart from crop losses,
farmers also consistently mentioned the loss of seed-
lings and the resulting cost of replanting, in both seed
and labor.
Since grasshopper density is low in the first rainy
season, yield loss to first season crops, particularly
cassava, is rare. When grasshoppers start to attack
cassava, the plant is already older and will shed
some leaves for the dry season anyway. Farmers
point out, however, that grasshopper attacks have a
major impact on the quality of the tuber. Women in
all villages mentioned that the color changes from
white to pinkish, that the tubers change structure and
become watery, which hampers processing and there-
fore decreases its market value. Finally, bark loss in
cassava makes stems useless for cuttings.
Since the grasshopper was not really a problem
until recently, farmers have not developed any control
methods. Some farmers tried cotton pesticides, which
they found not to be very effective against grasshop-
pers. They generally use two kinds of sprayers: flit
guns, which are manual, bicycle pump type sprayers
(external air-shear nozzle sprayer) designed for house-
424 H UGO D E G ROOTE ET AL .
hold spraying, and spinning disk sprayers, which are
battery driven and use Ultra Low Volume (ULV) appli-
cations in particular for cotton. Many, but not all
farmers in this area prefer the flit guns for treating their
crops. Advantages cited are lower initial cost (less than
$2 against about $60 for the spinning disk sprayer),
elimination of batteries, and a slower pace of applic-
ation, which increases the accuracy of spraying low
doses.
Institutional support and political pressure
During discussions, plant protection and agricul-
tural extension officers indicated that the variegated
grasshopper is a very visible pest, large, and colorful.
Therefore, it attracts relatively more attention than
other pests, which in turn helps farmers to pressure
officials and elected local politicians in supporting
grasshopper control actions. Although there is not
much evidence or studies on crop losses, this pressure
resulted in several grasshopper control campaigns,
based on donor support. At the moment, this support
has decreased substantially, and government services
suffer from a severe shortage of operational funds.
Further research and participatory learning and
action
In all villages, the village assembly concluded that
the variegated grasshopper was a serious problem and
that villagers would appreciate a control method such
as the biopesticide. They were, however, hesitant to
estimate how much they would be willing to pay, not
having seen its efficacy. Therefore, a demonstration
trial was organized in the first survey village. A highly
infested field was sprayed with the biopesticide, and
in two subsequent visits, one and two weeks later, the
results were discussed with the farmers. The farmers
observed the slow but efficient killing of grasshop-
pers and expressed an interest in further testing. In
the other villages, it was too late in the season and no
infested fields were available, but given the seriousness
of the grasshopper problem, they were still interested
in trying out the biopesticide.
The variegated grasshopper does not migrate much,
so treatments could be organized and financed on the
village level. The organization of a village brigade
was proposed by the project and accepted by the
village, who selected eight volunteers. This brigade
received training, and subsequently the scientists and
the villagers discussed the research agenda. The rela-
tively high cost of the product did not seem to deter
the farmers, especially since the grasshoppers usually
concentrate in the field, especially at earlier stages.
Still, to reduce costs, it was agreed to spray the early
stages, and to try out lower doses. The scientists, aware
that the grasshoppers hatch in the bush, suggested
spraying those areas, which was accepted. The farmers
suggested testing flit guns, which are widely available,
cheap, and do not use batteries. This was accepted,
although it took an effort to convince some scientists,
who objected to the poor quality of the equipment,
especially the large and uneven droplets they produce.
The participatory research was continued during
the following year in the two villages that had heavy
grasshopper infestations, and its complete results
are presented elsewhere (Müller et al., 2000). In
summary, two different timing strategies (preventive
and curative), three different doses (2, 20, and 50 g/ha),
and two different sprayers (flit gun and spinning
disk sprayer) were tested in farmers’ fields. Farmers
preferred the preventive treatment with a medium dose
(20 g/ha), applied with a spinning disk sprayer. Half a
day of training for a village brigade was found suffi-
cient to enable them to identify egg-laying areas and
then apply the biopesticide.
Finally, farmers discussed the organizational struc-
ture they preferred for disseminating the technology.
They proposed that the biopesticide producer would
sell the product directly to the village association, and
provide credit to the association. The village brigade
would treat the grasshoppers, and be reimbursed by the
affected farmers. This strategy will be tested as soon as
the product becomes commercially available.
Discussion and conclusion
In all regions visited, farmers perceive locusts and
grasshoppers as a major pest problem. Where farmers
saw a demonstration of the biopesticide, the response
was generally positive. The slow speed of kill,
while clearly observed, was not usually considered a
problem. Its persistence, on the other hand, was seen
as a major advantage. The few negative responses were
related to the small numbers of dead insects observed
in the field. Because of the slow kill, birds can eat
the sick or dead insects relatively unnoticed, while
after a chemical treatment the cadavers spread all over.
Although farmers, especially in the Sahel, are very
poor, they consistently express a small but signifi-
cant willingness to pay for locust control. No efficient
pesticides against locusts are currently available on the
local markets, so hitherto this willingness has not been
expressed into actual purchases.
At the technical level, PPS and extension agents
generally share the farmers’ positive opinion of the
biopesticide. They do not think, however, that farmers
have the means and the interest to purchase this tech-
nology. They feel very strongly that it is the duty of the
government and the international donor community
 B IOLOGICAL CONTROL OF LOCUSTS AND GRASSHOPPERS IN
to do so. Governments, however, only spend a
small amount on locust control despite strong polit-
ical pressure, since they can rely on foreign donors.
These donors are now increasingly reluctant to finance
programs that carry environmental risks (Louis Berger
and Associates, 1991) and health costs (Houndekon
and De Groote, 1998), so biopesticides have a poten-
tial advantage. Production costs at the pilot plant
are still high ($11 or $22/ha, respectively, for the
typical doses of 50 or 100 g/ha, Cherry et al., 1999)
but the price should be reduced substantially once
commercial production starts. The product faces stiff
competition from chemical pesticides, which are not
only cheaper, but also benefit from strong promotional
efforts from their producers influencing the decisions
in the national plant protection services.
Potential implementation pathways were discussed
intensively at a series of annual workshops involving
LUBILOSA project staff, PPS collaborators, and
decision makers in Cotonou (1996), Niamey (1997),
and Bamako (1998). As a result, the best option
seems to transfer the production technology to private
production companies. These companies need to have
expertise both with the production of biological pesti-
cides and with the African pesticide market, and good
contacts with donor agencies. Progress will therefore
depend on an integrated approach involving further
development of the technology as well as motivating
potential buyers (Lomer et al., 1999).
There are several important ramifications to this
approach. Perhaps most importantly, the biolog-
ical product enters the standard pesticide registration
process, allowing the countries involved a fully inde-
pendent review of the safety and environmental risks
associated with the biopesticide prior to accepting its
large-scale implementation. At the time of writing
(July 2000), registration has been granted in South
Africa, and provisional clearance for sale has been
granted by the CILSS CSP (Conseil de Securité des
Pesticides). Intellectual property rights issues also
become important, as the countries, particularly Niger,
supplied the fungal germplasm and participated in the
research and development process and should benefit
from any royalty payments arising from the sale of the
product.
Future development needs to focus on three issues:
when is biocontrol cost-effective, how can the farmers’
contributions be captured, and what structure needs to
be put in place to combine their contributions with
those of donors, extension services, and the private
sector. Although many gaps remain in our under-
standing, some possible scenarios are emerging. In
the humid areas, where the variegated grasshopper
is an important but non-migratory pest, biocontrol
of the locust should be financed and carried out
W EST A FRICA 425
by the farmers themselves. The amounts needed are
small compared to their cash income and farmers are,
in the Mono at least, familiar with basic pesticide
use. A local committee or brigade can be organized
and trained, preferably in connection with the cotton
producers’ village association. This association can
then provide credit, as it does already for cotton inputs.
Some technical and organizational aspects still remain,
but those should be solved during the next phase of
the participatory research. The plant protection service
is capable of providing training, if funds are made
available.
In the Sahel, farmers’ income is very low, and
cash availability is an important constraint. Moreover,
locust attacks are highly unpredictable, so it is unlikely
that the private sector will carry a suffficient stock
of biopesticides and that individual farmers will buy
it. Moreover, there is always the risk that the PPS
provides free pesticides, ruining the market. The
public sector needs to be involved, but here the situ-
ations in Mali and Niger are substantially different. In
Mali, a number of NGOs and projects have come to
play a major role in providing extension, either directly
or by supporting government services. In Niger, on the
other hand, the government is still very much directly
engaged in migratory pest control. Decision making in
this situation is very complex, and any project needs to
advance carefully taking into account the aspirations
and capacities of the key decision makers.
Scenarios for the Sahel necessarily include subsid-
izing biopesticides. The simplest scenario is to
convince donors to purchase biopesticides as a substi-
tute for chemical pesticides, and use the existing PPS
structures to distribute them. The PPS are well quali-
fied to provide the service, organization, and training
to the village brigades, if they have the funds. This
scenario could be pursued in Niger. A second option
is to promote biocontrol with the NGOs, and to
provide them with information and training to incor-
porate biocontrol in their activities. In this context,
LUBILOSA’s heavy investment in training of PPS
officers is likely to pay off, as NGOs may be able to
contract government officers as resource persons. It
is important that the interested NGOs have sufficient
independent funding, such as for example, the NGO in
the Dogon country. A third option would be a direct
price intervention, in which subsidized biopesticides
would be sold directly to farmers or farmers’ groups.
To obtain optimal results, care should be given to
design a proper subsidy policy, based upon clearly
specified criteria. To assist the decisionmaking process
in locust management, more quantitative information
is clearly needed. Surveys of a representative sample
of farmers in the three countries are needed to provide
basic data, such as frequency of attacks and crop
426 H UGO D E G ROOTE ET AL .
losses. More information is needed on the risk of locust
and grasshopper attacks as perceived by farmers, how
important those attacks are to farmers, and how much
they are willing to pay for control measures. Further
studies need to establish the relationships between the
pests, the damage they cause, and the resulting crop
losses. The combination of these data will allow for
an estimation of the expected economic loss due to
locusts and grasshoppers, as well as the variance and
thus the risk. At the same time, data are needed on
the efficacy of different treatments and strategies, to
calculate the expected benefit of these strategies and
compare it with their cost.
Finally, this study shows how the participatory
approach can pool the capacities and resources of
farmers, entomologists, and social scientists together.
The technology was suggested, developed, and tested
on its technical merits by entomologists; social scient-
ists indicated where it could be economically feasible
and socially acceptable; and farmers tested the applic-
ation methods they found interesting, and developed
the use strategies. Working in different countries and
ecologies showed the need for flexibility. In Niger,
because of the aerial application method and the
logistical difficulties, the consultative approach was
indicated. The approach was sufficient to show that,
although the technology was technically feasible, insti-
tutional support was poor and the technology was
unlikely to be economically feasible. In Mali, thanks
to the strong presence of an NGO, the research could
pursue a more collaborative approach. This approach
resulted in testing and evaluation by the farmers, and
the positive results indicated a potential use strategy. In
Bénin, neither farmers or institutions had much exper-
ience with locust control, so a more intensive approach
was necessary, and the proximity of the site to the
research station made frequent visits and a collegial
approach possible. This resulted in a participatory
learning and action process, and the development of an
appropriate use strategy. Our experience indicated that
this would not have been possible in a less intensive
approach.
Over all sites, the flexible participatory approach
allowed to capture farmers’ perceptions on locusts
and grasshopper problems, as well as their evalu-
ation of the new technology. Thanks to the exchanges
with farmers and other stakeholders, potential use
strategies were developed and policy recommenda-
tions formulated. Finally, the approach helped to
identify constraints and potential bottlenecks, and to
formulate further research and participatory action.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the farmers for their participa-
tion and guidance in this research; LUBILOSA
project coordinator Juergen Langewald for his support
and enthusiasm in incorporating the participatory
approach; the plant protection and agricultural officers
in the three countries visited for their collaboration;
Victor Manyong, James Gockowski, and Steve Franzel
for reviewing earlier versions of the paper and for
their appreciated comments and suggestions; and the
governments of Canada, Switzerland, The Nether-
lands, and Great Britain for their financial support
of this project, which is implemented by a network
of collaborators from CABI Biosciences (formerly
IIBC: International Institute of Biological Control),
IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture),
CILLS (Comité Permanent Interetats de Lutte Contre
la Secheresse), and GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Technische Zusammenarbeit).
References
Bateman, R. (1997a). “Methods of application of microbial
pesticide formulations for the control of grasshoppers and
locusts.” Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada
171: 69–81.
Bateman, R. (1997b). “The development of a mycoinsecticide
for the control of locusts and grasshoppers.” Outlook on
Agriculture 26(1): 13–18.
Bentley, J. W. (1994). “Facts, fantasies, and failures of farmer
participatory research.” Agriculture and Human Values
11(2/3): 140–150.
Biggs, S. D. (1989). “Resource-poor farmer participation in
research: A synthesis of experiences from nine national
agricultural research systems.” ISNAR-OFCOR Comparative
Study paper No. 3. ISNAR. The Hague.
Chambers R., A. Pacey, and L. A. Thrupp (1989). Farmer
First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London:
Intermediate Technology.
Cherry, A. J., N. E. Jenkins, G. Heviefo, R. G. Bateman, and
C. J. Lomer (1999). “Operational and economic analysis of a
West African pilot scale production plant for aerial conidia of
Metarhizium spp. for use as a mycoinsecticide against locusts
and grasshoppers.” Biocontrol Science and Technology 9(1):
35–51.
De Groot, A. (1995). “The functioning and sustainability
of village crop protection brigades in Niger.” International
Journal of Pest management 41(4): 243–248.
Direction de la Protection des Végétaux (1997). Activités de la
campagne agricole 1996/1997, Rapport Annuel. Direction de
l’Agriculture et de l’Elevage, Direction de la Protection des
Végétaux, Service des Etudes Biologiques. Niamey, Niger.
DNSI (1994). Enquète budget-consommation 1988–1989.
Bamako, Mali: Ministère de l’Economie, des Finances
et du Plan, Direction Nationale de la Statistique et de
l’Informatique.
 B IOLOGICAL CONTROL OF LOCUSTS AND GRASSHOPPERS IN
DNSI (1996). Enquête Agricole de Conjoncture Campagne
1995/1996 Résultats Définitifs. Bamako, Mali: Direction
Nationale de la Statistique et de l’Informatique.
Douro-Kpindou O. K., I Godonou, A. Houssou, C. J. Lomer,
and P. A. Sha (1995). “Control of Zonocerus variegatus
with ULV formulation of Metharhizium anisopliai conidia.”
Biological Science and Technology 5: 371–377.
Douro-Kpindou, O. K., P. A. Sha, J. Langewald, C. J. Lomer. H.
van der Paauw, A. Sidibé, and C. O. Daffé (1997). “Essais sur
l’utilisation d’un biopesticide (Metarhizium flavoviride) pour
le contrôle des sauteriaux au Mali de 1992 à 1994.” Journal
of Applied Entomology 121: 285–291.
Houndekon V. and H. De Groote (1998). “Health Costs and
Externalities of Pesticide Use in Locust and Grasshopper
Control in the Sahel.” Paper presented at the annual confer-
ence of the American Agricultural Economics Association,
August 2–5, 1998, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Institut National de la Statistique et de l’Analyse Economique
(1998). Tableau de Bord Social: Profil social et indicateurs
du developpement humain. Cotonou, Bénin: Ministère du
Plan, de la Restructuration Economique et de la Promotion
de l’Emploi.
Jenkins, N. E., G. Heviefo, J. Langewald, A. J. Cherry, and
C. J. Lomer (1998). “Development of a mass production
technology for aerial conidia of mitosporic fungi for use as
mycopesticides.” Biocontrol Information and News Service
19: 21N–31N.
Joffe S. R. (1995). “Desert Locust Management – a Time for
Change.” World Bank Discussion Papers No. 284. Wash-
ington DC: The World Bank.
Joffe S. R. (1997). “Economic and policy issues in desert locust
management: a preliminary analysis.” Paper presented at the
Workshop on Economics in Desert Locust Management, 21–
22 September 1997, Cairo, Egypt. Rome: FAO, Emergency
Prevention System (EMPRES) for Transboundary Animal
and Plant Pests and Diseases.
Kamara A., T. Defoer, and H. De Groote (1996). “Selection
of New Varieties through Participatory Research, the Case of
Corn in South Mali.” Tropicultura 14(3): 100–105.
Kooyman C., R. Bateman, J. Langewald, C. Lomer, Z. Ouam-
bama, and M. Thomas (1997). “Operational-scale application
of entomopathogenic fungi for control of Sahelian grasshop-
pers.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B
264: 541–546.
Krall S., O. Youm, and S. A. Kogo (1995). “Panicle insect
pest damage and yield loss in pearl millet.” In K. F. Nwanze
and O. Youm (eds.), Panicle Insect Pests of Sorgum and
Pearl Millet: Proceedings of an International Consultative
Workshop, 4–7 Oct. 1993, ICRISAT-Niamey. Andhra Pradesh,
India (pp. 135–145). International Crops Research Institute
for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Langewald, J., Z. Ouambama, A. Mamadou, R. Peveling, I.
Stolz, R. Bateman, S. Blanford, S. Arthurs, S. Attignon,
and C. Lomer (1999). “Comparison of an organophosphate
insecticide with a mycoinsecticide for the control of Oedaleus
senegalensis (Orthoptera: Acrididae) and other Sahelian
grasshoppers at an operational scale.” Biocontrol Science and
Technology 9: 199–214.
Lomer C. J. (1997). “Metarhizium flavoviride: recent results
in the control of locusts and grasshoppers.” In S. Krall, R.
W EST A FRICA 427
Peveling, and D. Ba Diallo (eds.), New Strategies in Locust
Control (pp. 415–424). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser
Verlag.
Lomer, C. J. and C. Prior (eds.) (1992). Biological Control
of Locusts and Grasshoppers. Proceedings of a workshop
held at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture,
Cotonou, Republic of Benin, 29 April–1 May 1991. Ascot,
UK: CAB International.
Lomer C. J., R. P. Bateman, D. L. Johnson, J. Langewald,
and M. Thomas (2001). “Biological control of locusts and
grasshoppers.” Annu. Rev. Entomol. 46: 667–702.
Lomer C. J., C. Prior, and C. Kooyman (1997). “Development
of Metarhizium spp. for the control of locusts and grasshop-
pers.” Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 171:
265–286.
Lomer, C. J., R. P. Bateman, D. Dent, H. De Groote, O.-K.
Douro-Kpindou, C. Kooyman, J. Langewald, Z. Ouam-
bama, R. Peveling, and M. Thomas (1999). “Development
of strategies for the incorporation of biological pesticides
into the integrated management of locusts and grasshoppers.”
Agricultural and Forest Entomology 1(1): 71–88.
Lomer, C. J., D. Dent, and H. De Groote (1999). “Transfer-
ring biopesticide technology to the private sector – lessons
learnt from LUBILOSA. IITA’s role in relation to outreach
and technology transfer; Participatory Plant Health Manage-
ment.” LUBILOSA Socioeconomic working paper series no.
99/9, 10 pp. (presented to IITA Board of Trustees), March
1999 Ibadan, Nigeria.
Lomer, C. J., R. P. Bateman, I. Godonou, D.Kpindou, P. A.
Shah, A. Paraïso, and C. Prior (1993). “Field infection of
Zonocerus variegatus following application of an oil-based
formulation of Metarhizium flavoviride conoidia.” Biocontrol
Science and Technology 3: 337–346.
Louis Berger and Associates (1991). Environmental Concerns
in USAID Programs for Locust and Grasshopper Control
in Africa. Washington, DC: Office of Technical Resources,
Bureau for Africa, publication series 91-F.
Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Elevage du Niger (1996).
Annuaire des statistiques de l’agriculture et de l’élevage
1991–1995. Niamey, Niger: Ministère de l’Agriculture et
de l’Elevage, Direction des Etudes et de la Programmation,
Service de l’Analyse des Politiques et de la Coordination des
Statistiques.
Modder W. W. E. (1994). “Control of the variegated
grasshopper Zonocerus variegatus (L.) on cassava.” African
Crop Science Journal 2(4): 391–406.
Müller, D., C. Gbongboui, H. De Groote, R. Badou,
and J. Langewald (2000). “Farmer participatory develop-
ment of a control strategy for the variegated grasshopper
with a bio-pesticide in the northern Mono, Bénin.” In G.
Renard, S. Krieg, P. Lawrence and M. Von Oppen Markgraf
(eds.), Farmers and Scientists in a Changing Environment:
Assessing Research in West Africa; Proceedings of a Regional
Workshop, Cotonou, 22–26 February 1999, University of
Hohenheim, Weikershei (pp. 22–26).
Page, W. W. and P. Richards (1977). “Agricultural pest control
by community action: the case of the variegated grasshopper
in southern Nigeria.” African Environment 2: 127–141.
Paraïso A., C. J. Lomer, I. Godonou, and D. Kpindu (1992).
“Preliminary studies on the ecology of Zonocerus variegatus
428 H UGO D E G ROOTE ET AL .
in the Republic of Bénin.” In C. J. Lomer and C. Prior (eds.),
Biological Control of Locusts and Grasshoppers (pp. 133–
141). London: CAB International.
Peveling R., S. Attignon, J. Langewald, and Z. Ouambama
(1999). “An assessment of the impact of biological and chem-
ical grasshopper control agents on ground-dwelling arthro-
pods in Niger, based on presence/absence sampling.” Crop
Protection 18: 323–339.
Peveling, R. and S. A. Damba (1997). “Virulence of the
entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium flavoviride Gam.
and Rozsypal and toxocity of diflubenzuron, fenitrothion-
esfenvalerate and profenos-cypermethrin to non-target arth-
ropods in Mauretania.” Archives for Environmental contam-
ination and Toxicology 32: 69–79.
PLURITEC/EDUPLUS (1993). Estimation des coûts de protec-
tion des végétaux au Niger et évaluation de la capa-
cité de prise en charge de ces activités par les différents
niveaux d’interventions. Projet Nigero-Canadien Protection
des Végétaux du Niger, Niamey, Niger.
Prior, C. and D. J. Greathead (1989). “Biological control of
locusts: the potential for the exploitation of pathogens.” FAO
Plant Protection Bulletin 37: 37–48.
Rowley J. and O. Bennett (1993). Grasshoppers and Locusts.
London: Panos Institute.
Shah, P. A., O.-K. Douro-Kpindou, A. Sidibe, C. O. Daffè,
H. van der Pauw, and C. J. Lomer (1998). “Effects of the
sunscreen oxybenzone on field efficacy and persistence of
Metarhizium flavoviride conidia against Kraussella amabile
(Orthoptera: Acrididae) in Mali, West Africa.” Biocontrol
Science and Technology 8: 357–364.
Sperling L., M. E. Loevinsohn, and B. Ntabomvura (1993).
“Rethinking the farmers’ role in plant breeding: Local bean
experts and on-station selection in Rwanda.” Experimental
Agriculture 29: 509–519.
Stonehouse J. M., C. Gbongui, A. de Groot, C. Lomer, S. Ly, I.
Maïga, and Tijani (1997). “Grasshopper control in the Sahel:
Farmer perceptions and participation.” Crop Protection 16(8):
733–741.
Swanson D. (1997). “Economic feasibility of two technologies
for production of my-copesticides in Madagascar.” Memoirs
of the Entomological Society of Canada 171: 101–103.
US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1990).
A Plague of Locusts – Special Report. OTA-F-450. Wash-
ington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Address for correspondence: Hugo De Groote, International
Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre, CIMMYT, P.O. Box
25171, Nairobi, Kenya
Phone: +254-2-524600; Fax: +254-2-522879;
E-mail: h.degroote@cgiar.org