aciar project annual report€¦ · annual report: coffee green scales in papua new guinea:...

Annual report

project Coffee green scales in Papua New Guinea: highland Arabica coffee and yield loss

project number

ASEM/2010/051

period of report 1 July 2011 - 27 April 2012

date due 31 May 2012

date submitted 8 June 2102

prepared by Alex J Brook, Ecologist, CABI

co-authors/ contributors/ collaborators

Dr Wendy Shaw, UNSW; Dr Mark Kenny, CIC; Mr Tom Kukhang, CIC; Mr Ingu Bofeng, CIC; Dr Sean Murphy,CABI

approved by

Annual report: Coffee green scales in Papua New Guinea: highland Arabica coffee and yield loss

Page ii

Contents

1 Progress summary ................................................................................... 3

2 Achievements against activities and outputs/milestones .................... 4

3 Impacts ...................................................................................................... 7

3.1 Scientific impacts ................................................................................................................. 7

3.2 Capacity impacts .................................................................................................................. 7

3.3 Community impacts ............................................................................................................. 7

3.4 Communication and dissemination activities ....................................................................... 8

4 Training activities ................................................................................... 10

5 Intellectual property ............................................................................... 11

6 Variations to future activities ................................................................. 12

7 Variations to personnel .......................................................................... 13

8 Problems and opportunities .................................................................. 14

8.1 First project trip October 2011: ..........................................................................................14

8.2 Communications October 2011 – February / March 2012 .................................................14

8.3 Second project trip April 2012: ...........................................................................................14

9 Budget ..................................................................................................... 16


1 Progress summary

At present the project is mainly concerned with objective 1: to quantify cgs impact, in terms of yield loss, in highland smallholder coffee farms. This is because the activities in objectives 2 & 3 follow on from this in the latter stages of the project. Within objective 1 there are four activities:

1. Regular surveys of cgs infestations and associated impact on yield on a selection of smallholder farms within the Eastern Highlands Province. Surveys (maximum of 6 per year) will be conducted from the onset of flowering through to harvest for two growing seasons at approximately the 1500m altitudinal zone.

2. Interview smallholders to determine both their understanding of yield loss due to cgs and their estimation of production costs and income.

3. Establish controlled research station experiments to determine yield loss. 4. Survey and interview holders of larger farms (plantations who hold records)

and processors to gather historical information on cgs and yield and yield loss.

Since the start of the project two trips to PNG have been made in order to conduct project meetings and field work. The purpose of the first trip to Papua New Guinea in October 2011 was to meet and discuss the project objectives and activities. The team also visited processors, and field trials were conducted in order to assess survey methods. The second trip to PNG in April 2012 was to ascertain progress and undertake field surveys. However, initial progress from October 2011 to April 2012 has been slow but CIC has now adopted the principals of AR4D and as a result project plans are in place for 2012 and beyond.

The project team has visited processors and potentially useful links were identified in order to facilitate the recruitment of smallholder farmers. Further discussions are required to gain full permission as much of the information may be of a sensitive nature to processors being commercial enterprises. Independent of these processors, the project has recruited 35 individual smallholders (>60 individual gardens) and there are potentially another 50 smallholders which the team has made links with throughout the Eastern Highlands Province.

The team has conducted field trials to test methods of assessing in-situ yield and the best method was identified and a sampling protocol designed which will be used in the field. Socio-economic surveys have been drafted and circulated, and these are currently being tested in the field. For the on-station controlled experiments, the facilities at the CIC Western Highlands substation will be used along with and an existing experimental farm in the Aiyura area. Therefore the current project plan is to implement all of the four activities during this year (2012).


2 Achievements against activities and outputs/milestones

The activities in objective 1 were due to start in 2011. Some have been started and are underway whilst others have been re-scheduled from 2011 to 2012. Taking this into account, the activities in objectives 2 and 3 have been re-scheduled by plus 1 year, and will therefore vary from the original proposal. For full explanation of the circumstances behind the re-scheduling please see section 8.3 “Problems and Opportunities”.

Objective 1: To quantify cgs impact, in terms of yield loss, in highland smallholder coffee farms.

No. Activity Outputs/

milestones

Completion date

Comments

1 Regular surveys of cgs infestations on a selection of smallholder farms within the Eastern Highlands Province.

Testing methods – best method chosen

October 2011 Various survey methods were tested at the CIC, Aiyura research station. Recommendations were made, and a draft protocol accepted. This protocol can be reviewed and amended up until the regular surveys start.

Recruit suitable farms – adequate sample size achieved

April 2012 – September 2012

Farmers were not recruited in 2011 (see section 8), but this currently underway.

The project requires 60 smallholder farms and of these the project team visited 35 individuals from various villages, from the east to the west of EHP. These farms are in excess of 67 individual “gardens” (see figure 1). At many of the villages, the project team was invited to return at a later date in order to meet more farmers; for one district this could be up to 50 individuals.

Preliminary field surveys have been conducted at all farms in order to assess suitability of the farms with varying degrees of coffee green scale infestations.

Regular surveys – information from smallholders collected

Oct 2012 – June/July 2013 & Oct 2013 – June/July 2014

These surveys were not conducted in 2011 / 2012 (see section 8). They have been scheduled to start in 2012 into 2013, and beyond.

2 Interview smallholders to determine both their views of cgs and yield loss, and farmer perceptions / estimates of farm costs and income.

Regular surveys – information from smallholders collected

Oct 2012 – June/July 2013 & Oct 2013 – June/July 2014

These surveys were not conducted in 2011 / 2012 (see section 8). They have been scheduled to start in 2012 into 2013, and beyond.

Draft survey questionnaires have been circulated amongst the team for testing in the field in order to amend and improve.


3 Establish controlled research station experiments to determine yield loss.

Experiments established - Information collected

October 2012 and beyond

Information will be collected from various CIC stations / existing experiments e.g. CIC sub-station in WHP and existing experiment near Aiyura.

4 Survey and interview holders of larger farms (including plantations) and processors to gather historical information on cgs and yield and yield loss.

Contact made – Agreements in place – Information gathered

October 2011 – October 2014

In October 2011 contact was made with many processors and some larger growers. Further discussions are required to gain full permission and gather information as much of the information may be of a sensitive nature to commercial enterprises.

PC = partner country, A = Australia

Figure 1: Distribution of farmers and coffee gardens within EHP.


Objective 2: To estimate the potential economic impact of cgs on smallholders.


milestones

Completion date

Comments

5 Combine data from surveys and experiments to estimate the potential economic impact in the smallholder farms.

Estimate of economic impact in EHP

2013 preliminary and 2014 final.

This activity is dependent on information from the activities in Objective 1. Once the activities are complete for one growing season then preliminary estimates can be made. When the activities are completed over two growing seasons, the final estimate can be made.


Objective 3: To estimate the overall loss due to cgs on total highland smallholder production.


milestones

Completion date

Comments

6 Survey the incidence of cgs in other major Arabica producing Provinces.

An estimate of occurrence and severity in other provinces

October 2014 This will be conducted during the second coffee growing season. However, potential avenues to form links with smallholders from other provinces, e.g. WHP, are in place.

7 Using the information from activities 5 and 6: estimate the overall loss and economic impact due to cgs on total smallholder production in the highlands of PNG.

Estimate of CGS economic impact in Highlands of PNG

December 2014

This activity is dependent on information gained from two growing seasons which includes all of the preceding activities.



3 Impacts

3.1 Scientific impacts

At present this SRA project is in its early stages and has therefore not had any scientific impacts. However, it is anticipated that there will be future scientific impacts which include 1) estimating the impact of cgs on yield thus enabling CIC and the PNG National Government to target scientific resources; and 2) methods of estimating yield loss that are transferable to other pests and diseases. During the surveys in activity 1 data on the incidence of other diseases will be recorded. This will build on the information that CIC has and will increase its capacity to conduct similar work on other pests and diseases which will have a scientific impact. Additionally, the information collected may well be of use for targeting resources into, for example, research, extension or farmer field schools.

3.2 Capacity impacts

It is not within the remit of this SRA project to capacity build in terms of capital equipment or infrastructure. However, it is within the projects remit to increase CIC’s capacity to conduct surveys of the incidence of cgs and relating this to production. The methods being used are in many ways transferable between other pests and diseases within coffee and possibly other crops.

Through the use of a ‘snowballing’ recruitment method, new networks of communication have been forged between CIC and growers, and existing networks strengthened through the use of social surveying. Many growers were introduced to the necessity for record keeping and maintenance, particularly regarding yield and yield loss (an outcome of ASEM2004/047). This current project is monitoring and reinforcing this capacity with growers through survey work as a form of extension.

3.3 Community impacts

Due to circumstances detailed in Section 8 (Problems and Opportunities), the project was interrupted and is therefore still in the early stages of operation. Therefore, community impacts would not be expected to be evident at this stage. However, following on from ASEM2004/047, increased smallholder awareness of cgs will be a community impact. The recent trip to PNG (October 2011 and April 2012) revealed that there are still a large number of smallholders that are not aware of what cgs is or the relationships between cgs, ants and sooty mould. But there are a number of farmers who are aware of cgs and have tried to stop ants from accessing cgs through the use of physical and chemical barriers. An example of a barrier seen in the field was where one farmer tied ferns to coffee tree trunks to stop ants. Although the principle is sound the method was ineffective, which is where future CIC advice could help.

It is hoped that the findings from this project will facilitate efforts to improve decisions about sustainable coffee production for smallholders. It will assist in improving productivity through the identification of actual yield losses due to cgs


infestations. Steps to mitigate yield loss due to cgs can then be better integrated into current and future education and management programs. Additionally, it will contribute to the ACIAR in country research program and will also support the AusAID PNG strategy (sustainable broad-based economic growth and increased productivity) by quantifying the actual impact of cgs on coffee yields and therefore identifying the severity of the economic impact of cgs on smallholder livelihoods.

3.3.1 Economic impacts

Due to delays in project operations, there are no economic impacts to report at this point. It is anticipated that as information of the economic impact of cgs is obtained from local communities in the highlands, the economic can be realised on a National level.

3.3.2 Social impacts

Due to delays in project operations, there are no social impacts to report at this point. However, it is anticipated by working with smallholders and as awareness of cgs disseminates amongst the local community, the impact of cgs on their coffee yields and associated equity (e.g. the importance of cgs and its impact on yield) will become a higher priority.

3.3.3 Environmental impacts

Due to delays in project operations, there are no environmental impacts to report at this point. However, it is anticipated by working with smallholders and as awareness of cgs disseminates amongst the local community, the impact of cgs on their coffee yields and associated environment (e.g. the importance of biodiversity in terms of local natural enemies) will become a higher priority.

3.4 Communication and dissemination activities

At this early stage there have been no formal project related publications apart from web-based information on the CABI web site. However, there have been meetings, presentations and field days (see below).

Trip #1

No. Trip activity Date Attendees Location

1 Meetings: project objectives & activities.

3rd

– 5th

October 2011

Alex Brook CABI; Dr Wendy Shaw UNSW; Dr Mark Kenny CIC

Goroka, EHP

2 Field trip to visit processors: build links with local processors.

6th

– 7th

October 2011

Alex Brook, CABI; Dr Wendy Shaw, UNSW; Dr Mark Kenny, CIC

Goroka, EHP & surrounding area

3 PNG - Australia 7th

October Dr Wendy Shaw, UNSW

4 Meeting with local processors.

10th

October 2011

Alex Brook CABI; Local Processors.

Goroka, EHP & surrounding area

5 Meetings with CIC staff. 11th

– 12th

October 2011 Alex Brook, CABI; Mr Ingu Bofeng CIC; Ms Susan May Inu, CIC

Aiyura, EHP

6 Field work at CIC Aiyura. Testing methods, training.

13th

– 17th

October 2011 Alex Brook CABI; Mr Ingu Bofeng, Mr Arima Fumo, Mr Boro Asiota, Mr Marvin Pasawa.

Aiyura & surrounding area, EHP


7 Field trips & field work in EHP.

Testing methods, training.

17th

– 19th

October 2011 Alex Brook CABI; Mr Ingu Bofeng, Mr Arima Fumo, Mr Boro Asiota, Mr Marvin Pasawa.

Asuro, EHP

Trip #2

No. Trip activity Date Attendees Location

1 Meetings: project progress, objectives & activities.

13th – 16th April 2012

Alex Brook CABI; Dr Mark Kenny CIC; Mr Tom Kukhang; Ms Susan May Inu; Mr Ingu Bofeng

Aiyura, EHP

2 Field trip to visit smallholders and recruit suitable farms.

17th – 24th April

2012 Alex Brook CABI; Mr Ingu Bofeng; Mr Arima Fumo

Aiyura & surrounding districts.

3 Meeting with Emily Flowers

26th

April 2012 Alex Brook CABI; Emily Flowers ACIAR.

Port Moresby


4 Training activities

A reliable estimate of cherry production is important for monitoring cgs and estimating potential yield, which is a major part of the project in Objective 1 Activity 1. As farmers do not generally keep records the team needed a method that would estimate yield in the field. Such cherry production estimates are published in the scientific literature, and have been widely used from Africa to South America, for both forecasting production and agricultural experimentation (Cilas & Descroix, 2004). For example, Rocha et al (2010) used a method to quantify yield loss due to coffee leaf scorch. Upreti et al (1991) also devised a method that can rapidly estimate total cherry production from a tree by counting the total cherry from a vertical quadrant of a tree. The sample is then multiplied by four to estimate total cherry production per tree. Other methods count cherry on a random sub-set of primary branches and are then multiplied by the total number of primary branches to estimate total cherry production e.g. Browning and Gordon (1989). These methods have been found to be reliable in other countries but have not been tested in the context of the Papua New Guinea coffee industry. In October 2011, the team (at CIC, Aiyura) tested these methods of estimating in-situ cherry production. The Upreti method was found to be the most reliable method and will be used to estimate cherry from both farms with and without cgs, and therefore estimate cherry loss due to cgs. Since these tests were conducted a protocol has been devised and circulated. For further details see Trip Report #1.


5 Intellectual property

There are two main issues that possibly fall into IP, one being commercially sensitive information from growers / processors and the second being information from past projects funded by non ACIAR sources. These issues are discussed in order to show that the project team is aware of potential sensitivities.

Within Objective 1 activity 4, the team is required to gather information from larger farms. Some information held by these commercial growers / processors is likely to be of a sensitive nature, particularly yield figures. The project team must be aware of this and ensure that any information obtained has the full written permission from the grower / processor and also that any requests to exclude certain sensitive information are adhered to. This may either result in some growers / processors: 1) being willing to participate with certain conditions; 2) being unwilling to participate; 3) restrictive conditions making the data unusable. However, we anticipate that we will be able to obtain useful information and by taking this approach the team will not endanger relationships with growers / processors at present or in the future.

CIC has potentially useful information from a past European Union funded project which had the CIC title: “Evaluation of EU-IPM technology using smallholder model farms”. There does not appear to be any information on the CORDIS website which is the EU project database with information on the status, reports and persons involved etc. The team will explore if permission is required from the EU and how this might be gained, but also how best this information might be used.


6 Variations to future activities

There are currently no major variations to the actual activities apart from timing. The team would request that all activities be re-scheduled plus one year (see section 8), but the project will in principle remain the same.

One other problem is that due to very good management practices at the CIC Aiyura station there is currently no cgs. The team therefore propose to use other facilities for Activity 3 e.g. Western Highlands Province CIC sub-station and an existing experimental farm near Aiyura.


7 Variations to personnel

Mr Tom Kukhang is now Chief Scientist at CIC Research Station, and the team

leader for the Research Programme. This is a welcome addition to the CIC staff

capacity. The CIC Project management structure is therefore: tier 1: Dr Kenny;

tier 2: Mr Tom Kukhang; tier 3: Mr Ingu Bofeng & Miss Susan May Inu; tier 4: Mr

Arima Fumo & Mr Borro Asiota. No other changes are reported.


8 Problems and opportunities

There have been two major problems since the onset of the project: 1) tribal fighting limiting travel; and 2) CIC staff being heavily involved in strategic planning. These issues have been addressed and opportunities to make good the lack of progress are discussed below.

8.1 First project trip October 2011:

At the beginning of October 2011 there were serious tribal clashes in the Kainantu area, near the CIC Aiyura research station. This all happened whilst Alex Brook was travelling from the UK and whilst Dr Shaw was in transit from Australia. The unrest limited planned field work as it was not possible to travel because of a CIC travel ban. Only Dr Kenny was able to attend the meeting in Goroka. Many CIC staff remained in Aiyura to stay with their families. However, contingency plans were discussed under the “Risks” heading in the meeting, where any risks to achieving activities were to be identified and contingency plans made. This real case scenario made it an opportunity to identify risks and produce a plan so that alternative activities could be conducted in the Goroka area.

8.2 Communications October 2011 – February / March 2012

Methods of dealing with potential communication problems were raised in the first trip report (2011) [trip reports supplied]. Since the first cgs project (ASEM/2004/ 047) communications have improved but there remains the issue of frequent loss of power. CIC email server is unreliable and at present full to capacity, with no immediate plan to rectify. However, since the appointment of Dr Kenny as GM, CIC has secured reliable satellite internet connection with assistance from SIL. Five additional methods to CIC email were also identified:

1. Project staff to use g-mail (or similar web-based) accounts for email

2. Dropbox will be set up for document and data sharing

3. Use of telephone when all else fails (buy cheap phone cards for international calls), or

4. Skype, or

5. Post or Fax

So far there has been regular communication between the team members. However, there was one communications blackout in from January to February / March 2012, but the issues behind this have been addressed.

8.3 Second project trip April 2012:

There were no issues in terms of our ability to travel around the Eastern Highlands Province in April 2012. However, it became clear from discussions that the start of the project had been hampered by a series of delays which unfortunately were not identified during the first trip. The main problem was that the farmers had not been recruited and subsequently the field surveys had not been conducted in late 2011 / early 2012. The team then discussed the issues behind the delays and have put in place plans to address these issues.


The main reason for the delay was that until the end of 2011 CIC staff were heavily involved in strategic planning, which builds on and makes the deliverables of CIC’s 2008 strategy document measurable. Additionally, programme and project formulation is currently being developed which will be submitted to CIC’s board in July / August 2012 for approval. The planning and programme formulation has been funded by AusAID, which funds organisations like CIC to use the ARDSF (Agriculture Research Development Support Facility) enabling CIC to access consultants. As a result CIC has now adopted the principles of AR4D (Agriculture For Research and Development). CIC now has plans in place for this project (ASEM/2010/051) and will be ready for October / November 2012. In summary:

CIC have been undergoing programme and project formulation under ARDSF which will enhance CIC’s capacity and make them stronger.

CIC has specific project plans in place with protocols etc

Senior staff are in place, and all staff know the importance of the project to ACIAR and PNG smallholders.

We have recruited farmers.

We have tested methods.

The team is “good to go” later this year (2012).

Given the delays in the issuing of writs in 2012 for the PNG national elections, the

team felt that the elections were highly likely to have stopped the originally

planned field surveys during May – July. For these reasons the team would like to

request a 12 month no-cost extension at the end of the project, as discussed with

the ACIAR PNG Country Manager.


9 Budget

All but CIC’s January 2012 acquittal are up to date. Due to the nature of the delays the team will submit acquittals in accordance with the original budget and timeline unless requested by ACIAR to change.

aciar project annual report€¦ · annual report: coffee green scales in papua new guinea:...

Documents