project / Coffee green scales in Papua New Guinea: highland Arabica coffee and yield loss
project number / ASEM/2010/051
period of report / October 2011
date due / December 2011
date submitted / December 2011
prepared by / Alex J Brook, CABI.
co-authors/ contributors/ collaborators / Dr Wendy Shaw, UNSW; Dr Mark Kenny, CIC; Mr Ingu Bofeng, CIC; Dr Sean Murphy, CABI.
approved by
Trip report 1: Coffee green scales in Papua New Guinea: highland Arabica coffee and yield loss
Contents
Contents
1Summary
2Background
3Purpose of travel, destinations and activities
4Trip activities
4.1Goroka meetings and field trips
4.1.1Project objectives and activities
4.1.2Field trips in surrounding area
4.2Aiyura meetings and field work / trips
4.2.1Meetings with project staff
4.2.2Field work Aiyura and surrounding area
4.3Future trips
5IP, variations to plans, budget etc.
5.1Intellectual property
5.2Variations to future activities
5.3Variations to personnel
5.4Problems and opportunities
5.5Budget
6Action points and recommendations
7References
8Appendices
Page 1
Trip report 1: Coffee green scales in Papua New Guinea: highland Arabica coffee and yield loss
1Summary
The purpose of the trip to Papua New Guinea was to meet and discuss the ongoing project. The project team convened at Goroka, Eastern Highlands Province for meetings and field trips. Visits to processors were also conducted and potential useful links identified. Part of the team then moved to Aiyura and conducted field trials to test methods of assessing in-situ yield. The methods were tested and the best identified along with recommendations for a sampling protocol which are being used in the field.
There were no issues of concern with regards to: Intellectual Property; budget or staffing. However, there were problems with tribal fighting in the Kainantu area, and there are likely to be variations to future activities with the pending PNG elections in 2012.
Priority action points from the trip were: 1) conduct surveys of cgs infestations on a selection of smallholder farms within the Eastern Highlands Province; 2)conduct interviews of smallholders to determine both their views of cgs and yield loss, and farmer perceptions / estimates of farm costs and income; 3) Establish controlled research station experiments to determine yield loss; 4) survey and interview holders of larger farms (including plantations) and processors to gather historical information on cgs and yield and yield loss.
2Background
The projects objectives are to: 1) to quantify cgs impact, in terms of yield loss, in PNG highland smallholder coffee farms; 2) to estimate the potential economic consequences of cgs on smallholders; 3) to estimate the overall loss due to cgs on total highland smallholder production. The project will develop relations with smallholders, larger farm holders and processors, and establish research station manipulated field experiments. Ecological and socio-economic survey methods will be implemented at smallholder farms in Eastern Highlands Province. The impact of cgs on yield will be estimated as part of overall yield loss, and also made by comparisons of smallholder farms both with and without cgs. Overall yield loss will be estimated by comparing smallholder farms with well managed coffee systems (e.g. some large farms) and data from field experiments. The incidence of cgs will be surveyed in other main coffee growing provinces to estimate the economic impact of cgs on other major coffee growing provinces (i.e. Western Highlands and Simbu Provinces). Estimates of overall yield loss will be compared with smallholder perceptions in order to provide information for the development of future management plans.
3Purpose of travel, destinations and activities
All air travel was undertaken using standard airline economy class flights. The purpose of the trip to Papua New Guinea was to meet and discuss the ongoing project in order to achieve the Objectives set out in the SRA proposal (ASEM/2010/051). The project team convened at Goroka, Eastern Highlands Province for meetings and field trips. Following this, the team moved to the CIC Research Station at Aiyura, EHP (see table below for details).
Trip activities, dates, attendees and locations
No. / Trip activity / Date / Attendees / Location1 / Meetings: project objectives & activities. / 3rd – 5thOctober 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. / 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. / 17th – 19th October 2011 / Alex Brook CABI; Mr Ingu Bofeng, Mr Arima Fumo, Mr Boro Asiota, Mr Marvin Pasawa. / Asuro, EHP
8 / PNG - UK / 20th October / Alex Brook, CABI.
4Trip activities
Three main activities were undertaken on the trip to EHP, Papua New Guinea, these were: 1) meetings to discuss the objectives and activities undertaken to achieve the project objectives; 2) field trips to meet and discuss building links with processors in EHP; and 3) field work conducted in EHP to assess and train CIC staff in assessing and estimating in-situ cherry production. These are discussed in detail in the following section.
As a result of continued unrest in the Kainantu area, near the CIC Aiyura research station, some planned field work was not possible. However, contingency plans were discussed and alternatives were found (see section 9 problems and opportunities).
4.1Goroka meetings and field trips
The initial plan was to meet in Goroka on Monday 3rd October to 7th October and discuss project progress and activities. In attendance were to be: Mr Alex Brook (CABI); Dr Wendy Shaw (UNSW); Dr Mark Kenny (GM, CIC); Mr Ingu Bofeng (CIC), and Miss Susan May Inu (CIC) at CIC Goroka to. However, due to the unrest near Aiyura only Dr Kenny from CIC was able to attend (see section 9 Problems and opportunities).
Discussion topics included: 1) Project Background; 2) Aims, Objectives; 3) Assumptions; 4) Project Plan & Timeline; 5) staffing, and budget; 6) Risks to the project; 7) Project communication - meeting schedule, reports, etc.; 8) Summary - open issues and things to takeaway and think about.The methods being used were also discussed, and also ways to identify processors and smallholders suitable for the project.
On 7th October, Dr Wendy Shaw returned to UNSW, Australia. Mr Alex Brook was to travel to Aiyura to setup and work with Mr Ingu Bofeng on various aspects of ecological assessments, field trials and methods until 20th October. However, due to tribal fighting this was delayed to 10th October.
4.1.1Project objectives and activities
Tribal fighting in the Kainantu area halted all immediate travel to Aiyura. This change of arrangement for the meeting and implications for future work were discussed in order to adapt to the unpredictability around Aiyura. This became the first topic of our meeting and much of the discussions referred to both Eastern and Western Highlands Provinces, with WHP being the contingency plan. However, Dr Kenny’s opinion was that it was still possible for the project team to use EHP but focussing on the Goroka area, thus avoiding Kainantu. If it did become difficult in Aiyura then the CIC sub-research station at Mt Hagen is a possible alternative for field trials / testing ecological survey methods.
A presentation describing how our approach to estimate yield loss utilises input from multiple approaches (e.g. see Figure 1). The top far left shows smallholders with varying degrees of cgs, and bottom controlled experiments and larger growers. Information is captured by various methods e.g. records from processors, socio-economic surveys and ecological surveys. These all feed into an estimate of yield loss in EHP. The incidence will then be measured in other provinces and with information from EHP, yield loss estimates will be determined for other provinces.
Figure 1:Part of the presentation showing how yield data will be captured from the multiple approaches in the activities. From left: smallholder, controlled experiments, larger growers; methods or points where data is captured; estimates in EHP; Estimates in other Provinces.
Objective 1: To quantify cgs impact, in terms of yield loss, in highland smallholder coffee farms.
Where to capture data from farmers:
For WHP, we have baseline data on farmers from ASEM/2004/041 but unlike EHP we have no fine detailed follow-up data i.e. case studies. This would need to be captured this if this was to be used as a contingency. Dr Kenny mentioned that CIC previously employed ‘service providers’, who are local people from farming communities. Service providers can be utilised for, for example, checking cherry weights before roadside buyers do so which provides a ‘filter’link in the commodity chain.
Form the contingency discussions it became clear that it was a real possibility of engaging with Dr Kenny’s community in the Wagi Valley, WHP. There are a range of small holders (circa 300) with up to 500 trees on each farm, with varying degrees of cgs infestation. Dr Kenny has no cgs, but he knows many with a broad range of infestations. This of course is not EHP but was thought to be a useful as a contingency plan to capture data if EHP proved to be too dangerous. However, as the situation appears to have settled down then EHP will be used as planned. The farms in Dr Kenny’s community can be used in Objective 3 (Activity 6) which is a first step in identifying farmers to estimate cgs in other provinces.
Potential processors were then identified and contacted in and around Goroka area, which included wet and / or dry factories. The team then produced a ‘letter of introduction’ with a brief project description to hand to managers as we visited those on the shortlist. Many were forthcoming with views and were positive to the work, although some were unable to help (see 4.1.2). For the smallholders Ms Susan May Inu has a detailed list of farms and farmers who participated in previous project which will be used. In addition it would be useful to contact Dr George Curry (ACIAR Farming Systems Project) as he may also have useful information.
CGS yield loss and surveys
It is known from farmer perceptions that the loss in EHP due to cgs is estimated at circa 50% which is the average of a very rough and broad estimate. This project aims to narrow down the current estimates giving a more accurate picture but never the less it will be “estimates” rather than “pin-point”.
Controlled field trials in experimental blocks will be set up at Aiyura to determine graduated impacts (from minor to major infestation) of cgs and coffee yield. The nature of the relationship will then be understood e.g. see hypothetical graph, Figure 2 below. However, since the appointment of a new farm manager, and despite intensive searches throughout the cgs Aiyura research station, only limited cgs numbers of infested trees could be found. The new farm manager is very proud of his “healthy” trees. There are in the vicinity to Aiyura a number of farmers currently involved in other CIC projects that do have cgs which can be utilised for this aspect of research.
Figure 2: Possible cgs - yield loss relationship. Solid grey line indicates no impact on yield loss until a threshold; solid black line indicates linear relationship; dashed grey line indicates immediate impact.
Ecological surveys were scheduled to start in the fourth quarter and to continue over a nine month growing season to peak harvest. It was pointed out that this would be regardless ofnon-stop growing that now occurs due to climate change. It was also decided as a working-plan, that ecological surveying to be carried out 3 to 4 times per year as stated in the SRA, i.e. first survey in the fourth quarter of 2011; second in the first quarter of 2012; and third in the second / third quarters of 2012 when the growing season reaches peak production. The first survey of next growing season would then be in the last quarter of 2012 and following this there will be two more surveys in 2013.A minimum of 20 smallholder farms without cgs and 40 with varying degrees of cgs infestations will probably be required to give a representative and robust sample. The methods to be used in these surveys are discussed in section 4.2.
It was also noted that other factors such as variety and other disease would need to be recorded during survey work. Typical varieties include: Blue Mountain (now ‘Typica’ – most common around Goroka), Arusha and Mondonova.
Communications:
CIC mail server is unreliable and at present full to capacity, with no immediate plan to rectify. However, since the appointment of Dr Kenny as GM, he had secured reliable satellite internet connection with assistance from SIL. Five additional methods to CIC email were also identified:
- Project staff to use g-mail (or similar web-based) accounts for email
- Dropbox will be set up for document and data sharing
- Use of telephone when all else fails (buy cheap phone cards for international calls), or
- Skype, or
- Post or Fax
To reduce file size and provide details for annual reports in the correct format, the ACIAR annual report template will be sent out unformatted as a word file, to key project members i.e. Alex, Wendy, Mark & Tom or Ingu & Susan.
Logistics:
CIC vehicles are old but CIC has plans to replace them.
There are no anticipated constraints on CIC staffing.
Data
Database of previous project work especially all socio-economic raw data to be forwarded on a CD/DVD for Wendy and Alex. Much of this data will assist in providing additional context for the current project. Dr Kenny said that Susan will do this.
All data is to be shared – see communications above and “dropbox”.
Conclusions
The use WHP smallholder farmer data was discussed because of the efficiency of the processors in keeping data but was later abandoned due to good contacts and data being available around Goroka, Bena, Asuro and Lufa (& Marawaka?). These are easily accessed, away from Kainantu and CIC has previously surveyed farms at these locations. This also minimises risks to CIC staff particularly if they were to survey around Kainantu.
4.1.2Field trips in surrounding area
A field trip was conducted over several days to talk to local processors and some larger growers, these included:
Sihereni Coffee Project
Type = wet mill; David Oromarie GM (not present).
This was a plantation but does not use fertiliser or other chemicals – essentially organic. The trees were circa 50 years old; using ‘recycled’ trees.Records on productivity are kept but no records of pest infestations such as cgs are kept.
Mitega Coffee Co-op Ltd
Type = wet and dry mill; Owner = Jack Gasawo (not present).
Now un-licenced and out of use.
Awute
Type = wet and dry factory; Mr David Rumba Rumba (Manager), owned by Mr Awute.
Coffee cherry and parchment is bought from whoever turns up at the factory. They do have two coffee growers who are regular customers, and block holders (AP CIC to follow up). Mr Rumba Rumba thought our approach was fine but that we should approach processors with more direct involvement with growers – such as Kongo, in Simbu. However, this was out of the project range for the activity in question but his comments were encouraging.
Lahamenegu Coffee Factory(PNGCE):
John Leahy, factory manager (John Edwards, GM and on governing board of CIC).
Extension officers and agronomists work closely with farmers.There are many hundreds of individuals and groups that bring coffee cherry to Lahamenegu. They are all within a 20km radius and farm sizes range from 0.5 Ha to 60 Ha (approx. 2000 trees per Ha). Smallholders pick cherry and the factory weighs it when delivered. Each farmer has a unique ID number and records are kept. John Leahy made it clear that permission was needed from John Edwards. This factory has been involved in other project before. (AP CIC to follow up and get permission).
Harusafa in Bena
Type = Grower; Mr Lovave and Mr Makiyu owners; 25 Ha block).
CGS is present and commonly referred to as ‘anis’ (ants) and it is recognised that it damages and kills many trees. Here the significance of pest and disease impact wasnoted as: 1) Ring Borer; 2) cgs; 3) Leaf Rust; 4) Pink Disease.
These diseaseswill have to be recordedduring any surveys which will add value to the project, providing additional information on their incidence and distribution. It was noted that these diseases come at different times.
As for records, pickers are employed and paid by weight delivered. Thus reliable records are available neither of diseases nor disease impacts on yield. The weights are also recorded at Lahamenegu factory when they are delivered for processing.