Issuu on Google+

Final Report on Growing Coffee without Endosulfan – Best Practices collection and coffee sector wide debate to supporting farmers to profitably comply with sustainability standard requirements. Pesticide Action Network (PAN) UK, with 4C Association, for Sustainable Coffee Program

Project Purpose Endosulfan, a broad spectrum organochlorine insecticide, has been listed by the Stockholm Convention as a persistent organic pollutant (POP) since 2011 and targeted for global elimination. It is also listed by the Rotterdam Convention subject to the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) procedure. This is an important achievement in view of the risks of this highly hazardous chemical, and will trigger action and change at national governance level. It also means that major sustainability standards, including Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, UTZ Certified and the 4C Code of Conduct, which prohibit use of POPs and PIC-listed chemicals in their supply chains have a strong interest in promoting viable alternatives. Continued endosulfan usage by farmers supplying according to these standards would constitute noncompliance with these standards and could lead to a withdrawal of sustainability licenses or certificates. As endosulfan is still used in coffee production in several countries to control the coffee berry borer (CBB), its prohibition poses major challenges to efforts to scale up sustainable coffee production and sourcing. While there are different good examples of producers who grow coffee without endosulfan in several countries, information on alternative pest control techniques and substitutes is not widely available and rarely in a form that is useful to growers. The coffee stakeholders, especially coffee growers, sustainability standards and coffee roasters are most interested in maintaining the productivity at farm level, the credibility of the sustainability claims as well as the compliance with international and national laws and regulations and are therefore joining forces with research, national institutions, NGOs, donors, agrochemical industry and coffee sector organizations to present, disseminate and adopt viable alternatives to the use of endosulfan in the coffee sector.

Implementation of project activities and deliverables The following sections of the report focus on the components conducted and deliverables produced by PAN UK under project objective no. 2: Viable chemical and non-chemical alternatives have been identified and collected at international level and best practices made publicly available to the global coffee sector. Progress reports on the total project, including the global dialogue and awareness-raising component conducted by 4C Coffee Association, were provided to the Sustainable Coffee Program powered by IDH in May, July, September and November 2013 and also sent to project co-donor, FAO, for information. Appendix A to this report lists specific project documents (internal and for public dissemination) referred to in the narrative.

Final Report to IDH Sustainable Coffee Program on project Growing Coffee without Endosulfan rd GLO.RFF.04.2012.01 PAN UK with 4CA 3 March 2014

Activity 1: Desk study to identify the most useful, practical literature and collect case studies, using interviews with relevant practitioners and researchers (e.g. FAO and their fast project ; CATIE Nicaragua; CENICAFE, Colombia; EMBRAPA, Brazil via the Brazilian Working Group on Endosulfan under Cecafé; CABI Bioscience, UK, including screening of projects/activities under ICO). A short literature search was conducted on peer-reviewed and other papers published since 2007 and around a dozen relevant papers found and read. This confirms experts’ comments that very little information is currently being published on CBB IPM (compared with a decade ago). Other older but useful review or research papers were obtained from key experts consulted, especially Dr Peter Baker, Senior Commodities Project Development at CABI Europe. His experience on coffee berry borer (CBB) management over the last two decades is invaluable, including his management of CBB IPM strategy development at the Cenicafe research institute of the Colombian National Federation of Coffee Growers (FNC) during 1993-1999. A short list of the most useful recent publications and web resources on CBB practical management was compiled (doc 1). A short on-line survey on Managing CBB without Endosulfan was disseminated in English, Spanish and Portuguese via 4CA’s distribution lists of members and other coffee sector stakeholders in Mar-Apr 2013 (doc 2). It resulted in over 40 useful complete responses from over 12 countries in Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America). 4C web and email-based announcement of the project resulted in additional direct email responses from over 20 stakeholders in the supply chain, providing additional CBB IPM experiences or tips. Time allocated was insufficient to get fuller feedback from all but three selected key respondents. A summary of the quantitative and qualitative info on IPM methods in use and respondents’ perceptions and ranking of effectiveness was compiled (doc 3). More detailed interim summaries for Biological Control; Chemical Control and Physical Control were produced and feedback received from external advisor to the project, Dr Peter Baker at CABI Bioscience. A spreadsheet was produced with data from 45 completed survey questionnaires with respondents’ ranking of effectiveness, according to perceived level of CBB pressure in their zone (low; medium; high; very high). Analysis of the on-line survey was conducted in time to inform participants at the project progress meeting in June 2013 (see Activity 3 below).

Activity 2: Communication and introduction of the project to experts and coffee stakeholders in trade, industry, NGOs, sustainability standards etc. at a global level Information on the project was communicated to more than a thousand coffee stakeholder worldwide in different languages, including representatives of farmer groups, traders, industry, coffee associations, science, and NGOs. For Brazil, the communication was done in cooperation with P&A Marketing, the implementers of the Brazilian sister project. The communication made reference to the IDH-SCP, FAO and ISEAL as the donors and included the invitation to get actively engaged, provide feedback and respond to the online questionnaires (see above). This triggered discussions and sharing of information, e.g. within global networks of international trade houses, which provided useful input for the project. The project worked closely together with representatives of sustainability standards, especially the members of the ISEAL Pesticide Working Group, from where the original project idea emanated.

Final Report to IDH Sustainable Coffee Program on project Growing Coffee without Endosulfan rd GLO.RFF.04.2012.01 PAN UK with 4CA 3 March 2014

An intermediary information workshop was held in June 2013 before the ISEAL conference in London to provide a progress update on both the Brazilian and the international projects to an interested public audience, to consider next steps and discuss how to roll the solutions out to the supply base. Apart from presentations from PAN-UK, P&A Marketing, ISEAL, Cooxupé (a Brazilian cooperative) and the 4C Association, five expert panellists from the coffee industry, research, ICO and the sustainability sector contributed to the discussion. The workshop was considered a great success by the more than 20 participants and provided valuable insights for the future direction of the project. It also included a voting exercise among the participants to identify possible criteria for assessing the pros and cons of different IPM methods. Key results and recommendations included:  

  

Do NOT give a long list of ‘blanket’ recommendations! Present as ‘case studies’ the findings on Coffee Berry Borer IPM methods used by farmers interviewed in Colombia (June 2013) and Central America (Nicaragua and El Salvador, July 2013) and carefully describe agroclimatic and farm profile characteristics for each farmer case Identify any key lessons related to training needs or methods, advice, tips on methodology Collect and present as much data as possible on costs/labour/ease of use/effectiveness of methods we find out. Say whether there is any local quantitative data to back up the info from different farm case studies.

A workshop documentation, including minutes with major recommendations and presentations, has been published on the 4C Website. The link has been shared with participants and other interested stakeholders. A final conference to present and discuss project results was held in Oct 2013 (see Activity 8 below). A final communication and dissemination campaign has been slightly delayed but will take place in the first half of March 2014. It will inform a broad global audience about the project findings and the developed tools and guidance documents. The communication campaign will also be used to present and invite engagement in follow-up activities (see below). Activity 3: Gather feedback from the above in terms of potential alternatives, awareness, implications for different supply chain actors and contribution to the process Project Coordinator Dr Stephanie Williamson provided an update (doc 4) on the project and key findings from the on-line survey at the project progress meeting for coffee stakeholders hosted by project funder ISEAL Alliance in London on 11th June 2013 Workshop presentations are available via 4CA’s Public Library webpages at Participants made it clear that they would not find literature reviews or long reports on the results of academic papers or field trials useful, but rather a short list of the most useful resources for practitioners. Their main interest is in the farm and situation-specific experiences of individual certified farms in phasing out endosulfan use and using ecological methods for CBB control and the costs and effectiveness of these methods. One specific request from project donor FAO was for the project team to develop with stakeholders a set of criteria to assess potential application and success of alternative Final Report to IDH Sustainable Coffee Program on project Growing Coffee without Endosulfan rd GLO.RFF.04.2012.01 PAN UK with 4CA 3 March 2014

CBB control methods. In other words, criteria to enable a comparative assessment of the pros and cons of the different methods in terms of cost, training requirements, etc. These criteria were developed by the participants at the ISEAL-hosted project progress meeting (included in doc 5), representing coffee roasters and traders, retailers, sustainability standards, technical support agencies, research institutes, farmer associations, project partners and the ‘sister’ IDH-funded project in Brazil. The five most important criteria selected by stakeholders from a list of 14 options outlined by the project team were:  How effective is this IPM method in reducing the amount of damaged coffee beans? (ranked 1st in importance)  How much does it cost per hectare per season? (ranked 2nd)  How much labour time (person days per hectare per season) does it take? (3rd)  How easy is it to use in my coffee grove? (joint 4th)  Do I need to have been trained in its use? (joint 4th)

Activity 4: Two field trips to Latin America (possibly Colombia and Central America) to meet farmers who have successfully eliminated endosulfan and identify lessons, in consultation with producer associations, agronomists and researchers. With 4CA, it was agreed to conduct field visits to two different coffee growing regions where CBB is most problematic and where endosulfan has been, or continues to be, widely used by many coffee farmers. Colombia was selected to represent an equatorial region with frequent coffee flowering episodes year-round and therefore almost permanent presence of coffee berries at the right stage to be susceptible to CBB attack. The pest can be extremely damaging in this context. Colombia’s National Federation of Coffee growers (FNC) has supported a comprehensive CBB IPM research and extension programme for many years. While endosulfan was banned in Colombia over a decade ago, illegal use from cross-border trade has been a concern. Logistical support for the field visit was provided by Fundación Natura (Rainforest Alliance’s Sustainable Agriculture Network partner in Colombia) and the Fairtrade Liaison Officer for Central & Southern Colombia in order to meet and interview 9 certified small, medium and large farms under Rainforest, Utz, 4C and Fairtrade standards. The field visit took place from 13-20 June 2013, conducted by PAN UK’s Project Coordinator for technical content and PAN UK’s Communication Manager, Paul Lievens, for video production. Central America was selected as a region with one main flowering period and a 3-5 month dry season when no berries are developing. Nicaragua and El Salvador were chosen due to existing partner contacts in coffee research institutes and farmer co-operatives and a range of large and small farms in certification schemes. At low altitude in El Salvador CBB can be very hard to control, and in outbreak years in Nicaragua. Endosulfan use is still authorised in both countries under national legislation. Logistical support for the field visit was provided by a Nicaraguan collaborator from a coffee-growing community and by 4CA’s Latin America Regional Manager in El Salvador, Guillermo Belloso, to meet 12 small, medium and large farms certified under Rainforest, organic and Fairtrade standards. A non-certified large farm still using endosulfan use was also interviewed as a comparison. The field visit took place from 19-30 July 2013, conducted by PAN UK’s Project Coordinator and PAN UK’s Communication Manager. A flexible, open-ended interview guide for farmers and for technical support organisations was designed, to collect factual information and to capture on video interviewees’ experiences, views and recommendations for other farmers (docs 6 and 7). Interim summary tables of the farm characteristics, CBB levels achieved and IPM methods used by farmers and farm managers visited were compiled following the field trips (docs 8 and 9). Final Report to IDH Sustainable Coffee Program on project Growing Coffee without Endosulfan rd GLO.RFF.04.2012.01 PAN UK with 4CA 3 March 2014

Activity 5: Development of updates on useful practices and targeted training tools (including videos) aimed at agronomists, estate managers, co-operative technicians, etc. focusing on the two identified countries and any other, easily accessible material through e.g. FAO projects, complementary to and in close coordination with Brazil focused, local endosulfan working group. Participants at the project progress meeting in June 2013 emphasised that by far the most useful output for their needs would be selected, farm-specific case studies showing which methods are being used in the agroclimatic and socioeconomic context of an individual farm. Participants did not want long lists of recommendations or blanket, generic guidance as this cannot cover the variability of coffee production zones and CBB damage and control economic aspects. ISEAL and its members suggested inspirational videos showing a range of farmers talking about their positive experiences would be most useful for their audiences. The project team therefore decided to focus on putting the field visit information and experiences collected, along with feedback and suggestions from experts consulted, into 4 main formats, to serve as technical guidance, training tools and inspiration: (i)

(ii) (iii) (iv)

A set of guidance documents detailing the different IPM methods reported and the experiences of individual farms and of collaborating support organisations in using them A set of videos illustrating farmer experiences using IPM methods A set of farm case studies showing their integration of different IPM methods in the specific context of their farm and coffee system Supplementary material on poisoning and other risks of handling endosulfan and of the hazard status of other insecticides reported for use against CBB

With the wealth of good video material shot and excellent experiences collected, it was decided to produce 4 separate videos of around 12 minutes each in length as a series entitled Growing Coffee without Endosulfan: experiences of certified farms in managing coffee berry borer. The videos (document set 10) cover: No. 1: Use of Cultural Controls No. 2: Use of Biopesticides based on the fungus Beauveria bassiana No. 3: Use of Trapping No. 4: Monitoring and Decision-making Each video is available in Spanish (original) and English (dialogue subtitled). The videos are primarily aimed at people working in the coffee sector who want to find out how coffee farmers are managing CBB without resort to endosulfan. They are also suitable for policy and development agency audiences. The videos will be available for public access on YouTube via the 4CA website and project collaborators’ and donors’ websites too. Expert feedback was obtained on project findings and/or questions arising from: Dr Peter Baker at CABI Bioscience (UK); Dr Bernard Dufour at CIRAD overseas agricultural research institute (France); Dr Adan Hernandez at the National Coffee Research Institute PROCAFE (El Salvador) and Dr Carmenza Gongora at Cenicafe coffee research institute (Colombia). Dr Baker was a panellist at the June 2013 project workshop and Drs Hernandez and Gongora made presentations at the Oct 2013 lessons workshop. The guidance documents on farmers’ experiences (document set 11) with the different IPM methods provide summary information on their use in Colombia (continuous flowering Final Report to IDH Sustainable Coffee Program on project Growing Coffee without Endosulfan rd GLO.RFF.04.2012.01 PAN UK with 4CA 3 March 2014

context) and Central America (limited flowering context), use as reported by survey respondents and comments and feedback from experts consulted on drafts of the documents and specific questions raised by the project team. Appendices give the details on the techniques and their costs, labour and equipment required, timing and effectiveness provided by each farm or farm manager, along with their tips and recommendations, and relevant comments from technical support organisations interviewed. The set of guidance documents are entitled Experiences with XX control for CBB and cover: A. B. C. D. E.

Cultural controls Beauveria biopesticide product use Trapping using methanol-ethanol attractant Chemical control Monitoring and Decision-making

In combination with the project videos and farm case studies, these guidance documents on CBB IPM methods can be used to show stakeholders what is possible and the specific contexts in which different types of farms have succeeded in controlling this pest without endosulfan.

Activity 6: Identification of key lessons for farmers, agronomists and suppliers, with case studies on how different farms have been successful in stopping use of endosulfan A comparison table of IPM methods reported in use by interviewed farms addressing the five most important assessment criteria identified by project stakeholders has been compiled to give a short summary of the pros and cons of the methods (doc 12). It also serves as an easy to read summary of the main findings on the IPM methods. A summary of key lessons and issues emerging from the field visits (doc 13) was produced shortly before the project lesson-sharing workshop organised by 4CA and hosted by the Colombian FNC during the Expo Especiales international coffee trade fair held 16-19 October in Bogotá, Colombia. These key lessons in draft form were also shared with PAN colleagues participating in the UN PIC and POP Convention technical review and FAO/WHO JPMR meetings held in the 3rd week of October and with ISEAL and IDH. Four of the farmers and farm managers interviewed were invited as speakers to the lessonsharing workshop, along with Dr Adan Hernandez from PROCAFE, co-op technical staff, Dr Carmenza Gongora from Cenicafe Research Institute, 4C Brazilian member Cooxupe growers’ co-operative and the coordinator for the ‘sister’ IDH project on solutions to endosulfan phase out in Brazil. Dr Peter Baker from CABI Bioscience was also able to take part and provided further contributions to developing the project key lessons and next steps recommendations. Activity 7: Development of ‘good stories from the field’ and other materials including videos to help communicate the activities, aimed at marketing staff, donors, and other key stakeholders complementary to and in close coordination with Brazil focused, local endosulfan working group. Several good stories are provided via the videos and in the farm case studies (doc set 14). Three positive experiences were presented at the project international conference in Oct 2013, by inviting: technical staff from one large Colombian farm, which has now eliminated insecticide use for CBB; the owner of a small Colombian farm who manages CBB using only cultural controls and co-op and FNC extension staff supporting farmer training; the head Final Report to IDH Sustainable Coffee Program on project Growing Coffee without Endosulfan rd GLO.RFF.04.2012.01 PAN UK with 4CA 3 March 2014

agronomist of a Salvadoran export company which also owns estates and supports IPM implementation among its supplier farms. Further dissemination of ‘good stories’ via external organisations’ websites and coffee trade magazines was envisaged, however, time and resource allocation did not permit this. Instead, the project devoted more time to producing 4 videos, rather than the 2 originally planned, and providing both English and Spanish versions. The team justifies this focus on the videos as feedback received so far has highlighted the importance of visual media for training and awareness raising, especially for reaching farmers, who are unlikely to read written material. Another part of the varied audience for the project outputs is national policy makers in developing countries and others involved in pesticide risk management decision making, especially relevant for co-donor FAO. To engage with governmental decision makers in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, brief details of the project, its methodology and key findings were disseminated and discussed with pesticide regulators and other participants of the Diploma course in Pesticide Risk Management organised by University of Cape Town (and partly supported by FAO). PAN UK has been involved in writing course modules and teaching elements of this course since 2011. A session on Phasing out endosulfan: lessons from the coffee sector was presented by the Project Coordinator for the course’s on-line Pesticide Discussion Forum held on 5th Sept 2013. This resulted in a request from the Tanzanian course participant from the national chemical regulatory agency to find donor support for a survey to identify farmers’ continued use of endosulfan in coffee and to share experiences in IPM alternatives. The project informed FAO of this request and the University of Cape Town but to date no funding has been found. This proactive interest from Tanzania to identify and address endosulfan use problems should be a component of any potential follow-up activities in African coffee-producing countries. Further dissemination of the project lessons on IPM alternatives for CBB was conducted during Feb 2014, as part of PAN UK’s collaboration with University of Cape Town Pesticide Risk Management course, teaching on the module on ‘Alternative Approaches to Pest Management’. Learning exercises were developed for the African pesticide regulator participants to assess useful IPM methods documented by the project and discuss how they could best be promoted by government agencies and the coffee sector.

Activity 8: Organize and host an international conference with experts, practitioners, public and private sector stakeholders including relevant coffee sustainability standards on how to deal with the results of the findings, including those being identified by the complementary Brazil focused, local working group on endosulfan alternatives, esp. economic implications for producers, and facilitate agreement across coffee sector on how to move forward. The final conference was held during the international coffee fair and conference ExpoEspeciales in Oct 2013, in collaboration with the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia (FNC). The audience included 45 participants from various countries, representing producers, traders, roasters, NGOs, standards bodies, coffee associations, and science. Stephanie Williamson (PAN UK, doc 15, in Spanish) and Jorge Brando (P&A Marketing Brazil) presented the findings and recommendations of the global and the Brazilian project respectively. Agronomists and coffee producers presented their experiences and case studies in phasing out endosulfan from different country and production system perspectives. PAN UK’s Project Coordinator showed an early draft of the project video on biopesticides to obtain feedback on content, style and format. Final Report to IDH Sustainable Coffee Program on project Growing Coffee without Endosulfan rd GLO.RFF.04.2012.01 PAN UK with 4CA 3 March 2014

Workshop participants were able to learn from two excellent case studies presented on use of methanol traps by Rene Fontan from Salvadoran export company (doc 16) and grower CoEx (including a detailed cost comparison of trap use versus endosulfan use) and on combining CBB IPM methods with good coffee practices on Agrovarsovia Estates in Colombia, by Marlen Sanchez (doc 17). Participants discussed technical and economic feasibility aspects of the different methods with farmers, researchers and technical staff and then explored next steps for project dissemination and follow-up. Concrete recommendations included:  Disseminating a short leaflet with the project lessons and examples of how farmers are managing CBB without endosulfan to relevant Ministries of Agriculture, Environment and Health in all coffee-growing countries where endosulfan is not yet banned. The aim is to encourage these countries to be proactive in implementing bans as soon as possible, with the confidence that this will not adversely affect the coffee sector.  Setting up a network of certified farms, with their support organisations, and farms recently joining 4C to document in detail over 2-3 seasons the methods and costs of CBB methods use and their effectiveness in reducing CBB damage. This network should be supported by the coffee sector and governmental and Convention bodies to look more closely at use of biological control and trapping, where many uncertainties still exist regarding economic feasibility, and issues such as phase out of chlorpyrifos and whether farms using fungicides for coffee rust disease outbreaks can successfully use Beauveria fungus too. Workshop presentations are available in Spanish via 4CA’s Public Library webpages at An English version of the workshop report and discussion summary is available (doc. 18).

Key lessons identified relating to CBB management without endosulfan A revised summary of key lessons from the project, in relation to IPM methods for CBB, farmer experiences and issues relating to endosulfan poisoning and other risks in handling and disposal has been prepared since the lessons workshop (doc 19). Six key lessons relating to successful and profitable implementation of IPM methods for Coffee Berry Borer have been identified by the Project Coordinator from information collected in the field visits, the on-line survey responses, expert consultation, collaborating organisations and stakeholder participation in project meetings: (1) CBB control without endosulfan is perfectly feasible: The findings show that it is perfectly possible to achieve good CBB control without using endosulfan, across a range of farm sizes, climate zones and altitudes, pest pressure levels, coffee production systems, farmer ages and educational levels. All farms interviewed are using at least two different and complementary IPM methods. Several farmers who were using endosulfan routinely 3 years ago have succeeded in eliminating its use, demonstrating that it is possible to change practices quickly. (2) Cultural controls form the backbone of good CBB management: All farmers met are doing some form of good cultural controls as the backbone of CBB IPM. These include sanitary picking of bored berries or early maturing berries and collecting fallen berries and Final Report to IDH Sustainable Coffee Program on project Growing Coffee without Endosulfan rd GLO.RFF.04.2012.01 PAN UK with 4CA 3 March 2014

dried berries left on trees after the main picking season. These practices are essential to reduce the amount of pest breeding sites and reduce CBB levels in the following season. (3) Field monitoring is an important tool for CBB decision-making: Almost all farmers carry out some form of field observation for monitoring pest presence and level, identifying ‘hotspot’ areas on their farm and for optimum timing of any control activities. Most Colombian farmers interviewed regularly sample their plots to assess % CBB incidence and may dissect beans to see if the borers can be reached with a biological or chemical control application. (4) Some farms have greatly reduced or eliminated insecticide use for CBB: Several of those farms using insecticides have reduced use considerably in recent years and some have managed not to use any insecticide in the 2013 season, thanks to careful IPM management. The latter group includes 3 large estates, which are replacing insecticides with either biopesticides or using methanol traps (in addition to cultural controls and monitoring). (5) It is a myth that endosulfan alternatives are always more expensive: Estimates with farmers interviewed revealed that methods such as trapping and use of Beauveria can be cheaper than endosulfan application or similar in cost. Central American farmers using methanol traps found it much cheaper and less laborious than organising workers to spray insecticide - and far less risky to worker health. None of the farms considered IPM methods to be too costly. Instead, they viewed labour costs of cultural controls and expenditure on other IPM methods as a necessary and valuable investment to guarantee good coffee quality and which can deliver benefits in: higher prices for their beans; farm family and farm worker welfare; wildlife protection; and less environmental pollution. (6) Phasing out endosulfan use is possible with public and private sector support: Getting more countries to ban endosulfan and implement the POPs Convention phase out will not cause havoc in the coffee sector. However, governments and, especially, the coffee traders and roasters need to support training and advice for farmers to change practices. Farmer support organisations, producer groups, sustainability standards and coffee research institutes all play an essential role in helping to phase out endosulfan and replace it with safer, IPM methods. Supplementary to the key lessons on IPM methods is the summary on farmer and collaborating organisation experiences with endosulfan health and environmental risks and challenges in product stewardship (doc 20). A list of other insecticides reported for use against CBB and their hazard status (doc 21), according to the PAN International Highly Hazardous Pesticide (HHP) List has been shared with the sister IDH project in Brazil.

Feedback and preliminary conclusions Feedback at the lessons workshop was very positive and several farms and organisations are keen to work together on phase out of other Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) in coffee, notably chlorpyrifos. Responses from project collaborators, ISEAL Pesticide Working Group and policy makers to the draft videos rated them as ‘excellent’ and ‘good motivation’ and indicate that the target audiences should find these very helpful. Policy colleagues involved in the Stockholm and Rotterdam Conventions have given positive feedback and FAO is very pleased with the project results to date. Through PAN UK’s Director’s on-going participation in the FAO and World Health Organisation Joint Pesticide Management Program annual meetings, and liaison with other PAN colleagues involved in the Stockholm POPs Convention Chemical Review Committee, the chair of the latter (from Final Report to IDH Sustainable Coffee Program on project Growing Coffee without Endosulfan rd GLO.RFF.04.2012.01 PAN UK with 4CA 3 March 2014

Jamaica) requested more information on CBB trapping methods, for potential use in Jamaican coffee growing. The Project Coordinator was able to put him in direct contact with Dr Hernandez from PROCAFE in El Salvador, one of the experts on trapping. PAN UK and 4CA, along with ISEAL and in-country collaborators therefore plan follow-up proposals for 2014, incorporating many of the recommended next steps and follow-up activities suggested. Both project partners will look for suitable funding sources, including from FAO, IDH Sustainable Coffee Program, ISEAL and its members and other donors. Considerable footage and testimonial information was collected in the field visits on farmer and organisations’ concerns and experiences of endosulfan poisonings, effects on wildlife and logistical problems involving poor practices by pesticide retailers and disposal challenges. This material was not directly the subject of this project, which focussed on methods for CBB control, but is highly relevant to the POPs and PIC Conventions, SAICM and HHP phase out initiatives. With a modest amount of additional funding for PAN UK staff time, this material could be made into a short video of farmers urging fellow farmers to change their practices, along with illustrated web material with their recommendations and examples of good practices in coffee supply chains

Recommended project follow-up and next steps The following recommendations (included in doc 19) were made by participants at the project lesson-learning workshop and by some of the farmers and collaborating organisations interviewed:  Disseminate project lessons and farmers’ IPM experiences to relevant Ministries of Agriculture, Environment and Health in all coffee-growing countries where endosulfan is not yet banned, to encourage them countries to implement bans as soon as possible.  Set up a network of monitor farms, with their support organisations, to document over 2-3 seasons their IPM methods, costs and effectiveness in reducing CBB damage. The network should look closely at biological control and trapping effectiveness in different contexts, and phase out options for other Highly Hazardous Pesticides, especially chlorpyrifos, a commonly used replacement for endosulfan in some countries. This informal monitoring and farmer participatory research network could also link with ongoing 4C Platform activities, IDH and ISEAL member initiatives on coffee rust management and climate change monitoring.  Distribute project findings widely, especially the videos on IPM methods, via coffee organizations in producing countries, coffee trade press and social media.  Conduct pilot projects with farmer groups on phase-out training and implementation in countries where endosulfan is still used, including farmer exchange visits to farms with positive experiences in CBB IPM. Involve Central America regional PROMECAFE coffee initiative in outreach and include Brazilian IPM farm experiences in any videos to be produced in a second project phase.

Final Report to IDH Sustainable Coffee Program on project Growing Coffee without Endosulfan rd GLO.RFF.04.2012.01 PAN UK with 4CA 3 March 2014

Appendix A: List of project documents and deliverables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

List of Useful Resources on CBB IPM On-line questionnaire for survey on managing CBB (English version), 15 Mar’13 Summary of survey responses, 02 May’13 Presentation S Williamson, PAN UK on project progress and findings from survey, for ISEALth PAN UK-4C project progress meeting, 11 June 2013 th Notes of ISEAL-PAN UK-4C project progress meeting, 11 June 2013 Outline for collaborators of information to be collected during field visits, 21 May’13 Draft outline for coffee video content, 13 May'13 Summary of farmers and farm characteristics and their CBB control methods: Colombia, 7 July’13 Summary of farmers and farm characteristics and their CBB control methods: Central America, 5 Aug’13 Video series on Growing Coffee without Endosulfan: experiences of certified farms in managing coffee berry borer Set of 5 guidance documents on Experiences using IPM methods for CBB Comparison of IPM methods for CBB control based on assessment criteria, 23 Dec’13 Key lessons and issues from field visits, 03 Sep’13 Set of 6 detailed Farm Case Studies and 12 shorter Case Studies Presentation by S Williamson on key findings from project at lesson-sharing workshop, 17 Oct’13 (in Spanish) PowerPoint presentation of COEX exporters and growers, El Salvador, on CBB IPM experiences (Spanish and English versions) PowerPoint presentation of Agrovarsovia Farms, Colombia, on CBB IPM experiences (Spanish and English versions) th Report on Growing Coffee without Endosulfan lesson-learning workshop, held 17 October 2013 in Bogotá, Colombia Key lessons from Growing Coffee without Endosulfan project and recommended next steps, Feb 2014 Experiences with risks of using endosulfan and stewardship issues, Jan'14 List of chemicals reported in use for CBB and their hazard status, Jan'14

Final Report to IDH Sustainable Coffee Program on project Growing Coffee without Endosulfan rd GLO.RFF.04.2012.01 PAN UK with 4CA 3 March 2014

Growing coffee without endosulfan