Workshop with expert, 2 of April 2015, Kampala, IITA office Notes about group discussions on CPaD issues in Mt. Elgon * Possible reasons for the fact that more pesticides are applied in high altitudes: Higher importance of coffee high up, better availability of pesticides in high altitudes, due to CBD, more presence of cooperatives, Buginyanya research station / extensionists * Experts recognize that general pest profile are more or less consistent with experts / literature, but the perception about shading is pretty different * CBB: Interesting in terms of CC. Till 80´s no CBB in mid and high altitude, but now it is there. However, since pesticide application has reduced, it´s better cause they affected natural enemies * Effect of Shade on WCSB is due to microclimate * In 60ies Antestia was a big problem in Mt. Elgon, therefore shade trees were removed (it was recommended to remove them) * CBM: Appears to become a bigger problem. Only appeared recently in Arabica, before only on Robusta at low altitudes. In Kasese its there since only 3 years. * Problem for recommendations concerning spraying time/frequency: Proper decision making tools are not there. Information is not there. Difficulty to target pests individually * CLM problem occurred due to overuse of pesticides * Sumithion not the best choice. Although for environment its not too bad because of its low persistence in soil, there are health issues. Health risk is known. They think farmers should move to another chemical, but price problem, because sumithion is cheap. * Problem of Uganda and registered pesticide. It is old and not updated. Only now ministry of agriculture starts to bring in new products * Issue of banned products from Europe that are still in use in developing countries * Constraints of Research: o Recommendations developed but market problem (e.g. effective pesticide proposed, but too expensive compared to others of market) o Differences in systems, organizations, education of farmers. Makes communication difficult. “You do things, find out things, but they don´t apply it due to socio economic reasons” --> Research findings remain without impact o Also, there are too many different institutes, all with their own, partially contradictory findings and recommendations --> Need for a common platform that puts together information, that develops communication material, joint extension documents. o Universities and national research institutions should work more together. National institutes are more in touch with farmers. o Problem of NaCORRI: Lack of capacities, no agronomic work/research. * Robusta: 80%, Arabica 20%, but economically Arabica has more impact on farmer income. Therefore research is important. But since there came up very serious problems with CWD and later BTB in Robusta, all resources, capacities, focus was invested in Robusta. * Involvement of research into stakeholder activities. Council wants to include research more to close the gaps * Results are there, but no funds to distribute them * Research should be known by all stakeholders * Education of farmers in Uganda compared to other countries (e.g. Colombia), is poor. Basic training tools are needed in Uganda Discussion topics corresponding to farmer survey 1) Perceived Severity of CPaD Severity Score in rainy season Severity Score in dry season WCSB 4.5 4.5, CBB 4 2.5, CBD 4.5 2, CLR 5 2.5 , AB 3 2.5., CLM 3.5 3, GS 2.5 4.5, CBM 3.5 2, RMB 3. 5 2) Recommended control strategies* WCSB Stem banding, e. Wrapping, ne., Mechanical, e. Chemical, ne., Stem smoothening, e., improving soil fertiliy, e. CBB Chemical, na., Biological, e. , Cultural (picking infested berries) AB Chemical, e. Cultural, e/ne, Improving soil fertility, e. CBM Chemical, e., cultural (removal of infested berries), e. RMB Cultural (intercropping with legumes, e., applying fertilizers/manure, e., ), e., Chemical, e. Trapping (Bean inter-crop), e, CLM Chemical, e. Cultural, e, improve plant nutrition, e., Encourage natural enemies, e. GS Manipulating use of mulch to control attendat ants, e. Chemical (Stem banding using insecticide), e. Insecticides, e., CLR Chemical (Copper), e. Phytosanitary (Pruning, e.,) , Reduce shade intensity, e., CBD Chemical (Copper), e. Plantation hygiene (removing infected berries), e. Resistant varieties, e., , e., pruning, e. *e = effective, ne = not effective 3) Impact of shade trees on CPaD Relation to shade/ Favoring production system WCSB Shade provides suitable microclimate that favours infestation / CT CBB Contradicting relations, observed to be severe under different conditions of shade / CB,CO,CT CBD Shade provides suitable microclimate that favors infection / CB,CT CLR Shade provides suitable microclimate that favors infection / CB,CT AB Shade provides suitable microclimate that favours infestation, CB,CT CLM Not known GS Shade affects negatively, highest infestation under sun / CO CBM Not known RMB Shade affects negatively, highest infestation under sun / CO 4) Development of CPaD issues in the past five years: WCSB Worse, CBB Same, AB Same, CBM Same/Worse, RMB Worse, CLM Same, GS Same, CLR Worse, CBD Same