Preface

At the beginning of this century, both the European Union (EU) and Japan changed and implemented legislation on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) in response to public concerns about food safety.

From 1 September 2008, the EU extended the standards imposed on domestic produce, to imported commodity crops such as cocoa. The first edition of this Guide was an attempt to explain to producers how pesticides used on farms or in storage, might be traced in assessments of cocoa quality imported into the EU and elsewhere. This has undoubtedly ‘concentrated minds’ over crop production in general and pest management practices in particular.

Other issues have come to public attention, including the use of child labour in production and, increasingly over recent years, cocoa has been placed on lists of commodities that are linked to deforestation.

It seems too easy to allow "pesticides" to become a proxy for other environmental and social ills, when chainsaws and poverty are also culpable. For example, it is easy for us to implore readers to forbid the use of child labour for pesticide application: something that might seem obvious to policymakers and their electors in consumer countries, but less obvious to impoverished communities that actually grow cocoa.

Likewise, organic chocolates have become popular, but when cocoa production is 'organic by default', with no costly inputs and very low productivity (say <500 kg/ha.), the crop can become a driver of deforestation. At the time of writing this 4th edition, it appears that the profile of environmental issues has risen and may continue to rise over the coming years.

It is not within the scope of this guide to examine climate change in detail, except to suggest that Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), efficient land use, with reforestation, can be significant components for mitigating the threats.

Insect pest and disease problems remain major constraints to cocoa production. However, pesticide regulations (including the review processes, started by EU directives 91/414/EEC and 396/2005/EC, followed by subsequent directives) have produced real benefits ‘on the ground’. Far from being the “potential disaster to farmers”, predicted by some, the effective removal of some of the most highly hazardous pesticides from the market has been beneficial to cocoa-growing and other rural communities.

Examples of products that were reported as being a serious cause of illness include: cyclodienes (high toxicity, high persistence), mercurial fungicides and many of the most hazardous organophosphorus (OPs) and carbamate insecticides, that were still in use at the turn of this century.

Nevertheless cocoa, like other tropical crops, continues to be attacked by insects, diseases and other pests that must be controlled effectively and safely. Pesticide use and the crop residues they potentially create, is something that can be 'policed' and mitigated: via SPS, Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) and implementation of GAP. Reports of residue exceedance continue to be a concern, but supply chain managers should be aware of the concerns and constraints of cocoa farmers.

For example, the risk of Phytophthora megakarya black pod disease in the most humid parts of Central and Western Africa, may account for treatments near to harvest and high residues in cocoa beans. From the farmers’ point of view, potential crop losses of more than 80% make such decisions appear rational, if costly. A 'lose-lose' situation is created when pesticide sprays have been poorly applied, ill-selected or timed, so we address application techniques as well as the products themselves.

Recently, environmental campaigners have appeared to focus on issues such as insecticides that harm pollinators and herbicides (occasionally missing real harms in place of popular concerns): but what should be recommended, based on evidence? Our general approach is Integrated Pest Management (IPM), but how best to implement and certify GAP?

The purpose of this manual is to explain concepts and provide practical guidance:

In the first 2 chapters, we examine the broader context of the crop and the societies that grow it, in order to better define the terms “sustainability” and IPM: by doing this, we hope to define what the “green deal” and similar portrayals might actually mean in practice.
We summarise important policymaking and certification schemes in Chapter 3. Chapters 4 - 6 will be of particular interest to trainers and practitioners seeking more background information on pesticide science, including technical issues, especially relating to the cocoa crop.
Finally, we suggest a ‘road map’ for establishing good crop pest management, storage and distribution practices for bulk cocoa. A summary of GAP in the field crop is given Chapter 7, with drying and storage issues examined in Chapter 8. Concluding recommendations relating to pesticide use are made in Chapter 9, with various terms and lists of key pesticides included in the Appendices.

Our approach, as in previous editions, attempts to provide:

(a) a concise overview of the technical issues with ‘problems and solutions’;
(b) emphasis on practicality;
(c) specific reference to compounds that are or may be used on cocoa, but neither naming nor recommending individual commercial products;
(d) emphasis on the needs of smallholders and
(e) linkages to web-based and other resources including lists of the status of key active ingredients (Appendix 4), which should be updated regularly.

The last point is important and readers are encouraged to visit the ICCO site: www.icco.org/SPS/.

Although the manual continues to be a ‘dynamic document’, it is our intention to increase its impact by translating it into other languages of cocoa-growing countries.

We will reiterate that it is for guidance only, written in the spirit of creative commons and has no legal status.