The 48th APCC COCOTECH Conference and Exhibition was held on 20–24 August 2018 in Bangkok, Thailand.
 |
| All participants to the meeting |
The Coconut Industry Development for the Pacific (CIPD) project supported the participation of Cook Islands, Palau, Nauru and Tuvalu at the conference. Other Pacific countries in attendance were Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Papua New Guinea, resulting in the largest ever Pacific presence at COCOTECH, reflecting the renewed commitment to supporting the development of the coconut sector in the Pacific region.
 |
| The Pacific delegation, with the expert |
Participation of Dr Roland Bourdeix was funded by APCC (now ICC) and he delivered the following lecture:
Communication at the 48TH APCC
COCOTECH Conference & Exhibition,
20 - 24 August 2018, The Berkeley Hotel Pratunam, Bangkok, Thailand.
20 - 24 August 2018, The Berkeley Hotel Pratunam, Bangkok, Thailand.
Germplasm and incentives for boosting coconut production:
case studies from the Pacific region
and some other countries
case studies from the Pacific region
and some other countries
By Roland Bourdeix (1,2),
Nat Tuivavalagi (3), Victor Mataora (4), Augustine B
Jerard (5), and Naheed Hussein(6).
(1) CIRAD, UMR AGAP, F-34398 Montpellier, France.
(2) AGAP, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro, Montpellier, France.
(2) AGAP, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro, Montpellier, France.
(3) Cooperative Research and Extension (CRE) Division,
College of Micronesia-FSM.
(4) Ministry of Agriculture, Cook Islands
(5) ICAR-Central Island Agricultural Research
Institute, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, India
(6) Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Suva, Fiji
Reference for citation:
Reference for citation:
Bourdeix, R., Tuivavalagi, N., Mataora, V., Jerard, A.B., Hussein, N. (2018). Germplasm and incentives for boosting coconut production: case studies from the Pacific region and some other countries. Communication at the 48TH APCC COCOTECH Conference & Exhibition, 20 - 24 August 2018, The Berkeley Hotel Pratunam, Bangkok, Thailand. Retrieved from: http://replantcoconut.blogspot.com/2019/09/communication-at-48th-apcc-cocotech.html
Summary
The Coconut Industry Development for the Pacific Project (CIDP) is a joint initiative of the Pacific Community, the European Union and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States. The aim of CIDP is to bolster the coconut sector in the region through improving the competitiveness of small producers and strengthening production and regional integration of related markets. In the framework of this project, CIRAD (French Agricultural Research for Development) was in charge of helping design improved seed production systems and conducting a risk analysis for coconut value chain in the Pacific region. During a meeting held in April 2018 in Fiji, thirty participants from sixteen countries and territories in the Pacific region participated to a brainstorming on incentives for boosting coconut production. In June 2018, CIRAD launched an online survey on the same topic by contacting more than a thousand of coconut stakeholders worldwide. This communication presents the first results of these two initiatives regarding incentives for boosting coconut production, in the Pacific region but also in comparison with countries from other regions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would first like to thanks all the participants of the CIDP meeting held from 17th to 20th April 2018 in Nadi, Fiji, who participated to the brainstorming on incentives, namely: Teava Iro , Victor Mataora (Cook Islands); David Dore, Stephen Hazelman, Naheed Hussein, Isikeli Karikaritu, Lavinia Kaumatotoya, Peter Kjaer, Vijendra Kumar, Moana Masau, Roneel Prasad, Osea Rasea, Soane Remudu (Fiji); Jerome Lecerf (French Polynesia); Nacanieli Tuivavalagi (FSM); Philippe Visintainer (Hawaii); Ieete Timea (Kiribati); Bern Dowouw (Nauru); James Poihega (Niue); Omeliakl Smus (Palau); James Maora (PNG); Karness Kusto, Stephen Lepton (RMI); Robert Tautua (Samoa); Roy Vaketo, Franklyn Wasi (Solomon); Tevita Fonokalafi, Viliami Kato (Tonga); Uatea Vave (Tuvalu); Baroroa Italio and Tiata Sileye (Vanuatu). Some researchers also provides useful advices for launching the online survey, namely: Luc Baudouin, Claire Billot, Xavier Bonneau, Selim Louafi, Jean Pierre Labouisse, Jean Ollivier, (CIRAD), Vincent Johnson (Bioversity International), and Jessie Lin (University of Gottingen). The 49 coconut stakeholders who replied the online survey should also be acknowledged. It is expected than some of these, together with some other people cited up, will participate as contributors in the coming publication “Coconut Risk Management and Mitigation Manual for the Pacific Region”.
Introduction
The project “Coconut
Industry Development for the Pacific Project” (CIDP) is a joint initiative of
the Pacific Community, the European Union and the African, Caribbean and
Pacific Group of States. The aim of CIDP is to bolster the coconut sector in
the region through improving the competitiveness of small producers and strengthening
production and regional integration of related markets.
In the
framework of this project, the CIRAD (French Agricultural Research for
Development) has been in charge of helping in designing improved seed
production systems and conducting a risk analysis for coconut value chain in
the Pacific region. The CIRAD contribution included the implementation a
regional “train the trainer’s workshop” covering all relevant aspects of
coconut Production and Seeds System in the Pacific Region
Thirty
participants from sixteen countries and territories in the Pacific region
participated to this workshop held from 17th to 20th April 2018 in Nadi, Fiji[1].
During this meeting, two additional initiatives were developed:
- A brainstorming session was devoted to incentives
for boosting coconut sector
- All participants agreed on a list of 24
regional technical recommendations on coconut cultivation and planting material
(Bourdeix et al., 2018a).
In July
2018, in the framework of the risk analysis study, CIRAD also launched an online
survey dedicated to both incentives and risks in coconut value chain. This
paper summarizes the results of these three interactions, focusing on
incentives for boosting coconut sector and seed production systems.
Material and methods
Together
with the field’s visits conducted in five Pacific countries, the meeting also
allowed to collect and exchange useful information about seed production
systems and related incentives in the Pacific region. Part of this information
in presented hereunder in the case studies.
Brainstorming
on Incentives conducted during the Nadi meeting
A three
hours section was devoted to this brainstorming. Participants divided into
three approximately equal groups. Each group was asked to exchange for 90
minutes about the situation in participant’ country and to imagine systems and
incentives that could improve the coconut sector. Then, during 90 more minutes,
the three groups presented their results, with the help of three facilitators;
two acting orally, the other writing the ideas directly in a Word document
projected in the room.
Launching
a short online survey on incentives and risks in coconut value chain
The draft
online survey was sent for advices to about ten researchers from CIRAD,
Bioversity International, SPC and other institutions. We analysed their replies
and took into accounts most of their comments. Many colleagues were in favour
of extending the questionnaire, but we did not choose this option. It seemed
preferable to propose a very short questionnaire, and then eventually ask for
more information and more participation from those who provided significant
answers. The survey finally contains only five questions, available in English,
French and Spanish languages:
1. In your opinion, what are the main
risks or constraints in coconut cropping and value-chain? Please cite 3 and
classify them by priority order
2. In your opinion, what could be the
most efficient incentives to boost coconut sector? These incentives can be
designed for farmers or for any other stakeholders of the coconut value chain.
Please cite three and classify them by priority order.
3. In which country are you living?
4. Are you: a farmer, a tropical
gardener or landscaper, a local coconut reseller, an agricultural officer, a
researcher, a policy maker, a coconut consumer, a craftsman processing
coconuts, from a small company selling coconut product, from a large one, from
a company selling coconut processing equipment, or other.
5. Your email (optional). It will allow
our team to contact you and you will receive the result of this survey.
The survey
presentation and links were included as a new publication in the website “http://replantcoconut.blogspot.com”. We proposed to way of reply,
directly online via
Kobotoolbox[2], or by filling a Word version of the
questionnaire and
send it back to a dedicated Email address.
We first
constituted lists of emails from the expert’s list of contact, from the APCC
Directory of Coconut Traders and Equipment Manufacturers and from the COGENT
network. From these sources, we created a diffusion list containing about 2400
Emails[3].
A first
message asking stakeholders to reply the survey was sent both via this
diffusion list and on the coconut google group on June 20th 2018. Advertisement
about the survey was done on LinkedIn (free, using dedicated groups) and
Facebook (audience targeted on agriculture and coconut palm in 20
English-speaking countries, from 16 to 20 July). The same information was sent
via the Email diffusion list on July 16th 2018.
As some
colleagues told us they were unable to visit the website, the message was sent
again to the coconut google group on July 31st 2018, with a word
version of the questionnaire as attached file. Some of the respondents could
become associated authors of some relevant section of the coming risk analysis
manual.
Results
We conducted a balance of incentives and seed
production systems in 15 countries and territories of the Pacific region, plus 2
other countries as comparison, as of April 2018. Here are summarized these 17
country case studies, of which two outside the Pacific region (India and
Thailand), and 15 inside (Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji,
French Polynesia, Hawaii, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea,
Palau, Samoa, Solomon Island, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu). Then we present the
results of the brainstorming conducted during the CIDP Nadi meeting and the
online survey.
Case studies in the Pacific
region
Cook Islands
In 2018, a limited
amount of Tall-type seedlings was provided free to farmers, who do not receive
any incentive for replanting. There is no follow up of the planted coconut
palms. Following fields visit, the expert made the proposal to give to farmers
1 NZD for each coconut palm planted, and 1 or 2 NZD more if the coconut survive
after one year. Local agricultural officers were in opinion that these
incentives would be not very useful, as this small amount will not be
sufficient to influence farmer’s decisions. Nevertheless, this kind of
incentive could be useful in schools, for local programs dealing with students
and relayed by teachers. A new idea came out. We made demonstration of the
coconut harvest hook/sickle that allows to cut the entire bunch by sectioning
the peduncle, and harvest twice more rapidly than the existing system. Such
hook is not for sale in the Cook. Many people in Atiu and Rarotonga islands showed
interest in this hook and asked to keep it. Therefore, the new idea is to
launch a communication action advising: plant 20 coconut palms and receive a special
coconut hook/sickle that allow harvesting the coconut very rapidly. This will
have the double advantage to provide an incentive for replanting and to diffuse
a more efficient harvest method.
Federated
States of Micronesia (FSM), Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau and Tuvalu.
According to the participants of the CIDP Nadi
meeting, no seednuts are released to farmers by any institution, no incentive
is provided from government for replanting. In Marshall Islands, some private
company is releasing incentives for coconut farmers (no more information
available). In Nauru in 2014, farmers received 500 seedlings. In FSM, the
government provided incentives in the1980’s, but no more.
Fiji
Up to August 2018, the Ministry of Agriculture
provided free seed nuts and/or seedlings to farmers, with no incentive for
replanting, and no follow up of
the planted coconut palms. The seed nuts provided were Fiji Tall and Rotuman
Tall, the hybrid between Malayan red Dwarf and Rotuman Tall (just beginning
again, not organic), and a few Malayan–type Dwarf varieties. A private
fellow is selling Rotuma Tall seed nuts for 10 FJD per unit on Facebook. In
addition, farmers benefit subsidies on mineral fertilizers, the farmer pay one
third and the government two third.
A Coconut Development
Program conducted in Vanua Levu Island in 2014-2015. Observations conducted by
the first author of this paper (Bourdeix, 2018b) indicated that:
- The only data available (or
accessible) was lists of farmers by district, containing only the farmer’s
names and a number of released seed nuts. We were lucky to find again one
of the officer in charge of the program, who remembered where a few of
these farmers were located.
- We tried to visit six farmers
and we succeed to meet three. For these few farmers, no more than 40% of
the released seed nuts were planted and remains as living palms in the
field.
- All these farmers were located
inland, cultivate sugarcane and plant coconut palms only around their
sugarcane fields. None of these farmers releases coconut to the industry
(auto consumption). We had confirmation that, in 2014-2015, seed nuts were
delivered only to these sugarcane farmers’. Therefore, it could be
presumed that the development plan conducted during the years 2014-15 in
Vanua Levu seems to have no effect on coconut industry but assisted in
self-consumption.
A nursery managed by the company Copra Millers of Fiji Ltd was also
visited in 2018. It was learnt that the company was facing reduced supply of
coconuts for its factory due to poor yields from senile palms of the
traditional coconut areas and hence has decided to support new planting and
replanting through supply of quality seedlings to the coconut growers. The
company was releasing about 5000 seedlings per year. Officers from the Ministry’s
Extension Service select the parent palms and help in bringing the seed nuts to
the company’s nursery. The nursery had a medium management status (weeds that
could induce diseases). Some of the germinating sprouts were of yellow and
red/orange colours indicating that, very probably, some of the selected parent
palms were not Tall types but Dwarf x Tall hybrids. Such parent palms should be
avoided; true-to-type hybrids from Taveuni should also be proposed to farmers. Despite
these small technical issues, in the expert opinion, this nursery seemed
particularly interesting, because the
seedlings were delivered to farmers who come to the company to sell their
products: in this case, coconut industry will benefit from the new
plantations. Following this analysis, the incentive program in Fiji has evolved
(see the conclusion of this paper).
French
Polynesia
Non-organic Dwarf x
Tall Hybrid seedlings (Brazilian Green Dwarf x Rangiroa Tall) are produced in
Raiatea Island. They are sold at about two USD per seedlings to farmers.
Cooperatives and NGOs are releasing incentives for replanting. The local
government is providing fixed price of copra and free transportation. A
four-year subsidy program is conducted with cooperatives and NGOs. The incentive
is two USD per planted palm, with partial follow up of living palms. Protection
against rats and solar drier for copra are sold at a subsidy rate. For
biological control of Brontispa, the agricultural services freely
provides Tetracyclus bees to farmers.
Hawaii
No incentive for replanting, all market for planting
material is private. Coconut seedlings are sold online for USD $39.99. A
private fellow is selling special Dwarf seedlings at 100 USD per unit. In 2018,
a large USDA program is providing USD 2,323,880 to respond to the Oryctes
beetle infestations in Hawaii and Guam (Powel and Bond, 2018). No information
available on funding and incentives dedicated to planting material in this
program.
Kiribati
As of 2018, Tall-types seed nuts and/or seedlings
provided free to farmers, no incentive for replanting, no follow up of the
planted coconut palms. Very recently, an agricultural officer launched an
original kind of “cultural” incentives orientated towards young farmers in
Abaiang Island: he launched a soccer coup, the participation of which was
linked to the prior plantation of a certain number of coconut palms by youths.
Papua
New Guinea
The CCRI (Cocoa & Coconut Research Institute) is
producing non-organic Dwarf x Tall hybrid seed nuts from its seed gardens. Tall-types
seednuts are bought one Kina from farmers. CCRI raises both hybrids and Talls in
the nursery and provide free seedlings to farmers. There is no systematic follow
up after planting. Cooperative societies and schools provides some incentives
on equipment for planting (Knife, etc.).
Samoa
Tall-type seed nuts bought by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) at 0.5 WST per seed nut. Once germinated, seedlings
are then re-sold to farmers for 0.2 WST per piece. Other seed nuts (Dwarfs,
seed nuts harvested from hybrids sold as hybrids) are provided by Nuu Research Station
from limited number of parent palms. Activities proposed by CIDP aims to
diversify the planting material and to increase the quality and quantity of
available seed nuts. The Stimulus Package program, that will end in 2018,
consisted in: the farmers who own at least 2 acres pay 100 WST and then receive
planting material (coconut, cocoa and fruit trees), plus technical advices from
officers of the Ministry of Agriculture. It seems that another option of the
stimulus package was also applied in 2016: fifty-three farmers received a first
bonus of up to WST 1,000 after registering in the incentive with the balance of
WST 3,000 to be paid out in the next three years depending on their
performances and compliance with the requirements (Tuiletufuga, 2016).
Solomon
Islands
From the 2000’s, the Ministry of Agriculture is no
longer directly releasing seed nuts of seedlings to farmers. From 2004, the
company KoKonut Pacific Solomon Island (KPSI) constituted farmer’s groups for
use of the Direct Micro Expelling (DME) technology for production of virgin
coconut oil. This company now works collaboratively with over 600 certified
organic farms in the Solomon Islands, with almost 40 village-based DME®
processors installed on height provinces (Malaita, Makira, Central Islands,
Isabel, Western, Guadalcanal, Temotu and Choiseul). In October 2016, KPSI
started to implement a 200-hectare coconut-replanting program funded by the
Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. The fund provides incentives and cash
money for those doing replanting. At the nursery stage: SBD 4 per sown coconut;
after field planting - SBD 5 per seedlings planted. Follow up of young
plantation was conducted during annual organic certification. Providing
planting material to suppliers strongly increase the probability that their
production will benefit the coconut industry. The company selected twenty DME
sites. Each selected DME had to designate 10 farmers, each of them replanting
one hectare (200 coconut in nursery and 160 seedlings to be planted in the
field). Farmers select the seed nuts in their own farm on criteria that are not
well established, mainly healthy palms with large fruits. It seems that some of
them simply take the forgotten germinated coconut in their fields.
Tonga
According to the participants of the CIDP Nadi
meeting, there is financial incentive for replanting in Tonga. Ministry is
collecting the seed nuts from government properties or buying from private
farmers (0.45 FJD); raise seedlings and provide them free to farmers. Officers
are going to the fields for plantation but further no follow up. Expert visit
to Tonga was cancelled due to cyclonic conditions. It seems that another expert
made recommendations about improving the coconut seed system in Tonga, but
Tongan participants were unable to provide further information during the
meeting.
Vanuatu
The Vanuatu Agricultural Research and Technical Centre
(VARTC) is producing non-organic seed nuts of improved Vanuatu Tall (VTT) in
Santo Island. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD)
release these seed nuts free to farmers by. Partial follow up of the planted
coconut palms by local officers. The three activities initially proposed under
CIDP aims to diversify the planting material, to amplify the impact of the
present governmental scheme, and to decentralize seed production. It planned to
establish a first list of potential farmers from who neighbouring farmers will
be able to source Improved VTT in other islands. Some large estates could serve
as nucleus farms to boost the planting material dissemination.
Case studies from other
countries
India
The Coconut Development Board (have developed scheme
of incentives, including production and distribution of planting material,
expansion of area under coconut, integrated farming for productivity
improvement, and coconut producing units. CDB have established seven Demonstration
cum Seed Production (DSP) Farms in different parts of the country (total 240 ha)
with the aim to produce quality seed nuts (CDB, 2018). Coconut nurseries from
these farms produce quality seedlings of desired cultivars/varieties, suitable
for each locality, and distribute them to farmers at reasonable price.
A financial assistance is provided to registered/
private/ approved coconut nurseries. This assistance is limited to 25% of the
cost of production or Rs.2 lakhs whichever is less. The minimum financial
assistance of Rs.50000 is allocated for producing 6250 seedlings annually from
25 cents and maximum financial assistance of Rs.2 lakhs for producing 25000
seedlings from one acre. The maximum financial assistance for setting up of
regional coconut nursery in non-traditional areas is 50% of cost of production.
Maximum financial assistance is limited to Rs.6 lakhs to establish seed garden
phased over a period of 3 years @ Rs.3 lakhs during the 1st year and Rs.1.50
lakhs each in second and third year respectively. The quantum of financial
assistance is based on the total area of seed garden (maximum 4 ha) or limited
to 25% of the cost of establishment of nuclear seed garden.
CDB provides incentive assistance to small and
marginal farmers for undertaking new planting of coconut and its further
maintenance. The new planting assistance is given at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per
hectare, which is disbursed in two equal annual instalments. Financial
assistance of Rs.35,000 per ha in two annual instalments is provided for
adoption of integrated management practices in disease affected gardens. To
promote the use of organic manure like vermicompost, coir pith compost,
ordinary compost and FYM in coconut holdings, CDB provides a financial
assistance of Rs.20000 per unit or 50% of cost of production for setting up of
a unit.
The incentives provided to farmers are as follows:
half of the cost of land preparation, cutting and removal of senile palms
(Rs.500 per palm); a quarter of the cost of rejuvenation (Rs.15000 per hectare
over a period of 2 years); and half of the cost of replanting (Rs.20 per
seedling).
The Indian private coconut seed market is flourishing.
In 2018, farmers have to pay and wait for eight months to get hybrids seedlings
produced by private farms and sold at Rs.450 (6.45 USD). A private company from
Solomon Islands recently bought Dwarf x Tall hybrid seedlings cultivated in
vitro from India at the price of 10 USD per unit (Rev. Vernon Smith, 2018, personal
communication).
Large chunk of money has been provided by Government agencies
in India in the form of subsidy to farmers for installing micro irrigation
methods including drip irrigation and coconut basin management
The Indian government recently launched a subsidy
scheme for coconut producing units. The financial assistance is limited to 25%
of the project cost but not exceeding Rupees 50 Lakh for infrastructure
development, establishment or modernization and up gradation of coconut based
processing units under the scheme. The promoter has to avail at least 40% of
the project cost as term loan from a bank or financial institutions of his
choice. Refinement of traditional processing methods including quality
certification, micro-filtering, branding could be considered as value addition
in the case of coconut oil and virgin coconut oil and considered for assistance
under the scheme.
Thailand
About 50 to 60 years ago, Thai growers identified a
variety of coconut for water consumption that carries special fragrance. In
2010, the Thai Government consolidated the ‘Aromatic Coconut’ industry as a new
agricultural industry and separated it from the ‘mainstream’ coconut industry (Krisanapook,
2015). Thai Government organization also setup new strategies and approved a
new budget of 118 million baht (US$4 million). The new strategies support the
‘Aromatic Coconut’ industry in four structural changes: 1) plans to increase
production; 2) product development and diversity; 3) organization support; and
4) market development. The new strategies also setup new legislation that
‘Aromatic Coconut’ propagation and plantation must be kept inside the country,
banning seed nuts exportation. However, ‘Aromatic Coconut’ is presently grown in
many countries. Seed nuts of Aromatic Green Dwarf are sold online (eBay) from
Thailand for US $40 each, although the government normally ban it. Fields visit
conducted in 2018 by R. Bourdeix in the Ratchaburi region indicated that some
local farmers are selling important lots of seed nuts to Thai resellers who
export them to neighbouring countries.
In 2010, there was a big invasion of coconut Hispine
Beetle (Brontispa longissima Gestro) in the coconut growing area in the
southern region of Thailand. This later spread to other regions, including some
areas in the main growing area of ‘Aromatic Coconuts’. The beetle destroyed about
40,000 hectares of coconut plantations in 19 provinces. In 2012, coconut
black-headed caterpillar (Opisina arenosella) also destroyed many palms.
Although many Thai growers still apply chemicals in combating coconut pests and
insects, few growers avoid chemicals and develop bio-control methods in their
coconut plantations. Government support organizations used to provide parasite
insects to the coconut growers. Over the years, the demand has increased
significantly. Now government organizations setup training and help growers
raise their parasitic insects by themselves. Few growers develop it further and
raise these insects to other growers.
In 2018,
price paid to farmers was 6-8 Bath per coconut (0.15 to 0.21 Euros) during the
best season and up to 15 Bath (0.39 Euros) during the low production season. We
do not have yet the information wither organic coconut are paid better than
others. The coconuts contain 320 ml of water in average, but it can fall to 240
ml if appropriate fertilizers are not applied. Price paid to farmers is about
0.7 Euros per litre, when retailers are selling the aromatic coconut water at more
than 10 Euros per litre on USA market. In Bangkok, price of a tender coconut is
40 Bath in 2018.
Most of
coconut plantations produce 140 to 250 green nuts per palm per year. Some local
stakeholders indicated a return of about 1000 Euros per hectare. When
calculating with 200 fruits per palm, 200 palms per hectare, and 0.21 Euros per
fruit, the gross income is up to 8400 Euros per hectare – so the return could
be much more than 1000 Euros per hectare. The price of the dedicated
agricultural land has grown up to 100,000 Euros per hectare. Many plantations
use a canal system between the coconut lines. Farmers throw the harvested nuts into
these channels that serve for transportation. They also throw organic waste
(leaves, raffles) in these channels. Farmers regularly extract the mud and
organic matter from these channels, either manually or with a machine, and
deposit it at the foot of the coconut trees to serve as fertilizer. A mixture
of rice straw and chicken droppings, at a rate of 20 to 40 kg per tree per year,
serves as additional organic fertilization.
Result of the brainstorming
on incentives conducted during Nadi Meeting
The analysis carried out during the oral presentations
of the groups and the following discussion led to define a typology of the
incentives and to allocate the suggestions of each group according to categories
presented below.
Cited by
the three groups:
·
Provide organic certified free
seedlings to committed farmers, by ministries or private companies
Cited by
two groups:
·
Guaranteed prices of coconut
products
·
Integrated programs including
diversification of crops, intercropping to maximize benefit and increase food
security
·
Use of technology and release of
technical information and tools for increasing production, quality and
diversifying coconut products
·
Contests, rewards in coconut days or
other ceremony
·
Contract between coconut farmers and
private companies.
·
Find a way to avoid cultural
dependency of farmers to funding: all activities should not stop when the
projects end.
·
Help in transportation of coconut
products by public or private bodies.
Cited by
only one group:
·
Provide basic tools, such as knife,
harvest hook/sickle
·
Some incentives should be focused on
youth and new coconut farmers
·
Special incentives towards planting
coconut in coastal zones for disaster risk reduction
·
Facilitate nursery as a business -
Private seed system
·
Subsidies, incentives for planting –
given preferably before the planting
·
Taxes on imported edible oils and
all imported coconut products and use revenue to support local coconut industry
·
Assistance to exportation, including
regional trade agreements.
·
Government and private companies to
favour sustainable production practices (Organic).
·
Support to micro and small
enterprises working on high-value coconut products
·
Engage traditional chiefs and
leaders in the incentive programs
Result of the online
survey
At the date
of August 9th 2018, 49 significant replies where obtained.
Respondent are located in 26 different countries or territories: India (10
respondents), Australia and Indonesia (4 in each), Malaysia (3), French
Polynesia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Tanzania, Tonga, Vanuatu (2 in each);
plus one reply for each of the following countries: Brazil, Benin, Côte
d'Ivoire, Fiji, Hawaii, Kenya, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Samoa, Seychelles,
Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, UK and Vietnam.
Respondents
were mainly researchers (19), farmers (12), policy makers (6), from another
category than the listed ones listed or did not reply (5), for a small company
involved in coconut sector (4). Three more were local coconut reseller, from a
large company and coconut consumer only. We did not take into account multiples
replies (for instance both researcher, farmer and consumer) and we focused only
on the first one.
We defined
a typology by using a two steps process. A first typology was drafted by going
through and evaluating all the replies. Second, we refined the typology during
the analysis of the individual replies. We finally obtained 11 categories.
Some of the
replies went out through the typology. For instance, for the second incentive,
the reply “Major national effort in getting the right cultivars into large
scale nurseries. Mapping out the correct land for these to be planted in” added
a value of one to both the categories “planting material’ and “Land”.
We
conducted twice the repartition of suggested incentives in categories, and we
choose the average (highest entire value) of the two notations. We calculated
for each category a total (sum of the values obtained as first, second, and
third incentives) and a pondered total (first prioritized incentive counted as
3, second as two, and third as one). The categories were classified according
to the pondered total, as shown in table 1.
The most
favoured incentives were those related to planting material (both in total and
pondered total); then “Securing farmer’s income”; “Land and landscape for
coconut cultivation”; “National policies”, and “Diversification for higher
value of coconut product”. Table 2 provides narrative descriptions.
Table 1.
Categorization and prioritization of suggested incentives from the online CIDP
survey
Categories
|
Priority
|
Total
|
Pon-
dered Total |
|||
1
|
2
|
3
|
||||
1
|
Good planting material for farmers
|
18
|
9
|
4
|
31
|
76
|
2
|
Securing farmer’s income
|
10
|
5
|
4
|
19
|
44
|
3
|
Land and landscape for coconut cultivation
|
8
|
8
|
3
|
19
|
43
|
4
|
National policies
|
3
|
10
|
10
|
23
|
39
|
5
|
Diversification for higher value of coconut product
|
5
|
8
|
8
|
21
|
39
|
6
|
Professionalizing coconut producers and their organizations.
|
4
|
5
|
3
|
12
|
25
|
7
|
Good cultivation practices
|
3
|
4
|
7
|
14
|
24
|
8
|
Pest and diseases
|
4
|
2
|
2
|
8
|
18
|
9
|
Processing from farm to consumers
|
2
|
4
|
3
|
9
|
17
|
10
|
International policies
|
1
|
3
|
5
|
9
|
14
|
11
|
Reducing cost of product transportation
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
Total
|
Total
|
58
|
59
|
50
|
167
|
342
|
Table 2. Rationale and
narrative of the incentives typology in link with individual replies
Categories
|
Notes on
individual incentives proposals
|
|
1
|
Good planting material for farmers
|
Free of charge seedlings - Provide quality
planting material adapted to each region – Train farmers to harvest and
prepare themselves best planting material – Diversify the genetic base of
planting material – More nurseries - Promote hybrids – Promote local
varieties - Use molecular approach to improve breeding techniques -
Government to support public and/or private coconut breeding programmes and
gene banks – While maintaining bio security, to simplify import and export of
planting material.
|
2
|
Securing farmer’s income
|
Stabilize the selling prices – secured local
and international market – Minimum price guaranteed even in situation of
oversupply - Insurance against low prices. Special incentives for insulated
and marginal farmers.
|
3
|
Land and landscape for coconut cultivation
|
Devote more and more suitable land for coconut
cultivation - Subsidies for land preparation – Policy for identification and
reservation of most adapted land to coconut cultivation – Land distribution
to coconut farmers - Comprehensive program from leasing the land. Prioritize
and help replanting senile plantations- Segmenting the coconut communities
within each region for targeted specific products.
|
4
|
National policies
|
Increase communication between private and
public sector and organize better sharing of investments in coconut value
chain - Promote interdependence among the producers and processors -
Legislate that processors must offer shareholding in the company to farmers -
Promote cooperative farming - license approved buyers/collectors to cut down
the middle man – promote local market for value-added products, revive local
consumption - Segmenting the coconut communities within each region for
targeted specific products - Labelling coconut products – Recruit competent
agricultural and extension officers working exclusively on coconut – organize
access to financing and micro financing. Governments to recognize publicize
the value of coconut farming and the ease of cultivation after the planting
phase.
|
5
|
Diversification for higher value of coconut
product
|
Develop the use of by-products (husk and
shell) for copra producers – Develop other products than copra and oil –
Market germinated coconut as source of essential fatty acid for preventing
human diseases- Promote coconut chips that remains a untapped potential, as
snacking is a global habit amongst all age groups. Providing awareness to the
farmers on selling stem and husk for fire wood - Provide a better access of
farmers to market for high value coconut product - Training on improved
techniques in processing and marketing - Provision of processing equipment
for Small and Medium scale enterprises with start up capital.
|
6
|
Professionalizing farmers and their
organizations.
|
Help farmers increase the productivity of
their plantation. Facilitate adoption of innovative techniques - Cooperative
farming to reduce the disadvantages of small plantations – Educate the
farmers – Rehabilitation incentives for low productivity farm – Promote
existing harvesting equipment such as coconut sickle or coconut climbing
machines. Organize contests between coconut growers with big prices funded by
the government - Create demonstrations sites.
|
7
|
Good cultivation practices
|
Shift to organic cultivation - Promote
intercropping – Promote irrigation - Subsidy in fertilizers– Promote organic
fertilization - Promote the use of cover crop - Well planned bonus schemes,
from land clearing, proper spacing, intercropping, then pay farmers after a 2
to 3 year period.
|
8
|
Pest and diseases
|
Develop biological control – teach farmers to
locate and destroy Oryctes breeding sites - Molecular markers for pathogen
studies – incentives for farmers to cut diseased palms and replace them with
improved varieties – Subsidies in pesticides and insecticides.
|
9
|
Processing from farm to consumers
|
Improve the processes of preparation and
storage of high value coconut products – Post harvest management - Develop
end to end cold chain for coconut water - Assist with processing equipment
for virgin coconut oil - Developing automation of coconut nectar (toddy)
extraction - Set up small/medium integrated value-added coconut product
processing.
|
10
|
International policies
|
Increase international cooperation in coconut
research – Produce training manuals - Long-term loan with technology support
to push quality products to market - Communicate with national health authorities
about healthy value of coconut product - Increase links between coconut
growers, scientists, processors, the states and the consumer market.
|
11
|
Reducing cost of product transportation
|
Support logistics for freight of coconut
products
|
Discussion
The crucial question of the planting material
In both the
brainstorming and the online survey, incentives related to planting material
appeared as the main priority. This perfectly supports the first recommendation
agreed during the Nadi Meeting, which was:
“National Agricultural Services should allow farmers a
primary role in making their own varietal choices, and consider advising
against farmers growing only a single coconut variety (Tall, Dwarf, Hybrid, or
other). At the national level, agricultural services and other stakeholders
should provide farmers with a range of at least six different coconut
varieties, including Tall, Dwarf, Compact
Dwarf, Hybrid, and
eventually composite varieties; and explain to farmers the specificity of each
variety regarding environmental adaptation and cultural practices. To reduce
overall risk, farmers should be encouraged to plant more than one variety.
Local stakeholders (men and women farmers, private enterprises, NGOs and CSOs)
should be encouraged to become more involved in supplying
quality germplasm. Farmers and other stakeholders should be
taught how to autonomously
produce quality seedlings of hybrids and other varieties, using the Polymotu concept or any
other accepted method.”
Most of the participants from the Nadi meeting where
in opinion that the planting material should be released free to farmers. A few
of them, including the first author of this text, think that such an incentive
is not always efficient: at least in some cases, farmers give little importance
and take little care of seed nuts and seedlings that are delivered free of
charge. Moreover, it may jeopardize the development of a private market for
coconut seed nuts and seedlings. In some countries as for instance India,
private companies are selling hybrid seed nuts. These private companies have
many customers and make good profit. Sometimes, Indian farmers have to wait six
month to get their seed nuts because of over demand.
At least part of these incentives could be conditional
on the farmer achieving tangible results, such as the survival and proper
maintenance of the new coconut palms. This requires more accurate and
time-consuming monitoring of activities by agricultural officers. This also
supports more effectively the farmers who benefit from better advices. For
instance, the farmers could pay 0.5 USD per seedling, and then could receive an
incentive of 0.5 USD per coconut palm remaining alive six month later, and
another incentive of one USD for coconut palms remaining alive and in good
condition two years later. The solution undertaken in India, where half of the
cost in taken in charge,
In case of organic cultivation, a practical solution
seems to link these assessments to the regular visit conducted for monitoring
and certifying the organic status of the farms. As officers are visiting yearly
the farms for organic certification purposes, the checking of new planting can
be conducted during these visits. This kind of organisation is already running
in the Solomon Islands by officers of the company Kokonut Pacific. Moreover, it
allows the constitution of farmer’s database that will give a real appraisal of
the efficiency of these incentives and the linked development programs.
About
donation and tradition
In traditional societies, in which most people interactions
remain presential and not virtual, it seems that purely philanthropic acts are
rare; when the gift is practiced, an intangible return is usually expected in
terms of social benefit: the gift publicly values the donor, contributes to
generating positive interactions or easing tensions.
In projects of limited duration, if the seeds are
delivered free of charge, the gift must be presented as connected to its social
context and rather formulated in terms of exchange: the seeds are given, but in
exchange the farmers undertake to respect good management practices, and to
provide information and feedback. In this case, the management practices and
information return required from farmers should be clearly expressed. It may or
may not be the subject of a written and signed contract. The levels and methods
of such contracting require to be studied and optimized according to the
different cultural contexts and may engage social players such as traditional
chiefs and leaders, as recommended by the participants of our meeting.
Which farmers to subsidy
in priority?
The
examples of Fiji and Solomon Islands seems to suggest this prioritization:
first, the farmers who already provides their production to the coconut
industry (be it small or large transformation units), or are marketing high-value
products by themselves. Second, the youths and new farmers. Third, farmers who
would like to shift their cultivation from sugar cane, oil palm or other tree
crops to coconut; but for these one, well conducted demonstration plots and the
guarantee of having a market will be needed for convincing them shifting to
coconut cultivation.
Incentives orientated
towards multi cropping systems
The Nadi meeting recognized the importance
of intercropping with a diversity of species, which are already being
used by farmers, such as coffee, kava, cocoa, banana, noni, pineapple, fruit
crops and vegetables for food security. Ministry of Agriculture and others should
provide specific recommendations adapted to land capability regarding the best
species to intercrop.
Incentives such as one of the “stimulus packages”
developed in Samoa seems particularly interesting: the selected farmers have to
pay 100 WST to join the program, and then receive free planting material and
advices. An interesting aspect is that this does not restrict to coconut, but
include also cocoa and other tree crops. Thus, it is not limited to one crop
species and takes into account the farm in a more integrated and holistic way (Burgess,
2017).
What could also be free is assistance for installing a
leguminous cover crop in coconut plantations. Such cover crop can fix naturally
up to 100 kg of nitrogen per hectare. Our feeling is that in the pacific
region, farmers are killing themselves to weed manually wild plants that are
growing and invading plantations very quickly. This weeding is extremely
gruelling and discourages many planters who abandon their coconut groves and
sometimes do not even harvest the fruits. Shared land cleaning machinery could
also be an effective incentive.
Regarding incentives on providing mineral
fertilization, insecticides and herbicides, some participants were in opinion
that such programmes should take into account environmental effects and
degradation of soils. Balance is needed between providing subsidies and
maintaining quality of products and environment. Biocontrol of pests and
diseases should be favoured.
Conclusion
The writing of this text was completed in November 2018,
so about 6 and 3 months after respectively the Nadi CIDP Meeting and the
COCOTECH conference. It seems that the momentum generated by CIDP and COCOTECH
has had a strong positive effect. In the end of August 2018, the Fijian
government launched a new and important incentive program for coconut farmers.
Under the Ministry of Public Enterprises 2018/2019 National Budget, FJ$700,000
has been allocated for coconut development to Copra Millers of Fiji Ltd, with
the target to plant 30,000 coconut seedlings in the first year. The Copra
Millers Board chairperson explained that the qualified farmers will receive FJ$10
for successfully grown coconut seedlings after the first three months and
another FJ$10 for each healthy seedling after six months (Rawailai, 2018).
This paper addressed only partially the question of
incentives for boosting coconut production. It is necessary to continue and
refine this first analyse, and try to compare the effectiveness of the
different incentives used so far. In general, there is a lack of systematic
data collection from farmers to assess the real effectiveness of these
measures. Any new incentive measure should therefore incorporate the tools that
will make it possible to evaluate its effectiveness. In order to better
assess and to boost the coconut value chain, the Nadi meeting recommended
agricultural services create and/or strengthen national coconut farmer’s
databases and create well-documented coconut parent palm databases by using the method and datasheets recently developed by R. Bourdeix, V. Kumar
and V. Mataora (Bourdeix et al., 2018c). These databases should be conceived
and implemented to link with other existing farmer’s databases. They should
also integrate with Geographical Information Systems.
This first study would also need to be pursued by
analysing more dedicated national policies. Probably the most important
incentive is linked to communication with farmers. Relevant ministries should
make the relevant technical information fully available for farmers; they
should ensure that a maximum of them will be aware of this information, will
read it, will believe it and will use it.
A crucial incentive is for government to subsidize
coconut research, and in particular national coconut breeding programmes that
will allow farmers to access diverse planting material. The Nadi
meeting noted that nothing could replace well-designed, regular and sustainable
breeding programs conducted by well-trained professionals.
Expertise is needed to assess the coconut breeding programs presently existing
in the Pacific Region; to help developing local skills; to create new
programmes and to facilitate international collaboration between these
programmes.
References
Bourdeix,
R., Hussein N., and Dore, D. (2018a) Technical recommendations from the
CIDP meeting on Coconut Production and Seeds Systems in the Pacific Region held
from 7 to 20 April 2018 in Nadi, Fiji. In: Bourdeix, R., Labouisse, J.P.,
Mapusua, K., Ollivier, J. and Kumar, V. (2018). Coconut planting material for
the Pacific Region. Available at the URL: https://replantcoconut.blogspot.com.
Seen on 09/11/2018.
Bourdeix,
R. (2018b). Report for Fiji in the framework of the expertise on coconut
production and seed system (SPC/CIDP/PRAG 07), CIDP (Coconut Industry
Development for the Pacific Region). Internal report, Secretariat of the South
Pacific Community, 28 p.
Bourdeix,
R., Kuma, V. and Mataroa, V. (2018c) Recommended method for selecting good
parent palms and producing Tall-type coconut seednuts. In: Bourdeix, R.,
Labouisse, J.P., Mapusua, K., Ollivier, J. and Kumar, V. (2018). Coconut
planting material for the Pacific Region. Available at the
URL: https://replantcoconut.blogspot.com. Seen on 09/11/2018.
Burgess,
R. J. (2017). The Intercropping of Smallholder Coconuts in Western
Samoa: an analysis using multi-stage linear programming. Canberra, ACT:
Development Studies Centre, The Australian National University.
Coconut
Development Board. (2018). Schemes of Coconut Development Board. Available at
the URL: http://coconutboard.nic.in/Scheme.aspx#Production. Seen 19th August
2018.
Krisanapook, K. (2015) Thailand’s
banana, coconut, mango and papaya industries: a country report. Available at the
URL : http://www.fftc.agnet.org/files/lib_articles/20150731150149/1.%20Thailand.pdf. Seen on
26/10/2018.
Powell,
A., Bond, S. (2018). USDA Provides Almost $70 Million in Fiscal Year 2018 to
Protect Agriculture and Plants from Pests and Diseases through the 2014 Farm
Bill Section 10007. Available at the URL: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/news/sa_by_date/sa-2018/fy18-farm-bill-funding. Seen on 26/10/2018.
Rawalai,
L. (2018). Search for coconut seeds. The Fiji Time online. 13 august 2018.
Available at the URL: http://www.fijitimes.com/search-for-coconut-seeds. Seen on 26/10/2018.
Wijenayake,
T. (2017). Coconut crisis – can drip irrigation save the industry? DailyFT,
seen at the URL: http://www.ft.lk/columns/Coconut-crisis-%E2%80%93-can-drip-irrigation-save-the-industry-/4-645548
on 19th August 2018. Seen on 26/10/2018.
Tuiletufuga, N.L. (2016). Govt.
resurrects Stimulus package. Savali Newspaper, Jun 13 2016. Available at the
URL: http://www.iniinisamoa.com/2016/06/13/govt-resurrects-stimulus-package. Seen on
26/10/2018.
Further readings
Abd,
R. H., Che, H. H., & Mohamad, I. (2010). Replanting and rehabilitation of
coconut under smallholders. Planter, 86(1009), 243-252.
Catacutan,
D. C., & Duque-Piñon, C. (2008). The policy environment of vegetable
agroforestry in the Philippines: Are there incentives for small farmers?.
Catacutan,
D. C., Ha, D. T., Duque-Piñon, C., & Loan, L. T. (2009). The policy
environment of vegetable-agroforestry in the Philippines and Vietnam: A scoping
study. Malabalay City, Philippines: World Agroforestry Centre
(ICRAF-Philippines).
Chomitz,
K. M., & Griffiths, C. (1996). Deforestation, shifting cultivation, and
tree crops in Indonesia: nationwide patterns of smallholder agriculture at the
forest frontier. Poverty, Environment, and Growth. World Bank,
Washington DC.[Accessed on-line 2004.].
Clarete,
R. L., & Roumasset, J. A. (1983). An analysis of the economic policies
affecting the Philippine coconut industry. Abd, R. H., Che, H. H., &
Mohamad, I. (2010). Replanting and rehabilitation of coconut under
smallholders. Planter, 86(1009), 243-252.
David,
C. C. (1995). Economic policies and agricultural incentives: the
Philippine case (No. DP 1995-15). Manila: Philippine Institute for
Development Studies.
Duhamel,
G. (1993). Production and dissemination of improved coconut cultivars
EEC-Pacific Regional Agricultural Program (PRAP). In ACIAR PROCEEDINGS (pp.
19-19). Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.
Garcia,
J. N. M., Aguilar, E. A., Sangalang, J. B., Alcantara, A. J., Habito, R. C. F.,
Medina, C. P., & Malayang III, B. S. (2009). Valuation of ecosystem
services of coconut types: framework and methodology development. Journal
of Environmental Science and Management, 12(1).
Godoy,
R. A. (1992). Determinants of smallholder commercial tree cultivation. World
Development, 20(5), 713-725.
Karim, S., &
Harrison, S. (2016). Promoting sustainable agriculture and agroforestry to
replace unproductive land use in Fiji and Vanuatu. Australian Centre for
International Agricultural Research (ACIAR).
Mustapha,
Z. H. (1983). Some Observations on Incentive Policies in Malaysian Agriculture
and Implications on Growth and Equity in the Smallholder Sector. Akademika, 23(1).
Mwinjaka,
S., Chiduza, C., Temu, A. E., Sukume, C., & Diehl, L. (1999). Coconut palm
replacement model for Tanzanian farming systems. Journal of
Agricultural Economics and Development, 3, 61-70.
Newman,
S. M. (1985). A survey of interculture practices and research in Sri
Lanka. Agroforestry systems, 3(1), 25-36.
Pabuayon,
I. M., Medina, S. M., Medina, C. M., Manohar, E. C., & Villegas, J. I. P.
(2008). Economic and environmental concerns in Philippine upland coconut farms:
an analysis of policy, farming systems and socio-economic issues. Economy
& Environment Program for Southeast Asia, IDRC—CRDI, Singapore.
Pande,
S. K., & Pandey, D. (2004). Impact of incentives on the development of
forest plantation resources in India. What does it take, 81-102.
Pehaut,
Y. (1990). Les plantations allemandes des mers du sud avant 1914 (No. 12).
Presses Univ de Bordeaux.
Walter,
M. A. (1978). The conflict of the traditional and the traditionalised: an
analysis of Fijian land tenure. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 87(2),
89-108.
[1] They gather technical officers from
the Ministries of Agriculture, members of NGOs, researchers and staff of SPC
and CIRAD, and managers of farms and private companies from the following
countries and territories: Cook Islands, Fiji, France, Federated States of
Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea,
Samoa, Solomon, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, French Polynesia and Hawaii.
[2] Technical note for remembering: for
Kobotool box, results can be exported as CSV files, and transferred to Excel.
[3] Technical note for remembering.
Internal link to the diffusion list : http://sympa.cirad.fr/sympa/info/prag08
