PESTICIDE USE IN GHANA’S

COCOA SECTOR
Key findings

By Pesticide Action Network (PAN) UK, consultancy report

for UTZ Sector Partnerships program GHANA.
Version May 2018
Background and methodology

UTZ commissioned this research with the aim to collect scientifically justified information on
pesticide use issues in cocoa farming in Ghana, with emphasis (but not exclusively) on
neonicotinoids (hereafter referred to as ‘neonics’). Neonics are the most commonly used
pesticides in Ghana’s cocoa sector, but they are on the UTZ Watchlist The UTZ Pesticides
Watchlist is composed of active ingredients that are not banned but that have a potentially
severe and/or cumulative risk for human health and/or the environment. The application of
active ingredients mentioned in the list is only allowed on the certified crop when 1) All steps
of IPM have been followed, and 2) Less hazardous alternative pesticides are not available,
and 3) Specific recommendations are followed to mitigate or reduce the risks related to the
hazardous nature of the product
The EU recently decided to ban all outdoor uses of three neonics (clothianidin, imidacloprid
and thiamethoxam) from the end of 2018, following latest scientific assessment confirming
some high risks to bee pollinators. Negative effects on humans have also been reported. It is
expected that the use of neonics in the upcoming RA/Utz standard will be reviewed and
possibly further restricted. Research on the specific effects of neonics in cocoa farming is
limited.
The research consisted of a ‘quick skim’ literature search combined with stakeholder
interviews conducted in Ghana in December 2017. Interviews accompanied by UTZ and two
of its partner CSOs, to understand more about the current situation and identify stakeholder
views.

Key Findings:

1. Pesticide provision, use, hazards and handling practices

1.1 Pest management in cocoa in Ghana is highly dependent on use of Highly Hazardous
Pesticides (HHPs). Of the 16 insecticide active ingredients approved by Cocobod, 12 feature
on the PAN International HHP List and 8 are on the Utz Pesticide Watch List. One of the 8
approved fungicides is an HHP, as is the only permitted herbicide.
1.2. The most common hazard criterion is highly hazardous to bees, with 11 of the 14
Cocobod-approved actives representing this hazard. Other hazards relate to chronic human
health effects, acute toxicity to humans by inhalation, high toxicity to aquatic organisms and
very high persistence in water, soil or sediment.
1.3. Over-use of pesticides in cocoa remains a serious concern. Numerous studies conducted
since 2003 in West Africa have highlighted this, as did several stakeholders interviewed in Dec.
2017.
1.4. Farmers’ use of non-authorised products on cocoa, the easy availability of fake or
adulterated products and poor handling practices by spray operators are also key concerns
among stakeholders.
1.5. Concerns expressed about the government’s CODAPEC provision of pesticides and
spraying services are about inequitable distribution, inadequate coverage and lack of proper
impact assessment

www.utz.org 1
1.6 Calendar spraying regimes of pesticides for mirid bug control (with 2 applications per
season provided free by governmental spray gangs, ) does not seem to align with the IPM
principle of need-based decision making on when to apply insecticides via regular field
observation (see also finding 5.5). More generally, the compatibility of free or subsidised
pesticide provision programs with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practice could be
questioned

2. Health hazards and risks of pesticides used in cocoa

2.1. Earlier West African studies have reported very high incidence (50-80% of respondents)
of pesticide-related ill health following cocoa spraying or other handling, although at mild to
moderate severity levels. Recent studies on eye health of Ghanaian cocoa farmers report
moderate to severe damage levels, some occurring after pesticide spraying. Pesticide-related
eye damage affected 10-19% of farmers. 12 of the Cocobod-approved pesticides are known
to cause eye irritation and several are classified as serious eye irritants.
2.2 Even though only two Cocobod-approved pesticides (the fungicide copper II hydroxide
and the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin) are classified as highly acutely toxic to humans (via
inhalation), it is wrong to assume that all the others are ‘safe’. For example, bifenthrin
exposure via the skin can lead to temporary but acute nervous system harm, it is highly toxic
to mammals by ingestion and is suspected to disrupt hormone signalling.
2.3 The most widely used neonicotinoids in cocoa can present acute health effects. US farm
workers have reported skin or eye irritation, dizziness, breathlessness, confusion, or vomiting
after exposure to imidacloprid. Similar documented poisoning symptoms are known from
occupational exposure to thiamethoxam. Risks would be highest for spray gang members
regularly spraying these products, especially if they are not using full protective clothing in
good condition or use leaking and faulty equipment.
2.4 The main concern over chronic health effects of neonic exposure has been potential harm
to the developing nervous system in the foetus and children. Although there is no clear
picture about whether this can occur, EU regulators were sufficiently concerned to reduce
some maximum exposure levels via food intake and for spray operators for imidacloprid and
acetamiprid.

2.5 Recent studies on other potential chronic health effects of neonics relate to: damage to
genetic material, acting as a pre-cursor to cancer; disruption of hormone systems (oestrogen
and insulin); damage to liver; and reduction in children’s IQ.
2.6 The most vulnerable groups for chronic effects of neonics would be pregnant women (risk
to the foetus) and young girls who may be exposed via: working in treated cocoa fields;
washing contaminated clothes; opened containers stored in bedrooms/kitchens; empty
containers reused for household use. Girls could risk hormone-related damage to their
reproductive system before it is fully developed.
2.7 Several stakeholders are involved in training on correct pesticide use, including protective
measures. Less than a third raised serious concerns about cocoa pesticides and health, while
some considered current approved pesticides pose less risk than earlier ones or unapproved
products. However, the spray gang member among the farmers interviewed had experienced
temporary harm when caught in spray drift.

www.utz.org 2
3. Environmental risks and harm from pesticides used in cocoa

3.1 The most comprehensive review of the science on neonic effects on non-target organisms
documents known risks not only to bee pollinators but also to a range of aquatic and
terrestrial invertebrates. The latest update highlights serious harm to a wider range of
organisms at levels which threaten essential ecosystem services of pollination, nutrient
cycling and natural pest control.
3.2 From 2014 the EU’s partial ban on imidacloprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam includes
prohibiting their use as foliar sprays on orchard crops during the flowering period, in order to
protect honey bees. Further evidence has emerged since on neonic harm to bees and levels
of contamination in field margin flowers, in soil and water. In April 2018, the EU announced a
total ban on all outdoor uses of these three neonics from end of 2018.
3.3 The EU’s risk assessment for imidacloprid concluded unacceptable, high risks to honey
bees and other bees from foliar spraying in orchards at recommended rates. These risks
come not only from exposure on the sprayed trees but also in the field margins, in
neighbouring crops close by and in flowering trees crops in the next year. The same high risk
levels remain even with 95% risk mitigation measures by growers, via spray drift reduction
methods and via removing flowering weeds in field.
3.4 The same imidacloprid product used for the EU risk assessment of neonics for orchards is
the most widely used neonic in Ghanaian cocoa and the Cocobod recommended product
dose rate is similar to the lower dose rate in the range assessed by the EU. Reducing risks to
honey and wild bees to ‘low’ could only be achieved by drastically cutting dose rates. The high
risks identified for use at recommended rates could be similar for other imidacloprid products
and possibly for thiamethoxam too.
3.5 By far the most important pollinators of cocoa in Ghana are midge flies in the
ceratopogonid group, not bees, although some other midges, ants and stingless bees may
play a role too. There is no published data on neonic toxicity to ceratopogonid midges. Data
for chironomid midges shows this group to be very sensitive to neonics, up to several orders
of magnitude more sensitive for chronic risk than the other standard test invertebrate for
aquatic toxicity, the water flea. The EU risk assessment for predicted imidacloprid levels in
water bodies close to orchard spraying could not rule out the possibility of high risk to aquatic
organisms.
3.6 Although cocoa pollinator midges breed in organic matter on the ground, and not in
water, their biology is fairly similar and their sensitivity to neonics and vulnerability to
exposure could be similar to chironomid midges. They could be exposed directly when
foraging on treated cocoa trees, consuming or contact with contaminated pollen and nectar,
and from contaminated leaf litter and residues in damp soil. Further research is needed to
establish or confirm the effect of imidacloprid on midges.
3.7 The only published study on neonic impacts on cocoa pollinators compared numbers of
ceratopogonid midges in Ghanaian farms managed under the recommended insecticide
regime using imidacloprid versus neem seed extract application. It found imidacloprid was
consistently more harmful to midge numbers than neem seed, halving midge numbers at 2

www.utz.org 3
days after spraying and showing a longer residual effect 60-120 days later. Fruit set was
significant higher in neem-treated farms than with imidacloprid.
3.8 One Indian study documented harm from imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and non-neonics
chlorantraniliprole, lamdbda-cyhalothrin and bifenthrin to natural enemies of a different
species of mirid bug in cocoa. All 5 insecticides reduced numbers of spiders, predatory bugs,
red weaver ants and wasps parasitizing mirid eggs, although the neonics were not the most
harmful.
3.9 The only published study on neonic levels in cocoa soils is from Ghana and detected
imidacloprid in over half of the samples and clothianidin (a breakdown product of
thiamethoxam) in 10%. These residues likely resulted from spray applications made between
4-24 months before sampling. Assessment indicated that neonic residues could persist for
over 150 days under treated trees and had high potential to leach into surface and
underground water.
3.10 The highest imidacloprid concentrations found in cocoa soils are 4 to 20 times higher
than levels documented in arable crop fields in North America and Europe. The persistence
estimates for neonics in Ghana cocoa soils are midway among the global range documented
and considerably more persistent than other studies from tropical climates.
3.11 The levels of neonics found in Ghana cocoa soils are above the concentrations known to
affect earthworm behaviour and reproduction. More sensitive soil organisms, such as
springtails, could be harmed or killed at the higher end of the levels found under cocoa.
Springtails play an important role in decomposing dead material in leaf litter and soil,
recycling nutrients and contributing to soil fertility.
3.12 There is no published data for neonic residues in water courses close to West Africa cocoa
fields but several studies document contamination by organochlorine, organophosphate and
synthetic pyrethroids in rivers and drinking water sources receiving run-off from cocoa fields.
Recent science highlights widespread, low dose contamination of neonics in surface waters
near treated fields in numerous countries, at levels now known to cause short- and long-term
impacts on aquatic invertebrates. If similar low levels of neonic residues are finding their way
into ponds and streams in cocoa growing areas, there could be negative effects on aquatic
food webs, decomposition and nutrient recycling.
3.13 There is no consensus among stakeholders about possible environmental harm from
widespread use of neonics in cocoa. On the question of whether these could harm cocoa
pollinator midges, 3 stakeholders had some concerns, 4 considered risks minimal or none and
3 had no information. Three are interested in exploring or supplying alternatives and 2 want
more information on pesticide risks to the environment.

4. Alternatives to neonics and other hazardous insecticides for mirid bug

control
4.1 Mirid bugs are the main pest targeted with insecticides on the Utz Watch List, including
the neonics imidacloprid and thiamethoxam. These bugs suck the sap of growing cocoa
shoots, basal suckers and developing pods, causing damage, which can reach serious levels.
Several alternative control methods are known but may vary in their effectiveness and not all
are readily available to farmers.
4.2 Good cultural practices involve mainly preventative methods to make cocoa groves a less
favourable environment for mirids to build up to damaging levels. These include removal of

www.utz.org 4
cocoa sucker shoots or ‘chupons’ (favoured mirid feeding sites), careful pruning of cocoa and
shade trees and avoiding and filling in gaps in the canopy.
4.3 Several stakeholders emphasised the importance of good cultural practices but it seems
that many farmers do not put effort into these. Data is not available on the exact levels of
control achieved or economic benefits from making good use of cultural methods but
research and stakeholder experience suggest they can reduce mirid levels and the amount or
frequency of insecticides needed. In some situations, cultural practice alone may give
adequate mirid control.
4.4 Carrying out cultural practices effectively needs time, some skill and appropriate pruning
tools. Providing training, practice and tools for more farmers, or subsidising pruning and
grove management services, rather than pesticide spraying, is a good way to replace at least
some use of Utz Watch List and HHP pesticides.
4.5 Botanical extracts made from neem seed and pyrethrum extracted from chysantheum
flowers are both used in Ghana, mainly by organic or other certified farmers. Pyrethrum and
neem seed commercial products are imported in small volumes and neem seed extract can
be prepared on-farm if farmers have access to the seed. Pyrethrum kills mirids rapidly but
soon degrades in sunlight, while neem tends to repel mirids and deter them from feeding and
can be slower to take effect.
4.6 Research trials and stakeholder experiences suggest that neem and pyrethrum can be as
effective as synthetic insecticides for mirid control, especially if combined with good cultural
practices. Imported pyrethrum products are currently somewhat more expensive than
conventional insecticides but local formulation could reduce the price. Both botanicals have
good feasibility to replace UTZ Watch List insecticides if supply chains can help facilitate
farmer access to products or local production.
4.7 Biological control methods make free use of naturally occurring predators or parasitic
natural enemies of mirids. Research shows that red weaver ants are effective predators of
mirid bugs and formerly some farmers encouraged these in cocoa groves. Combining use of
ants with good cultural practices could deliver good mirid control without using conventional
insecticides. It requires farmer training and the know-how to avoid ant bites and would work
best where farmers are already familiar with this practice or where they have little access to
or cannot afford insecticides.
4.8 Biological pesticides are based on strains of fungi, bacteria or viruses which can infect and
kill target pests. Beauveria fungal biopesticides have been tested in Ghana and worked well
on mirids but are not available commercially. In other countries biopesticides are increasingly
used in a variety of vegetable and tree crops combined with good cultural practices. Speeding
up availability of biopesticide products suitable for mirids would provide more options for
replacing Utz Watch List pesticides.
4.9 Pheromone traps use a synthesised version of the sex attractant chemical emitted by
female mirid bugs to attract adult males for mating. Mirid pheromone lures can be placed in
the cocoa grove to attract and capture males into simple traps. Trapping can be used to
monitor presence and levels of adult male bugs or to try and reduce population levels.
Research and stakeholder views suggest that trapping is not feasible as a stand-alone
method to achieve adequate mirid control but it could be useful in monitoring mirid numbers
and forecasting.

www.utz.org 5
4.10 Although not a control method itself, field observation of location and levels of pest
incidence is a fundamental principle of Integrated Pest Management. It can help farmers
reduce the amount and/or frequency of spraying. Research findings and many stakeholders
agree that a more rational approach to mirid spraying is needed than current
recommendations for whole farm application on a calendar schedule (4 sprays Aug-Dec).
Training more farmers and spray teams to spot treat mirid hotspots and use simple
monitoring methods to better time and target spraying would be a good step forward. Cocoa
pest monitoring services on a paid or subsidised basis is another option.
4.11 Options for other insecticides to replace UTZ Watch List ones are limited. Most of the
other currently approved insecticides by Cocobod or awaiting registration are either PAN
HHPs or may hold similar concerns as for neonics. The active ingredients capsaicin and
teflubenzuron could be options, but not if they are only available in products combined with
Utz Watch List substances.

5. Training and support for IPM

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) involves using a range of different methods to keep
pests, disease and weeds under control, rather than relying only on pesticides (chemical
control). These methods may include: practices to grow a strong, healthy crop; careful field
hygiene; encouraging natural pest control organisms (biological control); physical methods,
e.g. trapping or netting barriers; cultivating crop varieties that are resistant to specific pests
or diseases; botanical and biological pesticides, as well as chemical ones. IPM aims to keep
pests at levels below those that cause economic damage to the crop, rather than trying to
eliminate them.
5.1 Earlier research trials and farmer training projects in West Africa show that IPM strategies,
combining different control methods, can be effective in reducing mirid damage and cocoa
diseases and increase yields. Several stakeholders report good experiences by trained
farmers in reducing damage and considerably improving yields and profitability by
implementing good cultural practices with one or two applications of synthetic insecticides
or botanical products, sometimes none.
5.2 Challenges identified for more uptake of IPM by farmers include: inadequate coverage of
extension services; poor coordination between research and extension; insufficient research
or priority to IPM alternatives compared with pesticides; farmer preferences for chemical
solutions; farmers only ask for advice when pest or disease problems have become serious;
time and labour needed for IPM; heavy promotion of pesticides in local media.
5.3 Cocoa extension manuals and farmer training materials contain good information and
have a positive aim to promote IPM and good agricultural practices. However, the guidance
is generic and clearer advice, specific to local situations, is likely needed for individual farmers
or village groups on how to put IPM into practice in their own fields. It is not clear whether
standardised training helps them to do this.
5.4 Farmer training, whether by government agencies, cocoa LBCs or others, does not
include activities to help farmer groups discuss and compare the costs and benefits of IPM
methods with their current practices. Experience from Farmer Field School training in many
crops and countries shows that these comparisons make farmers question reliance on
pesticides alone and motivate them to change practices.

www.utz.org 6
5.5 There seems to be a serious contradiction between provision of free pesticides and
spraying services under the CODAPEC programme and IPM principles and with the stated
pesticide reduction aims in extension training manuals. It is not clear whether the ‘per acre’
input packages provided by some LBCs support IPM implementation or help to reduce
reliance on pesticides. Several stakeholders would support a change in government policy on
pesticide provision and more priority to IPM.
5.6 Women, older farmers and those struggling to afford inputs could benefit most from a
shift in policy and subsidies currently promoting pesticides, to more public and private sector
support for implementing good cultural practices, rejuvenating and replanting cocoa groves
and making non-chemical methods more available.

www.utz.org 7