Can Agroforestry Provide a Future for Cocoa?:Implications for Policy and Practice

Climate change is threatening cocoa production in Ghana, the world’s second largest cocoa exporter. Yet, as we have shown in this book, the impacts of climate change must be understood in the context of the multiple socioeconomic and biophysical pressures facing cocoa farmers, including the conversion of farms for other land uses, increasing hired labor costs as well as pests and diseases. This final chapter summarizes the book’s overall findings on cocoa agroforestry as climate change adaption and points to ways forward in terms of policy, practice and research. Our findings suggest that a nuanced view of farmers, agroecosystems and sites is necessary and emphasize the need to study shade tree species and species diversity, in addition to shade levels, to optimize the sustainability of cocoa farming. We further suggest that it may not be possible to sustainably grow cocoa in marginal regions of the cocoa belt, where yields are lower and where agroforestry may be unable to mitigate the negative impacts of the adverse climate. Finally, we point to the importance of considering rights and access to trees, land, extension services and resources, and call for more multidisciplinary research on differently situated farmers’ opportunities and needs

Social Challenges and Opportunities in Agroforestry:Cocoa Farmers’ Perspectives

Agroforestry practices in cocoa cultivation have historical roots going back to the Mayan sacred groves in Mesoamerica. Today, agroforestry cocoa, i.e., the integration of shade trees, plants and crops in cocoa systems, is promoted as a climate smart practice by public and private institutions. Shaded cocoa can sustain or even increase cocoa yields and the agroforestry systems may provide additional output for household consumption and sale as well as improve the microclimate and soil conditions on the farm. Despite these promising features, cocoa agroforestry systems are far from the norm in producing countries like Ghana. Based on discussions with groups of farmers across the Ghanaian cocoa belt, this chapter shows that while farmers are well aware of the positive aspects of shaded cocoa systems, traditional cocoa practices, village chiefs’ command of local land uses, land and tree tenure systems, alternative land uses and inability to access inputs and extension services limit the adoption and constrain the management of shade trees. As still more policies are developed to improve the Ghanaian cocoa sector, policymakers must consider these often overlooked social and institutional factors that prevent cocoa farmers from engaging in longer-term agroforestry practices and thereby benefiting from the opportunities they present

Introduction:Climate, Cocoa and Trees

Climate change is predicted to significantly reduce areas suitable for the cultivation of cocoa, an important cash crop providing a livelihood to over six million smallholders in the humid tropics. Cocoa agroforestry shows potential to increase climate resilience while providing more stable incomes, enhancing biodiversity, supporting healthy ecosystems and reducing the pace at which farms expand into forested areas. Based on the multidisciplinary ‘Climate Smart Cocoa Systems for Ghana’ research project, this book investigates the case of the biophysical and socioeconomic sustainability of cocoa agroforestry in Ghana, the second largest producer of cocoa in the world. After a brief introduction to the research project, this introductory chapter reviews the literature on the links between climate change, farming and agroforestry, thereby situating the study within a wider context. It then presents an in-depth analysis of historical Ghanaian cocoa yields and climate data at both the national and regional levels to establish a foundation for understanding the new climate risks faced by cocoa farmers. The chapter concludes by providing an overview of the chapters that follow and introducing the overall argument that agroforestry can only successfully address climate change impacts on cocoa farming if location-specific biophysical and socioeconomic factors are considered

Household Economics of Cocoa Agroforestry:Costs and Benefits

Current research suggests that cocoa agroforestry systems could offer stable yields, additional benefits and income from shade trees, despite potential added costs, such as from the purchase of insecticides. There is a paucity of profitability studies of different cocoa agroforestry systems. Only few of them go beyond a narrow focus on cocoa yields to model the entire agroforestry system and thus do not advance our understanding of the socio-economic value of other ecosystem goods. Based on survey data covering a thousand cocoa plots and group interviews with cocoa farmers, we explore the costs and benefits at the household level of including trees in cocoa systems. Comparing low and medium tree diversity systems, we find that income from cocoa beans, timber and fruit trees are higher and labour costs are lower in plots with medium diversity, while insecticide costs are lower on low-diversity plots. Overall, net benefits were higher on cocoa plots with higher tree diversity. Thus, cocoa agroforestry systems offer cost-reduction and income-improving advantages. Since cocoa systems vary among different agro-ecological zones in Ghana, we recommend that interventions aimed at increasing tree diversity consider the specific management practices of each farming household and the location in question

Historical and Current Perspectives

In many tropical developing countries such as Tanzania, modern forest management has been characterized by top-down state-centric governance. But the growth of participatory management forms, with multiple stakeholders is leading to a plethora of changes to laws and organizational structures and more complex interplay between international interests and local decision making. Participatory management is generally thought to be more sustainable in terms of both local livelihoods and environmental outcomes. But research here is limited. This background paper provides the contextual background required for the New Partnerships for Sustainability (NEPSUS) project’s work on new partnerships in forestry. The background paper examines the historical trajectory in Tanzania as well as at the international context that has led to the current makeup of forest management systems in Tanzania

A literature review

The rhetoric of a ‘win-win-win’ situation – which represents simultaneous achievement of economic growth, environmental protection and social development – is central to the emergence of community-based wildlife protection efforts that involve new partnerships between actors such as local communities, businesses and government agencies. The win-win rhetoric furthers the logic that the more partners, the more wins – yet the current knowledge base lacks clear criteria for evaluating partnerships. This working paper uses political ecology as a conceptual lens to propose such criteria. We suggest examining partnerships not only based on their complexity, but also how they are formed and gain legitimacy in different contexts and how various partnership configurations engender particular kinds of ecological and socio-economic outcomes. Based on a review of the literature about partnerships and their impacts, and drawing on insights from Tanzania’s wildlife sector, we establish three groups of literature that emphasize the benefits of partnerships: one focusing on landscape conservation, another on governance reforms and the last on tourism related businesses. In these three groups of literature, partnerships are claimed to improve the effectiveness of biodiversity governance by securing land, facilitating local developments and by creating business links. Building on critiques from political ecology we conclude by questioning this win-win-win rhetoric arguing that partnerships only lead to wins for specific actors thereby indirectly aggravating local power struggles. They do so by supporting rent seeking and the rise of local elites while simultaneously concealing the marginalization of other actors and thereby effectively contributing to the continued loss of local land rights