AGROFORESTRY
Though cocoa has been a major driver of deforestation worldwide, it can become the reverse - an agent of re-greening around the planet (Neptstad et al 2018; Somarriba and López-Sampson 2018). “Researchers from the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, supported by UN REDD and CocoaSoils,” found that in Côte d'Ivoire, “implementing agroforestry in current cocoa growing areas alone could potentially help to store an extra 120 million metric tons of carbon.” These researchers argue that “assuming the full potential for cocoa agroforestry is met in these areas, the national goal of 20% forest cover could be met” for Côte d’Ivoire.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines agroforestry as: “(…) a dynamic, ecologically based, natural resource management system that, through the integration of trees on farms and in the agricultural landscape, diversifies and sustains production for increased social, economic and environmental benefits for land users at all levels”.
Agroforestry is an ecologically sound way of growing cocoa and restoring farming landscapes. When people refer to cocoa grown in regenerative agriculture models - or ‘nature positive’ cocoa - they often are referring to robust agroforestry systems of cocoa growing. Scientific research demonstrates that robust agroforestry cocoa systems are better for the planet, as they can increase carbon sequestration, improve soil health, and air moisture retention, support biodiversity, as well as deliver substantial enhancement of farmers’ food security and income diversification. When farmers monocrop, they are hostage to the vicissitudes of market shocks in the price of cocoa; when they produce multiple crops to diversify their income, this can protect them if a market shock occurs. If properly designed and managed cocoa agroforestry systems can deliver all these goods and services without impairing cocoa yields. Cocoa agroforestry systems are a win-win for both people and the planet.
We analyzed the responses given by 56 companies and retailers on the following agroforestry areas:
Agroforestry policy and its geographical coverage;
Sourcing (percentage and timeline) of cocoa produced in agroforestry systems;
Agroforestry definition and parameters (tree density, canopy cover, species richness, etc.) set as benchmarks to monitor progress in transitioning to agroforestry production;
Support and investments provided to farmers to transition to growing cocoa in agroforestry systems;
Over the past years, the practice of agroforestry has been gaining momentum in cocoa farming. A recent study from the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), in collaboration with the UN-REDD Programme and the CocoaSoils initiative, outlines the potential for targeted cocoa agroforestry implementation to help restore forest cover in the Côte d’Ivoire, the biggest cocoa producer country in the world. In 2021, the Smithsonian published an electronic library of all peer-reviewed scientific papers on cocoa agroforestry available to date, and added papers on financing agroforestry, analyses of legal reforms needed to create an enabling environment for agroforestry, and agroforestry manuals.
Nonetheless, despite the wide array of ecological benefits that can be achieved with cocoa agroforestry systems, and the recent progress in industry embracing agroforestry, the results from our questionnaire reveal that as of now agroforestry in the cocoa sector is still far from its potential. As a result, the global transition from monocropping cocoa to diverse agroforestry systems has a long way to go. A suite of conceptual and operational issues need to be addressed to mainstream agroforestry. Defining agroforestry is one of these issues.
An inspection of the definitions adopted by the different companies assessed in the 2022 Chocolate Scorecard exercise shows that some leading companies have developed their own definition of agroforestry while others have adopted definitions and agroforestry parameters developed by government bodies, global or regional initiatives, and certification companies. Notable examples include companies such as Halba, CEMOI, and Mars, governments such as Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, certification companies such as Rainforest Alliance (RA), and initiatives such as the Cocoa & Forests Initiative (CFI) and the Initiative on Sustainable Cocoa (ISCO).
A closer inspection of the definitions used by cocoa companies shows that they differ in their goals (some definitions even fail to establish goals) and management practices such as tree density, tree species richness (sometimes disaggregated in native and exotic or in terms of ecological guilds such as generalists of climax forest species), vertical stratification of the shade canopy, and percentage of canopy cover. The debate / controversy is then not on whether a production system is agroforestry or not, but on what specific characteristics it should have in terms of tree density, species richness, canopy cover, and vertical stratification to achieve established goals. A scientifically solid discussion is badly needed on whether changes in these shade canopy density parameters help farmers, cocoa companies, and global society to achieve their agroforestry goals.
Although considerable efforts have been made by both industry and government entities, these have been slow to yield results on the ground. This is mainly because commitments have not been fully implemented or monitored by all key players involved. Monitoring progress toward achieving these goals is also crucial (Sanial et al., 2020).This is vital, because in some agroforestry projects, up to 90% of the non-cocoa trees planted end up dying. Monitoring to ensure continuity and success is therefore crucial. “Hit and run” agroforestry tree distribution campaigns without monitoring are unlikely to yield real change.
As suggested by Sanial (2019), despite numerous tree distribution campaigns in Côte d’Ivoire, the survival rate of distributed trees is less than 2%. Even in those rare cases when trees survive distribution, many seeding trees are removed during weeding, because sharecroppers who are actually doing the work at the farm lack appropriate training on agroforestry practices (Uribe-Leitz and Ruf, 2019).
Consequently, providing intensive training, education, and collaborative work with cocoa farmers and farm workers are critical to ensuring the successful transition from monoculture to agroforestry. In the end, monitoring agroforestry will require investing in technologies and process development for national traceability systems and farm mapping as well as aboveground carbon assessments with satellite mapping. Monitoring progress should be carried out on a regular basis in a collaborative and inclusive manner to enable local civil society and farmers to take part in the monitoring process alongside satellite mappers, scientific experts, government officials, and industry representatives.
Further, it could be argued that the development of agroforestry systems has not been addressed sufficiently in policy formulation, both at the company and national levels. A handful of companies have well developed agroforestry policies whereas many others that claim to support agroforestry only mention agroforestry as part of their sustainability or supply policies. The agroforestry policy of these companies is simply to ensure that the cocoa they source is under a farming certification standard (e.g. Rainforest Alliance) or is part of a major initiatives in the cocoa sector (e.g. Cocoa and Forest Initiative) that include agroforestry as part of their standards. There is plenty of room for improvement at the company level.
Improvements in the enabling political framework at the country-level are also needed. For example, legal restrictions on land and tree tenure and complex taxation frameworks in some countries hinder the sustainable development of agroforestry. Governments, cocoa companies, producers’ organizations, and donors need to put their heads and hearts together to tackle the tough political issues limiting agroforestry development.
Despite these shortcomings, we were pleased to see that the 2022 Chocolate Scorecard revealed a massive uptick in the industry’s ambition and investment in agroforestry systems compared to the previous editions.
CHOCOLATE SCORECARD SURVEY RESULTS
Grading for the agroforestry theme was not always straightforward.
Most companies declared having an agroforestry policy. Some agroforestry policies are well described, others are simply adopted from other elements in their supply chain. Some companies have policies that apply to all regions they source from. Others have an agroforestry policy that exclusively applies to West African sourcing. A global policy would be ideal. A small number of companies admitted to not having an agroforestry policy at all. This is not acceptable. All cocoa companies should have an agroforestry policy.
Not all the companies provided us with clear-cut percentages of vegetation coverage, canopy cover, and species per hectare required. In some cases, narrative accounts were provided as an attempt to respond to the question. Further, a sizable number of companies did not disclose any figures at all.
Many companies were unable to determine how much of their supply came from agroforestry farming. Others provided figures that seemed unrealistic, both in terms of percentage of supply and in the timeframe needed to have 100% cocoa agroforestry supply.
The Chocolate Scorecard survey is reviewed thoroughly every year. Based on the learnings and feedback from the Agroforestry section, adjustments will be made in the questionnaire and in the assignment of score points to help companies clarify what fraction of their supply comes from agroforestry farming and their timelines. The Chocolate Scorecard team will also further clarify the agroforestry parameters adopted by a company (for example, to ensure that canopy cover estimates refer to only cocoa plots and not to the entire farm). The way score points are allocated to companies adhered to certification or other agroforestry schemes will also be improved. Finally, the allocation of scores to the different agroforestry areas assessed in the scorecard (policy, agroforestry parameters, support to farmers to transition to agroforestry, other areas) needs also to be revisited.
Author:
Eduardo Somarriba, Agroforestry specialist
References:
Higonnet et. al. 2019. Cocoa and African Deforestation: Assessing the Cocoa and Forests Initiative in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. Briefing paper. Mighty Earth, Washington, DC, USA. Available at: http://www.mightyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/Problems-and-solutions-concerning-the-CFI-in-Ghana-and-Co%CC%82te.-final.pdf.
Nepstad, D., P. Lovett, S. Irawan, J. Watts, D. Pezo, E. Somarriba, J. Shimada, D.N. Cudjoe, and E.C.M. Fernandes. 2018. Leveraging Agricultural Value Chains to Enhance Tropical Tree Cover and Slow Deforestation (LEAVES). Washington DC:Program on Forests (PROFOR).
Sanial, E. (2019). A la recherche de l'ombre, géographie des systèmes agroforestiers émergents en cacaoculture ivoirienne post-forestière. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338549035_A_la_recherche_de_l%27ombre_geographie_des_systemes_agroforestiers_emergents_en_cacaoculture_ivoirienne_post-forestiere.
Sanial, E., Fountain, A.C., Hoefsloot H. and Jezeer, R. (2020). Agroforestry in cocoa, a need for ambitious collaborative landscape approaches. Available at: https://www.voicenetwork.eu/2020/07/cocoa-barometer-consortium-releases-consultation-paper-on-agroforestry-in-the-cocoa-sector/
Somarriba E, Lopez-Sampson A. 2018. Coffee and cocoa agroforestry systems: pathways to deforestation, reforestation and tree cover change. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. 49 p.
UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (2005). Realizing the economic benefits of agroforestry: experiences, lessons and challenges. Rome.
Uribe-Leitz, E. and Ruf, F. (2019). Cocoa Certification in West Africa: The Need for Change. In Michael Schmidt, Daniele Giovannucci, Dmitry Palekhov, Berthold Hansmann (Eds.): Sustainable global value chains, pp. 435-461. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14877-9_24.