Agriculture and Environment: Cocoa

Habitat conversion & deforestation

The production of cocoa results in deforestation. Best estimates that cocoa production is probably responsible for the loss of some 8 million hectares of tropical forest (Hardner et al. 1999). The climatic and agricultural conditions most suited for traditional cocoa cultivation are precisely those that harbour extraordinary amounts of biodiversity.

In fact, most of the land that has been historically cleared for cocoa production is in what would today be called biodiversity hot spots. These include areas in Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Colombia, Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, Cameroon, and Indonesia. In the West African countries of Ghana and Cote d'Ivoire, only small patches of original forest cover have been spared in the face of advancing cocoa production.

Average cocoa plantings remain productive for only 25-30 years, so expansion into new forests is the norm. If nothing is done to prevent it, cocoa cultivation can be expected to cause the deforestation of millions of hectares of tropical forests over the next 25 years.

Simply maintaining current production levels could well mean the clearing or selective cutting of more than 6 million hectares of tropical forests as the cocoa frontier expands on one side and leaves degraded areas behind on the other. Another question, then, is what will be the next use of those areas currently devoted to cocoa production, and will the environmental impacts be more or less than those of cocoa production?

In Brazil cocoa cultivation is one of the main causes of the conversion of vast tracts (over 700,000 ha in the past century) of Atlantic coastal forests. If one looks at the relationship of deforestation to cocoa production, there is cause for concern. Three periods of deforestation related to cocoa production can be identified in Brazil: 1945-65, 1975-79, and 1982-86.

During the first period, deforestation resulted from stagnant cocoa prices. During the second period, deforestation resulted from high prices. And, during the final period, deforestation resulted from declining cocoa prices. In short, deforestation resulted from upward or downward price shifts as well as overall market stagnation (May et al. 1993). On first glance, it appears that cocoa prices have little to do with deforestation.

In fact, since cocoa is the only game in town, any change in price can cause deforestation. When prices were flat or were high people planted more to increase their income. When prices were low people increased planted areas or the density of existing plantations in an attempt to maintain their previous income.

Much of cocoa production in Brazil is centred in the state of Bahia. Production peaked there in the 1970s with about 400,000 hectares planted. As cocoa prices fell, agrochemical inputs were no longer financially feasible and marginal cocoa lands fell dormant. Witches'-broom has systematically destroyed cocoa trees throughout the region. Declining prices have left farmers with little money to pay labourers to fight witches'-broom. Debt has become so overwhelming in the cocoa sector that farms have been (and continue to be) sold and/or converted to other uses.

As a consequence, in Brazil today deforestation in cocoa-producing areas is not accelerated by the expansion of cocoa production but rather by its contraction. The low international prices for cocoa are now causing many planters to go in and cut the more valuable shade trees that were left during the initial cocoa planting.

Farmers use the funds from these trees to finance the conversion of their farms from cocoa to other agricultural and ranching activities. These alternative cropping systems (generally pasture or annual crops) eliminate virtually all biodiversity, and furthermore have proven to be more short-lived than cocoa-based production systems. Hardner et al. (1999) predict that at least half of Brazil's cocoa farms will be converted to other uses in the near future. Most conversion will include cutting not only cocoa trees but also the intermixed natural forest remnants within the cocoa farms.

Historically, at least, cocoa production slowed deforestation in Bahia, but how much forest will remain in the face of the failure of the cocoa market to rebound remains to be seen. Strategic intervention by conservationists to help save or make viable the Atlantic forest cocoa agroforestry production system could do a great deal for protecting the last pockets of biodiversity within the region.

However, unless the land ownership patterns in Bahia revert to smaller units so producers can use their own labour to compete in global markets (which is not likely to happen), cocoa will not be a viable crop in that region. In Indonesia the rapid expansion of cocoa production opened previously inaccessible tropical forests in such places as Sulawesi and Central Sumatra. New settlements in such areas led to further deforestation even when cocoa went into decline due to low international prices. Small farms expanded from less than 50,000 hectares in 1980 to more than 400,000 by 2000.

Cultivation was preceded by the dramatic clearance of forests. In addition to increases in cultivation, the population was increasing in areas with expanding cocoa production. In southern Sulawesi for example, the population doubled in the 1980s and doubled twice in the 1990s. Whether cocoa production ultimately proves profitable or not, most of these immigrants and their children will remain and will put additional pressure on the environment and natural resources.