cocoa
barometer
2018Index1 Introduction - 3
2 Developments - 5
3 Certification - 36
4 Ensuring a Living Income - 43
5 Transparency & Accountability - 55
6 Conclusions & Key Recommendations - 60

cocoabarometer
2018

Antonie Fountain
Friedel Huetz-Adams

2

Supply chain

smallholder

beans

trader / grinder

powder liquor butter

manufacturer

retailconsumerchocolate products

Scope and intentions of the Cocoa Barometer 2018
The Cocoa Barometer 2018 provides an overview of the current sustainability
developments in the cocoa sector, and highlights critical issues that are notreceiving sufﬁcient attention at present. It is an endeavour to stimulate andenable stakeholders to communicate and discuss these critical issues. The
authors have chosen to focus on West Africa, because of its dominance incocoa production and the signiﬁcant challenges it faces. The two special
thematic focus points of this Barometer are “Ensuring a Living Income” and“Transparency and Accountability”.

1. Introduction
The world market price for cocoa saw a steep decline between September
2016 and February 2017. Smallholder cocoa farmers, already struggling
with poverty, saw their cocoa income decline by as much as 30%-40%
within a couple of months, with the exception of Ghana, where thegovernment is subsidising the cocoa price indirectly. Though prices arepresently climbing again, farmers bear the risks of a volatile price, andthere is no concerted effort by industry or governments to alleviate even apart of the burden of this income shock.
The price collapse is directly linked to a strong increase of cocoa
production in the past years, partly driven by new production areas set
up at the expense of native forests. This can be equally attributed tocorporate disinterest in the environmental effects of the supply of cheapcocoa, and to an almost completely absent government enforcementof environmentally protected areas. More than ninety per cent of West
Africa’s original forests are gone.
Child labour remains at very high levels in the cocoa sector, with anestimated 2.1 million children working in cocoa fields in the Ivory Coastand Ghana alone. Child labour is due to a combination of root causes,
including structural poverty, increased cocoa production, and a lack ofschools and other infrastructure. Not a single company or government isanywhere near reaching the sector-wide objective of the elimination ofchild labour, and not even near their commitments of a 70% reduction ofchild labour by 2020.
Sector-wide efforts to improve the lives of farmers, communities and theenvironment are having little impact; the scope of proposed solutions is
not even in the ballpark of addressing the scope of the problem.
While many of the current programs in cocoa focus on technical solutions
around improving farming practices, the underlying problems at the rootof the issues deal with power and political economy; how the market
defines price, the lack of bargaining power farmers, market concentrationof multinationals, and a lack of transparency and accountability of bothgovernments and companies.

3

The previous two Barometers were instrumental in kick-starting theconversation on farmer livelihoods. Now that a living income is seen as a
keystone for the cocoa sector, this Barometer goes in depth into how this
could be achieved, in the focus area “Ensuring a Living Income”.
4

In addition, cocoa farming needs to see a viable local infrastructure,including schools, health care, and access to markets. There is a key rolefor both companies and specifically governments to play on that level. The
second focus area on “Transparency and Accountability” takes a deeper
look into the prerequisites for this.

Production / Consumption
Cocoa Production in 1,000 tonnes 2017/18
Domestic consumption in 1,000 tonnes 2015/16
Source: ICCO 2018, Table 2, 40

1.852
351

732

176
Rest of
Asia

EuropeUS

Africa154

333

Rest of
Americas

46

82

Japan

China

India

Brasil189

2.000
317 165 270

Côted’Ivoire

900

Ghana

618

Rest of
Africa280

Indonesia

88

Rest of Asia

Rest Brasil Ecuador

76

Australia2. Developments

5

Developments
6

Scale of efforts vs. scale of problem
One of the painful questions the cocoa sector has to ask itself is whether
the sustainability efforts made in the past decade have led to actual
impact. An even more painful question is, whether the scope of solutions
is even in the ballpark of the scope of the problem. All indicators point to alack of sector-wide ambition, and therefore a lack of urgency. If the cocoa
sector continues with business as usual, it will be decades – if ever – before
human rights are respected and the environment is protected.

Scale of solutions vs. problem

Number of children
in cocoa in West Africa:

18%

Number of children in
ICI CLMRS ambition for
2020: 400,000(Source ICI)

Number of farmers inCôte d’Ivôire and Ghana:

15%

Number of farmers in
Cocoa Action ambition
for 2020: 300,000(Source Cocoa Action)

Living income:(Source Fairtrade)

31%

Current farmer income:$0.78

Price Decline

The world market price for cocoa saw a steep fall between September
2016 and February 2017. More than a third of its value was wiped out,
with a tonne of cocoa going from above US$3,000 to below US$1,900
in a matter of months. Despite various voices warning that a focus on
production increase policies would lead to a price collapse*, mostcompanies and governments were not prepared when it happened.

World Market Price and Farm Gate Price
The World Market Price for cocoa is published daily as a calculated
average of the price for cocoa futures at the London and New York
commodity exchanges. The prices at these exchanges are affectedby different variables: the relationship between demand, stocks, andcurrent and future supply. Traders pay slightly different prices for cocoafrom different countries due to requirements concerning quality anddelivery date.
The Farm Gate Price is the price the farmer receives for his/her cocoa.
In most cocoa producing countries, fluctuations in the world market
price have an immediate influence on the farm gate price. However,the situation in Côte d’Ivôire and Ghana is different. Both countries
have national cocoa marketing boards that pre-sell part of their harvestin the year before the harvest season starts. The marketing boards (theConseil du Café-Cacao or CCC, in Côte d’Ivôire, and the COCOBOD in
Ghana) then determine a fixed price around the 1st of October of eachyear, the beginning of the annual main-crop season.
In Côte d’Ivôire, the farm gate price is fixed at around 60% of the value
at which the CCC has been able to make these pre-sales. After lastyear’s price decline, the CCC slashed farm gate prices by 36% at the
mid-crop pricing in April 2017.
In Ghana, the price is also more or less a percentage of the world
market price (according to the COCOBOD, around 70%; in reality
usually significantly lower). However, after the price collapse,
COCOBOD has maintained the pre-collapse prices. It is still not clear* As we wrote in the 2015 Cocoa Barometer, the “present [industry] focus on
increasing farm productivity [could] lead to an oversupply of cocoa and to
decreasing prices.” At the 2014 World Cocoa Conference in Amsterdam, theExecutive Director of the ICCO claimed that if governments were to stick totheir production increase policies, the global cocoa price would collapse.

7

how long the COCOBOD will be able to maintain this higher level.
Due to high inflation in Ghana, though, the real price paid for cocoa at
the farm gate has decreased significantly since the price decline.

8

Oversupply Drives Prices Down
At the beginning of the 2016/17 season, reports of a good harvest
caused market participants to expect a world market price decrease,from just over US$3,000 to at worst $2,600 per tonne. But the cocoa pricewent down much further within months, to below US$2,000.
The 2015/16 season had led to a global supply deficit, reducing global
stocks to the lowest levels since 1985. After the 2016/17 season, thesituation changed; now there is a structural oversupply that could last for
years to come.1
At the beginning of the crisis, it can be argued that problems were
aggravated by mistakes of the cocoa authorities in the world’s largest
cocoa producer, Côte d’Ivôire (see box below). The speed of the pricedecline can be partially explained through some speculators panicking
and selling their cocoa investments, further destabilising the market.
The increasing use of algorithms being used by speculators at thestock market2 has also caused a significant increase of the speed ofspeculation, which is likely to have contributed to the speed of thedecline.
Since the collapse, cocoa has been steadily trading around the US$2,000
mark, with an upturn starting in February 2018 based on revised
forecasts; the oversupply in the ongoing harvesting season might be lesshigh than expected.

Possible Causes of Increased Production
Global production of cocoa has risen significantly in the previous years.
Ivorian cocoa production alone in 2016/2017 was 600,000 tonnes
higher than just three years before (a 40% increase at the country level,amounting to 15% of total global production)3. There are several reasonsfor this increased production.
After several years of bad weather conditions for cocoa due to an El
Niño and regional weather patterns not favourable for cocoa, weather
conditions in West Africa were exceptionally good for cocoa in 2016/17.

Another major factor is the large number of new cocoa farms that havebeen established in protected forests over the past five years that havestarted producing significant tonnages of cocoa, adding to the oversupply.
Additionally, a sector-wide focus on productivity increase and farmer
training in every company sustainability programme, coupled with higher
farm gate prices over the past years, has contributed to an increase of
production.
Lastly, though to a lesser degree, national policies to stimulate cocoa
production also saw an increase in two Latin America cocoa nations:
Ecuador and Peru.

Côte d’Ivôire’s role in the price decline
The Conseil du Café-Cacao (CCC), the state run Ivorian marketingboard, is responsible for the establishment and the execution ofprice stabilisation systems based on the forward sale of cocoa. The
implementation of a guaranteed minimum price in 2012 improved
the situation of farmers, specifically in remote areas, who previously
often received only a small percentage of the world market price fromlocal traders. The minimum price rose from 725 CFA (US$1,229) in theharvesting season 2012/13 to 1,100 CFA (US$1,881)* at the beginningof the season 2016/17.
However, during the 2016/17 harvest season, the CCC ran into major
problems.
The CCC forward-sells approximately 80% of the expected harvest,
months before the crop is harvested, with the remaining 20% to be
sold during the season. At the time of the forward sales for the 2016/17
season, the world market price was roughly US$3,000.
Approximately 350,000 tonnes of cocoa were sold to local national
traders. Unlike the large multinational traders, they were not obliged
to hedge (or presell) their cocoa. Having forward-bought at a price ofroughly US$ 3,000, they later faced a world market price of US$2,000.
Without sufficient financial reserves it became obvious by the end of2016 that most local traders would not take – and therefore not pay
for – the cocoa from middlemen or cooperatives. These local traders*

exchange rate October 20169

defaulted on their contracts, putting even more unsold cocoa onto amarket already in a state of oversupply.

10

By this time the price had gone down to US$2,000. But the CCC was
still guaranteeing a minimum price to farmers based on the US$3,000of the pre-sales. However, the 20% of the expected harvest – about
360,000 tonnes - that was not sold forward still had to be auctioned.
Because of the higher than expected harvest, there was also an
additional 500,000 tonnes of cocoa which came onto the market. The
350,000 tonnes that the unhedged local traders defaulted on further
exacerbated the problem. Possibly half the Ivorian crop of the 2016/17
season was all of a sudden ‘floating’ on the market.
Meanwhile, the global cocoa traders were aware of the existence of
hundreds of thousands tonnes of cocoa either unsold or defaulted on
by local traders. In a period of declining prices, they leaned back andwaited until the troubles of the CCC mounted and prices declined
further.4

Stalled demand
A stagnation of demand for cocoa in consuming countries has further
exacerbated the oversupply. Contrary to company projections only a few
years ago of rising global demand, demand for cocoa has been moreor less stable between 2012 and 2016. Economic crises in emerging
economies such as Brazil and Russia (where cocoa consumption
decreased), a shrinking appetite for cocoa in the USA and the stagnating
chocolate appetite of potential giants such as China and India, havecontributed to this stabilization5. In most European countries, the demandfor cocoa is saturated and might even decrease due to the ongoing
discussion about high amounts of sugar and fat in many chocolate
products.
Poverty deepens
Smallholder cocoa farmers in Côte d’Ivôire, already struggling withpoverty, have seen their income from cocoa (by far their most important
income source) decline by as much as 30%-40% from one year to the next.
Subsidies have protected farmers in Ghana, at least for the last two years,
while producers in other countries felt the price decline immediately.
Farmers cannot switch easily to another commodity when the price drops,
given the long life-span of cocoa trees and the fact that farmers do nothave any savings or social protection schemes or access to credit/finance.

Asymmetrical price transmission
Since the mid-1980’s, transmission of price fluctuations in cocoa has
been asymmetric; this means that while retail prices often rise quickly
when the price for cocoa goes up, they only drop slowly – if at all – when
cocoa prices go down.6 Though many companies and retailers claim theytransfer the price decrease to their clients this generally is not expected tohappen in full, neither does it happen immediately. This means that withfalling prices of cocoa beans, all participants in the value chain except
farmers are likely to see an increase of their profit margins, even if it is only
temporary.7
Farmers bear all the risks
While companies can hedge cocoa at the stock exchange and further
reduce the risks, farmers are at the losing end of the supply chain. Theybear virtually all the risks of price volatility, whilst having the weakest
economic reserves in the entire supply chain.
Where is the money going?
While company sustainability departments are investing hundreds ofmillions into projects over the years, their purchasing departments havesaved roughly US$1,000 per tonne of cocoa due to the price decline. This
adds up to approximately US$4,7 billion of reduced purchasing costs inthe 2017/2018 crop compared to the previous year. Though hard data isabsent, it is safe to assume that some actors are making a lot of money off
the price collapse, while farmers and sustainability suffer. Where did thismoney go?
Sustainability suffers
Though events have been too recent to produce conclusive data,
many experts in the sector expect that the price drop, and the ensuing
exacerbation of poverty, will have a severe impact on the sustainability
efforts of the sector. “The price decline of cocoa will de facto erase all of
the sustainability gains that have been achieved in the past ten years”, saida senior sector representative in March 2017 at a Chatham House rules
meeting in London, a sentiment echoed by many senior executives in thecocoa industry since.
Conclusions & Recommendations
Low prices (as well as price fluctuations) are a major threat to all efforts
to achieve sustainable cocoa sector. As such, the price decline after
September 2016 is one of the most urgent issues the sector should
address. Farmers bear the risks of a volatile price, while other market
actors have means to adapt and even make windfall profits.

11Social developments
Gender12

On average, in West Africa women run approximately a quarter ofthe cocoa plantations. Often, they have an even more limited accessthan men to land rights, extension services, credits and certification.
They are also often underrepresented in farmers’ organisations,public meetings and leadership roles in communities. Although there
are differences between the tasks of men and women, women are
engaged in most of the steps of cocoa production, from preparing
seedlings to selling beans. In addition to supporting cocoa production,
women are involved in household activities and food production, whichadds up to a heavy workload8. The standard-setting organisations, mostof the major company programs, and development projects run byNGOs or state agencies have included specific programs for women
into their agendas. However, in many cases a sustainable improvementof the situation of women also includes a change of mind of the men in
the communities. The transformation from traditional, often restrictive
customs to more equality between men and women needs greater
efforts than are underway presently. There is a major responsibility forgovernments in producing nations in this regard.

Living income

Since our focus on living income in the 2015 Cocoa Barometer, living
income and farmer livelihoods have become keystones in the cocoa
conversation, with some promising steps being taken.* This start of analignment should in the short term lead to coordinated activities toincrease farmer’s income levels.

Community of Practice
A broadly supported multi-stakeholder ‘Community of Practice’ on Living
Income** has become one of the central drivers for this conversation,
supporting the exchange of information and concrete research, as well
* The Cocoa Barometer 2015 provides a detailed description of the
background of the living income discussion.
** This Community of Practice is co-led by ISEAL, the Sustainable Food
Lab, and GIZ. Though it focuses on Living Income in many commodities,
cocoa is one of its focal areas.

as aligning a variety of disparate actors. Learning from the Global Living
Wage Coalition, and approaching the concept of smallholder farmer
income from a cross-commodity perspective, a lot of this conversation has
been focused around methodological questions, as well as setting out
important first priorities concerning data collection and research goals.

Company poverty commitments
In addition, several multinationals have made commitments to eliminate
poverty. Barry Callebaut, as part of their “Forever Chocolate” plan, havecommitted to eliminating structural poverty in their cocoa supply by 2025.
Mars’ “Sustainable in a Generation” plan has the stated ambition thateveryone in their extended supply chain should earn a sufficient income
for a decent living.
How these ambitions will be achieved is still unclear, and there isno evidence at present that farmers are earning more due to thesecommitments. In fact, there are very few policies developed or
implemented to achieve these goals. Still, this is a very late but positive
trend. A value chain that accepts structural poverty as inevitable can neverbe called sustainable.

Research
For a long time, there was not enough information available to be able todetermine what a living income should be. There are many variables thatneed to be taken into account, e.g. the number of household members,
the farm size, or the cost of living. These variables differ from region toregion, and a lot of the data was simply not available. However, Fairtrade
International’s recent report submits a first attempt to calculate a living
income for cocoa farmers in Côte d’Ivôire of $2.51 per day, and compares
this to actual farmers’ income of $0.78 per day. They conclude that a“household income is not sufficient to make a living income.” On average,
cocoa farmer households earn only 37% of a living income in rural Côte
d’Ivôire.9
The Global Living Wage Coalition, GIZ and the Sustainable Food Lab
are gathering data for a baseline on a living income for cocoa farmers
in Ghana and Côte d’Ivôire, based on the widely accepted Anker
Methodology. Results of this are expected in autumn 2018.

13

Complexity of income calculations and choices ofmethodology

14

The Cocoa Barometer 2015 published figures on per capita householdincome based on the available data from different studies at the time.
A recent study by KIT, which will be published after this Barometer goesto print, surveyed 1500 farmers each in Côte d’Ivôire and Ghana, andengaged participants in 38 focus group discussions in each country.
The study contributes to a growing body of knowledge on farmsizes, productivity, profitability and the poverty and wealth of cocoa
households.
Many KIT findings support those of previous studies, often adding
nuance or updating details. However, in some cases the KIT study
challenges certain beliefs, based on chosen methodologies. They
triangulates three approaches to measuring wealth and poverty – 1)
a household income model populated by data from the study 2) the
Poverty Probability Index (PPI) and 3) the DHS (Demographic and
Health Survey) Wealth Index.
KIT argues that whilst many cocoa farmers are relatively poor, most
cocoa farmers in Ghana and Côte d’Ivôire do not fall below national
or international poverty lines.* Rather than being in extreme poverty,
farmers explain that cocoa income enables them to cover basic living
costs and allows them to make modest investments that help them getahead.
Where the KIT, the Cocoa Barometer, Fairtrade’s recent report andmany others agree, however, is that cocoa farmers are falling well shortof achieving the necessary objective of a living income, a concept thatis becoming increasingly accepted as the key objective for the sector.

Conclusions & Recommendations
Living income and farmer livelihoods have become keystones in thecocoa conversation. For this conversation to progress, companies needto commit to end structural poverty in their supply chains, and make data
available. Not only dialogue, but also coordinated activities to reducepoverty levels among farmers are essential.
* It is important to mention that the KIT research was conducted prior to
the 2016/17 price collapse, and reduced income, especially in Côte
d’Ivôire, is not factored into their analysis.

Child labour*

Not a single company or government is anywhere near the sectorwide objective to eliminate child labour. It is high time for efforts to
be increased. In that light, it is important to stress that child labour is a
symptom of deeper problems; without tackling systemic poverty and alack of local infrastructures, child labour will not be eradicated.

More child labour
The release of the 2015 Tulane Report on the worst forms of child labourin cocoa production caused a stir. Despite more than a decade of efforts,
the numbers on child labour are still very high; although there was a slight
relative decline of child labour, an increase in cocoa production had led
to an absolute increase of child labourers to 2.1 million children in West
Africa alone.
Root causes
As a result, thinking around child labour in the cocoa supply chain has
been changing over the past years. Random audits and adopting a zerotolerance policy on paper for any forms of child labour seem to havea counter-productive effect, making child labour hidden, but no lessprevalent. Root causes – such as farmer poverty, absence of and accessto good schools, inadequate local infrastructure, lack of awareness etc. –must be addressed.
Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation Systems
Some companies are starting to communicate more transparently about
the size of the problem of child labour in their supply chains. Nestlé, incollaboration with the International Cocoa Initiative (ICI), has piloted Child
Labour Monitoring and Remediation Systems (CLMRS). Several othercompanies are now incorporating a form of CLMRS into their supply
chains, with around 100,000 currently registered with ICI, and around
400,000 targeted for 2020 (which is between 15% and 20% of all children
working in cocoa).
The initial results of these CLMRSs are promising; of a sample group of athousand children, a child labour reduction of about 50% was achieved inthree years.10*

It is important to differentiate between child/light work, child labour and theworst forms of child labour. Child/light work can be summarised as a childthat sometimes helps out on a farm; with work is that is not hazardous tochildren, and that does not interfere with their schooling or their possibility

to ‘be a child’. Child labour is work that – although it is not hazardous – doesinterfere with the child’s schooling. The Worst Forms of Child Labour (WFCL)
is the official definition of the forms of child labour that are hazardous to achild’s wellbeing, and/or constitute trafficking, slavery, forced labour, etc.

15

CLMRS explained

16

A Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation System, or CLMRS, is acommunity-based instrument to identify and remediate child labour.
Per community, a local liaison regularly visits every family, and speaks toboth parents and children. When child labour is spotted or self-declaredby the child, this is flagged in a central database, analysed, and suitable
remediation is then implemented. Various forms of remediation are
possible, from extending birth certificates or school material, to startingan additional income-generating project for the women of the village.
Once a child is entered into this system, the child will continue to bemonitored for school attendance and the occurrence of child labour.

Scaling up to national interventions
In a parallel process to the needed scaling up of CLMRSs at company level– as discussed elsewhere in this Barometer, ensuring Human Rights Due
Diligence is first and foremost a corporate responsibility – there is a rolefor national governments as well. The CLMRS is a useful tool to get insights
and evidence on underlying issues and root causes and the needed
remediation actions. However, it is a labour and capital intensive process,and finding the capable manpower to scale up a monitoring system village
by village for an entire country is an almost impossible task. As such, anatural next step should be for national governments – in collaboration
with the companies – to take the interventions that had the most effect,
and deploy them at national scale through coordinated campaigns (i.e.
strengthening national access to education, extensive school canteensprograms, driving birth registration, etc.). This would optimise the use of
the scarce resources available. Additionally, it is important to harmonize
government-based national child labour monitoring systems (suchas SOSTECI in Côte d’Ivôire and GCLMS in Ghana) with company-run
CLMRSs.
Harkin Engel
The Harkin Engel framework is the continuation of the 2001 Harkin Engel
Protocol, an industry commitment to end child labour in cocoa by 2005
that the signatories did not even come close to fulfilling. Despite thedeadline being pushed back several times to 2020 it is now nearing its
deadline, and the intended objective of a 70% reduction of child labour
will be impossible to achieve unless the signatories – large chocolate andcocoa companies, as well as producing governments – step up their efforts
significantly.

Conclusions & Recommendations
Child labour has increased with the growth of cocoa production, and theprice decline will most likely also negatively affect child labour. ThoughChild Labour Monitoring and Remediation Systems are useful projectbased approaches, more comprehensive national interventions will benecessary to achieve the necessary scale. As child labour is a symptom ofdeeper problems, the income of cocoa farmers must increase, and local
infrastructure must be improved. It is a matter of urgency for efforts to be
increased – in funding as well as in ambition and political will – as current
levels of engagement will not succeed in eliminating child labour.

Deforestation, land use and climate change

Historically, cocoa has been a ‘‘slash-and-burn’ crop. Rainforests would be
cut down for new cocoa fields, and after the trees grew old in forty or fifty
years, the cocoa planters would move on to new parts of the forest andstart the cycle all over again. However, this is no longer an option; morethan ninety per cent of West Africa’s original forests are gone, and any
remaining forest must be protected. The challenge is now to turn cocoa
into a sedentary crop.

Deforestation
Global cocoa production has increased fourfold since 1960. This has
been directly at the expense of native forests, specifically in West Africa,
but also in Indonesia and Latin America. The most affected countries are
Ghana and Côte d’Ivôire. Over the past year, deforestation has become
a hot topic in the cocoa sector, with the industry-led launch of the Cocoa
and Forests Initiative, the NGO Mighty Earth publishing a landmark reporton this topic11, and many individual companies claiming to engage inanti-deforestation projects. This deforestation can be equally attributed tocorporate disinterest in the environmental effects of their supply of cheapcocoa, and to an almost completely absent government enforcement ofenvironmentally protected areas.
Côte d’Ivôire
In Côte d’Ivôire, the area covered by rainforest decreased from 16
million hectares in 1960 – which was half of the country – to less than
2 million hectares in 2010.12 The rate of destruction of primary forests
has further increased since then, not least due to a civil war that led totens of thousands of migrant cocoa farmers being forced to leave theirplantations and look for new land. Many of them went into national parksand ‘forêts classées’, protected areas, where they cut down the rain forestand planted cocoa trees.13

17

18

An absence of government enforcement of protected areas combinedwith a willingness of companies to turn a blind eye provided an enabling
environment allowing unfettered deforestation to continue. It is an open
secret in Côte d’Ivôire that more than a million people are living in parks
and forêts classées, attracted by the possibilities of earning an income.
These illegal cocoa villages often have clinics, schools, cell towers, andoperate in the open, with full knowledge of all local authorities.
In the past two years, government evictions have taken place, drawing
criticism on their brutality and disregard for human rights.14 It is essentialthat going forward, the Ivorian government couples ambitious climate
protection with a clear protection of human rights.
According to different sources – including government officials – at least
30% or even 40% of the Ivorian cocoa harvest currently comes frominside classified or protected areas, which technically makes it illegal.
This has devastating consequences not only for biodiversity and the local
microclimate (including desertification and changing weather patterns),
but is also the main cause for the present oversupply of cocoa: in the past
two to three years, many of the newly established farms have started tocome into production, turning out significant amounts of cocoa.

Ghana
The situation in Ghana is similar, with both legal and illegal deforestation
for cocoa in protected areas. The increase of farm areas including cocoa
plantations has led to a loss of rainforests at a pace of 2% per year during
the last decades.15 The rate even accelerated to 6.1% between 2000 and2011, with cocoa as an important driver.16 The country has lost most of its
primary forests and the few remaining protected areas are endangered.
Land tenure
Many farmers have no official land titles, often having received the rightto use the land according to informal or traditional tenure systems. But
lack of tenure security is a major constraint to a variety of necessary
sustainability measures. In many cocoa growing communities, tenure iseven more problematic for women, who historically and culturally struggle
to obtain the right to own land. Though women do a lot of the work, theyoften are not the decision-makers on the farms.
Unclear land ownership can lead to lower investments, as tenure
insecurity is a major barrier to obtaining credits to invest in farms. Even
if investments can be obtained, it is not certain the land remains theirs
if farmers start to fell cocoa trees, either to rejuvenate the plantation orLand Use

19

A segment of original rainforest about the size of theNetherlands was cut down to grow the amount of cocoa
similar to that consumed in the European Union.

to diversify production. Even the removal of diseased trees or natural
disasters that destroy trees can lead to the loss of land rights, as canmaking the move towards agroforestry. Ownership of forest trees is, atleast in West Africa, often connected to land titles. This is a barrier tocrop diversification, and especially to agroforestry and other necessaryreforestation processes.17 18

Tenure in Côte d’Ivôire
Land tenure in Côte d’Ivôire is as much about identity as it is aboutownership, and is often disputed between traditional users of land andmigrants (be they internal migrants from the north of the country or fromneighbouring countries). Many migrant farmers have lived on the farms
for decades but still have no formal right to the land. During the civil war,
many of them were forced to leave the land they – and sometimes theirforefathers – had converted, going into the uninhabited national parks,
where they set up new cocoa plantations. This is partly the cause of thecurrent oversupply and price collapse.

20

Tenure in Ghana
Unspecific or out-dated regulations in the land laws can lead todevastating consequences for farmers. Farmers in Ghana for example
could not own the timber trees on their farms until recently. Therefore,
local chiefs or other local authorities often gave logging companies
permission to cut down remaining timber trees on cocoa plantations,causing the destruction of a large part of the cocoa farm. In 2016 the law
was changed – now farmers can register timber trees, but in a complicatedand bureaucratic system. Such tenure challenges discourage farmers
to invest in their farms, thereby causing a barrier to more sustainablesystems.

Pensions and land reform
Many cocoa farmers are ageing, but old age does not exempt farmers
from having to do the backbreaking labour. A possible solution could
be to introduce national pension schemes in West Africa, much likewhat was done in land-redistribution policies in Western Europe in the
1960’s and 1970’s.
Elderly farmers would be able to receive a lifetime pension, in returnfor giving up their farming land to the government. The government
could then use this land to instil tenure reforms, making new – andlarger – farms available to a younger generation, many of whom could
be offered these farms in lieu of their vacating the cocoa farms incurrently classified forests. An extra requirement could be that the new
farmer commits to an agroforestry approach for at least the first yearsof the newly established farm. This could also be combined with a setof technological improvements and extension services to make the
new farm more professional.
Such a solution could be a win-win situation for all parties involved;
elderly farmers can have an opportunity to stop labouring, younger
farmers can become modern and professional cocoa farms, protected
forests are made available for reforestation, yields can go up, andgovernments have a means to enable national agricultural policies toreduce overproduction.

Climate Change

Over the past years, the main cocoa producing regions globally haveseen weather negatively impacting cocoa production. For example, theHarmattan – a dry wind blowing from the Sahara towards the Gulf ofGuinea – has been lasting longer, and been encroaching in areas where
it previously did not come often. Adverse weather patterns from time totime are not unusual, but the accumulation of these events during thepast years is striking, with a strong correlation between deforestation andrainfall loss.19

The loss of forests and shadow trees amplify the impact of climatechange, especially in West Africa, where natural forest cover in Ghana,Côte d’Ivôire and Burkina Faso has declined by more than 70% in thepast three decades.
Climate change – and specifically microclimate change in West Africa – isalready having a massive impact on cocoa production. Research by CIAT
and others has also shown that large parts of cocoa lands in West Africa
will become much less appropriate for cocoa production in the coming
decades, due to climate change.20

Land degradation

Artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASM), or Galamsey, has becomea major problem in cocoa growing areas in Ghana. In recent years, thenumber of miners – and the damage they cause – has risen steeply. Risingmineral prices and the struggle to earn a living from agriculture have led
to explosive growth in the artisanal and small-scale mining sector globally.
The use of mercury to extract the gold is causing severe environmental
damage; the poisoned wastewater is not suitable to drink or to use for
irrigation, and contaminated mud run-off from the mines causes additional
destruction to rivers and lakes.
In many cocoa-growing regions where there is gold, farmers short ofmoney allow small-scale miners to use their land for mining, in exchange
for cash compensation, leading to a further loss of land for cocoa farming.
Until recently, this usually meant working with shovels and simple pans,
but some now come with bulldozers, huge pumps and workers.
Côte d’Ivôire is increasingly confronted with these issues as well. Not onlyis the number of small-scale miners rising there too, but also some of therivers coming from Ghana bring their pollution into the neighbouring
country.

21

22

The logging industry also adds to deforestation and land degradation,with the rights to cut timber trees often not being controlled by the cocoa
farmers on whose land these trees stand. A careful first step has just beentaken in Ghana, where some cocoa farmers recently obtained the rights
to non-cocoa trees on their land. However, this process was very long andtime-consuming. If such developments are to happen at scale, a lot more
support needs to be given to farmers, and the bureaucracy around it must
be greatly simplified.

Conclusions & Recommendations
In dealing with deforestation, governments and industry must address
several important elements. National deforestation plans are notenough; a global moratorium on deforestation is needed to ensure
cocoa transitions from a slash-and-burn crop to a sedentary commodity.
This must be coupled with land tenure reform, and policies to stimulate
agroforestry. It is essential that human rights are upheld when protecting
forests; forced evictions coupled with violence have no place in asustainable cocoa sector.

Infrastructure, Public Spending and Corruption

The past years have seen governments claiming to roll out infrastructure
to rural areas. These investments are desperately needed, as many cocoa
growing areas have a dire shortage of good schools, roads, healthcare,access to market, and many other public goods, specifically in West Africa.
According to government claims, roads, ambulances, schools, extension
services are increasingly available in rural communities.
However, there is a gap between the claims and actual delivered services.
Last year, a statement was issued by Ghana’s COCOBOD on their ‘cocoa
roads’ project; many contracts had been awarded by public servants atcosts higher than the organisation could afford, and at least 30 of the 230
awarded projects could not be traced to any town or community.21 At thetime of publication of this Barometer, the previous CEO of COCOBOD
was defendant in several lawsuits on corruption charges around diverting
tens of millions of dollars.
Whilst these examples come from Ghana, they are symptomatic ofa broader problem affecting all cocoa producing nations, where
public funds seem to be misused. Anti-corruption measures are only
implemented piecemeal, usually after a change of power due to elections,such as the Ghanaian example above.

There is little transparency or accountability on how contracts are awarded
to manufacturers and processors, as well as whether local traders arepaying farmers the farm gate price. Though hard evidence is absent, it isan open secret that local traders have regularly undercut the minimum
farm gate price in Côte d’Ivôire since the price collapse began. In many
countries, traders often cheat farmers by adjusting their scales to weighthe cocoa bags.
Not least due to these shortcomings, many companies have invested
directly in local infrastructure, such as building new schools. Though such
efforts are easy to report on, the long-term sustainability and the impact ofthe measures is often not transparent.
It is a matter of importance to address the shortcomings in governancein cocoa producing countries, and for the sector to come up with acomprehensive strategy to foster transparency and accountability within
the cocoa supply chain.

Conclusions & Recommendations
Transparency and accountability is needed around public spending andsupport measures for cocoa farmers. It is a matter of importance or thesector to come up with a comprehensive strategy to foster transparency
and accountability.

Legislative Frameworks

Voluntary collaboration
Voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives by companies alone
cannot prevent human rights violations and environmental degradation.
However, that is all we seem to have. National cocoa platforms in
consuming countries – such as GISCO, or the Dutch and Swiss platforms
for sustainable cocoa – are based on voluntary commitments. Major
industry collaborations such as Cocoa Action and the Cocoa and Forests
Initiative – as well as all of the voluntary standards – all operate on abasis of voluntary collaboration. In consuming nations, there is no legal
threshold for sustainability, and although there are universal human rights,
there are very few mandatory enforcement mechanisms in supply chains.
This allows for many free riders in the system: every company that does
not have comprehensive sustainability goals, is free riding on the fact thatsome do.

23

24

Legislation
Some of the core challenges in cocoa production will require legislationin consuming countries, which are the home to almost all the major
chocolate companies, both at national and at regional levels (such as theEU). The goal of such legislation should be to ensure that corporations
that operate in those countries are compelled to respect human rights andthe environment worldwide, not only within company operations, but for
their whole supply chain. This would entail the establishment of a Human
Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) process to identify, prevent, mitigate andaccount for how they address impacts on human rights as grounded in the
United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP).
Due diligence in this context includes a risk assessment, measures toprevent and eliminate possible human rights violations and environmental
damage, as well as comprehensive reporting on the policies in place andactions taken. Additionally, consuming nations and producing nations
alike should set up legal mechanisms for victims of human rights violations
to have an ‘access to remedy’.
Lack of alignment
Presently, at least 14 member states of the European Union aredeveloping – or have already finished – national action plans to implement
the UNGPs. Other countries around the world are also working on
programs to guarantee human rights within the value chains. The lackof alignment in these efforts makes it easier for companies that want toavoid responsibility to campaign against mandatory legislation or to findloopholes. The EU should try to coordinate at least the efforts in Europe tocreate a level playing field.
National legislation
In early 2017, the French government adopted the “Duty of Vigilance”
law, requiring multinationals operating in France over a certain thresholdof employees in their supply chain, to establish mechanisms to prevent
human rights violations in their supply chains. A child labour law iscurrently under review by the Dutch Senate, after having been approvedin the Second Chamber. In Switzerland, a law on mandatory humanrights due diligence is currently being discussed in Parliament. The
German government introduced a voluntary National Action Plan, which
includes a review in 2020. If at least 50% of companies with more than
500 employees don‘t report within this National Action Plan, a law might
be introduced to make such reporting mandatory. In 2016, the US Senate
closed a loophole in the Tariff Act of 1930 that previously allowed theimport of products containing ingredients made with slave labour if U.S.
production was insufficient to meet U.S. consumers’ demand. The 2015
UK Modern Slavery Act, though focussing largely on slavery and trafficking

within the United Kingdom, requires big businesses to publicly report on
their efforts to ‘stop the use of slave labour by its suppliers’. In Australia,
similar legislation is now being introduced in the form of a Modern Slavery
Bill.
Although these legislative changes are positive and may have a longterm collective impact, they are still new and their focus on due diligence
does not make up for an overall lack of any means to drive remedy whenproblems are found. Additionally, it will be important to understandwhether and how these regulatory requirements benefit or exclude
smallholder cocoa farmers.

UN Treaty on human rights
In a parallel process, a group of states led by Ecuador and South Africa
are pressuring within the United Nations to move away from voluntary
guidelines and implement a treaty on human rights in value chains. Thiseffort has met fierce opposition of industrialised countries, including the
EU member states.
Conclusions & Recommendations
Voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives by companies alone
cannot prevent human rights violations and environmental degradation.
Some of the core challenges will require legislation in the countries thatare home to the largest companies. Such legislation should be based on
the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
There should be coordination for a common process, preferably at EU
level, or even at UN level.

Sector-wide efforts

Increased dialogue but little impact
Various global cocoa conferences and dialogues have created recurring
opportunities for decision makers and thought leaders in the sector toexchange ideas and align on urgent issues. Increasingly, farmers andcivil society representatives are being included as speakers and content
providers for these meetings. In some cocoa producing countries, anincrease in dialogue is also taking place; Côte d’Ivôire has instituted apublic private partnership platform with working groups and regularmeetings, with Ghana planning to revitalise a similar multi-stakeholder
initiative. Indonesia, Peru and Ecuador already have regular meetingsof stakeholders. Not only has the conversation started to include moreof the relevant actors, it has also become more constructive, looking forsolutions and acknowledging challenges, where problems were previously
denied or downplayed. While this is a positive step forward, this increased25dialogue seems not to have led to any substantial impact; farmers are still
poor, child labour is still rife, gender inequality remains the rule rather thanthe exception, and environmental degradation is a daily reality.

26

Emergency Meetings
Following the collapse in prices, the International Cocoa Organisation(ICCO) convened a series of emergency meetings, bringing together
top representatives from cocoa producing nations, multinationals,
farmer organisations, and civil society. Though initially this speedy
response provided the impression that short-term actions might betaken to alleviate the worst effects of the price collapse, the process has
slowed down, with few concrete measures as a result. Cocoa producing
government representatives did not go much farther than expressing
unrealistic intentions to solve the oversupply problem by increasing cocoa
consumption in producing nations; the chocolate industry stated that they
were not going to collectively change any policies or practices despite theclear risk of increased poverty for cocoa farmers.
Joint Cocoa Commission
More recently, the Ivorian and Ghanaian governments have set up a
Joint Cocoa Commission. This new platform – hosted by the African
Development Bank – is aiming to align and reform cocoa policies in
the world’s two leading cocoa producing countries. A week later, thepresidents of Ghana and Côte d’Ivôire signed an agreement to start
extensive cooperation on aligning their cocoa strategies, including
national minimum prices and supply management intentions. Thoughin early stages, alignment on farm gate prices, buffer-stock mechanisms
to protect against extreme market volatility, a joint strategy to combat
the Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus disease, and other activities to create anenabling environment for policy change seem to be part of these steps.
With previous attempts at alignment failing due to a combination of alack of political will and the integrity required for such collaborations to
succeed, we cautiously welcome this development.
Cocoa Action
When Cocoa Action, the WCF-hosted joint sustainability strategy platform
for large chocolate and cocoa companies, was launched several years
ago, it was welcomed as a first step in highly needed pre-competitive
collaboration. Participating companies are starting to align projects andgoals based on the key performance indicators identified, bringing to lightsome of the weaknesses of Cocoa Action. It only measures productivity
increase, while failing to track net incomes or trends in dollars earned fromcocoa. Unless farmer livelihood becomes a key measurement within thissystem, Cocoa Action will not be credible as an instrument to alleviatepoverty. Cocoa Action only reports on an aggregated level, meaning that
individual company activities are not communicated. The risk of free riders
or individual member companies not taking their share of the burden issignificant. The scope of Cocoa Action also leaves a lot to be desired; itstarget of ‘reaching’ 300,000 farmers is only a fraction of the number offarmers that supply the members of Cocoa Action. Whether Cocoa Action
is on track to even delivering on this target of 300,000 farmers is unclear;initial reporting on progress suggests this is not the case. A further pointof concern is that other actors, such as governments, civil society, andfarmers have had very little input into the operation and future design ofthe system. This has resulted in a considerable bias of solutions towards
industry-favoured approaches. Moving forward, a more inclusive andmulti-stakeholder is essential.

Cocoa and Forests Initiative
In collaboration between the World Cocoa Foundation, the IDH
Sustainable Trade Initiative, and the Prince of Wales, the global cocoa
sector in 2017 announced a new platform against deforestation; the
Cocoa and Forests Initiative. It is a platform between industry, major
donors, and the governments of Ghana and Côte d’Ivôire. At the Bonn
COP23 summit in November, all actors pledged to bring a halt to
deforestation in these two countries, coupled with individual country
action plans.
This is an important step in a region that has seen almost all of its forests
cut down. However, a global moratorium on deforestation for cocoa
should be part of the initiative, to ensure that no new rainforests get cut
down in other cocoa producing countries. Cocoa has been found to be adriver of substantial deforestation in Indonesia, Cameroon, Ecuador, Peru,
and beyond.

Global Cocoa Agenda
One of the major outcomes of the first World Cocoa Conference in 2012
was the Global Cocoa Agenda (GCA). This is a roadmap towards a moresustainable cocoa sector, outlining roles, responsibilities and actions for
all major stakeholder groups involved in a sustainable cocoa sector; fromproducing governments and consuming governments to industry actors,
civil society, and farmers.
It is far from perfect, but the Global Cocoa Agenda and its annexes are
the most comprehensive attempt at defining what a ‘shared responsibility’for sustainable cocoa production could look like. Though collaborations
on specific topics – such as the Cocoa and Forests Initiative, the Harkin
Engel Framework or the Joint Cocoa Commission - often go deeper and27

are more ambitious, this is the only program to try to encompass all of thevarious challenges in the cocoa sector, and with all of the actors.

28

However, six years later a decent monitoring system for the GCA is still
missing, which has allowed many actors to misrepresent progress madeand responsibility taken. The challenges in setting up such a framework arenot so much technical – how to measure which actions should not be toocomplicated – but much more political; transparency and accountability arenecessary steps that must be made by all involved actors.

Research
In previous Barometers, we have often stressed the need for publicly
available, recent, and reliable data on topics such as farmer income, costs,
and child labour. In that light, there is a positive trend of research being
published on topics such as farmer income and impact of certification.
However, it is striking that much of the available information has beencollected and paid for by NGOs and development organisations, while
many major companies collect comprehensive sets of data without
publishing them. The cocoa sector will not be able to know whether efforts
are sufficient to tackle the challenges it faces until the size of the problems
is clear.
Farmer organisation
Almost all of the sector-wide efforts in cocoa reach only those farmers
that are already (loosely) organised in cooperatives. The majority of cocoa
farmers, however, are not organised, and are not being reached. Concerted
sector-wide strategies must be developed to reach these ‘higher hanging’
fruits.
Alignment
Many initiatives and approaches have been described in this chapter.
Work needs to be undertaken to align these activities, especially in regards
to a comprehensive set of common indicators that enable objective
measurement of impact and progress of the collective efforts. Alongwith this alignment, they need to be updated, to ensure that they are
responding to the current environment, and are sufficiently ambitious.
Technical solutions to a political problem
Almost all of the current efforts to increase farmer income are based ontechnical solutions (increased production, crop diversification, use ofagrochemicals and new planting material, increased efforts to improve
farming techniques). However, the challenges facing the cocoa sector – andalmost all other commodities as well – are often not technical, but deal withpower and political economy, such as price formation, the asymmetricalbargaining power of farmers, unbridled market concentration ofmultinationals, and a lack of transparency and accountability.

Conclusions & Recommendations
While there is an increased dialogue within the cocoa sector, this dialogue
seems not to have led to any substantial impact. The number of sectorwide efforts proves that there are still major problems. National platforms,
international platforms, subject specific platforms all exist beside eachother. Much more alignment is necessary.
Almost all of the efforts in the cocoa sector are based on technicalsolutions. However, the challenges facing the cocoa sector are often nottechnical, but deal with power and political economy. Tackling politicalproblems with technical solutions will not foster a sustainable cocoa
sector, but simply install another form of a business-as-usual scenario.

Developments in Producing Countries

Côte d’Ivôire
The Ivorian engagement in sustainability recently has been dominatedby two major discussions: the collapse of the price of cocoa anddeforestation.
At the beginning of April 2017, the CCC had to lower the farm gate
price from 1,100 CFA to 700 CFA per kilo (from around $1.77 to around$1.13 per kilo)*. Even then, according to many off-record witnesses, theguaranteed price has not been enforced since the onset of the price crisis.
The reduction in cocoa export taxes also made the Ivorian government
cut budgets across the board by nearly 10%.** The handling of the pricecollapse has led to a major overhaul of top management of the CCC, withall its senior executives being replaced over the course of 2017. What thiswill do for the future engagement of the CCC in sustainability in the cocoa
sector is unclear at the time of writing.
In collaboration with the Cocoa and Forests initiative, the Ivoriangovernment has now set up an action plan to combat deforestation.
*

Exchange rate March 2017** It didn’t help that – at the same time as the price collapse and declining cocoa
revenue – the Ivorian government had to deal with army mutinies and major
strikes of civil servants, the former of which have been paid off at astronomicalcosts. https://www.reuters.com/article/ivorycoast-economy/update-2-hit-byfalling-cocoa-prices-ivory-coast-slashes-budget-idUSL8N1HS29L

29

30

The government’s enforced protection of designated classified areas willbe essential. At the same time, previous violent evictions of smallholder
communities from protected forests, such as the tens of thousands offarmers evicted from Mount Peko in July 201622, make clear that forest
protection must go hand in hand with ensuring that the human rights
of farmers are respected when the government moves to preserve theenvironment. Recent policy changes by the CCC seem to acknowledge
the Ivorian role in the current oversupply, with a moratorium on planting
material being instated for all of the country and quite a sizeable amountof land designated for the removal of cocoa trees, although it is unclear
what will happen with this land in the future.

Ghana
After the elections in late 2016 brought about a change of government,
many members from the senior staff of the COCOBOD were fired due
to allegations of corruption and fraud. Programs originally meant tosupport farmers in cocoa producing regions, like the corruption ridden
road-building scheme, were stopped or scaled down. Though this is agood thing, it is essential that anti-corruption measures be continued
throughout the entire duration of this government, not just as a politically
expedient means to create a break with a previous administration.
The COCOBOD and the Ghanaian government have organised multistakeholder discussions on how to proceed with the sector, suggesting thepossibility of policy changes on agrochemicals, seedlings, and pricing.
The price decline has had major effects. Due to a combination of forward
sales and a stabilisation fund that purportedly was financed throughprevious years of higher cocoa prices, COCOBOD has been able tomaintain a stable minimum price during the 2016/17 and 2017/2018
seasons. Though this is an excellent way to alleviate the immediate effectsof the price volatility on smallholder farmers, it is increasingly stimulating
cross-border smuggling from Côte d’Ivôire. At the same time, it is a costly
exercise. The effect of a stable price in Ghanaian cedi, the local currency,
is reduced by the high inflation in Ghana, the COCOBOD and Ghanaian
government are presently losing hundreds of millions of dollars as they
are not able to cover costs and collect taxes as usual.

Nigeria
For several years, the Nigerian government has had intentions to double
or even triple cocoa production. Despite these plans, cocoa production
has more or less remained stable. There is no aligned policy of the
responsible ministries of the federal government and the governments ofthe cocoa producing states. There are plans to set up a Cocoa Corporation

of Nigeria (CCN), which would be governed mainly by the private sector
and would support farmers to set up a sustainable cocoa sector. Though
all stakeholders in Nigeria are aware of the urgent need to invest into thecocoa sector to make it a thriving economy, sector reform is not making
progress due to unclear roles and responsibilities.

Cameroon
The farmers in the liberalised cocoa market in Cameroon were also
affected immediately by the decrease of the cocoa price. Similarly to
Nigeria, there is an ongoing discussion in Cameroon as to whether or not
the government should reform the market. Presently, responsibilities are
split between different ministries and umbrella organisations of producers,
traders and exporters. Many stakeholders are calling for a major reform of
the political framework of the cocoa sector.
EcuadorCocoa production in Ecuador grew significantly during the last years, andthe country is now the most important producer in Latin America. The
previous government reformed the institutional framework of the sector
and set up policies to support farmers within a liberalised system. It also
supported local producers to set up production facilities and develop own
chocolate brands. Many cocoa farmers work on diversified plantations
and invested in higher yielding cocoa varieties. Additionally, the country
produces roughly two thirds of the world harvest of Fine or Flavour Cocoa.
While the government tries to support farmers, specifically those living inremote areas are still dependent on local traders who often pay relatively
low prices. This has worsened significantly since the decrease of the world
market price. After elections in mid-2017, a new government has taken
power, its policies on cocoa are still uncertain at the time of writing.
Peru
Peru is a relatively new player on the international cocoa market. The
country has a long history of cocoa production for local markets and has
seen a very strong increase in cocoa production within the last years. Even
though it is still small compared specifically to Côte d’Ivôire and Ghana,
the country might play a more and important role on the cocoa market
in the future. The government is encouraging farmers to increase cocoa
production, especially with massive funding by USAID, which supports
farmers replacing coca with cocoa.
Indonesia
Despite the Indonesian government’s stated aim to increase cocoa
production massively – there are published ambitions to become thebiggest cocoa producer worldwide – cocoa production in Indonesia has

31

32

steadily declined over recent years. Despite receiving a relatively highpercentage of the cocoa world market price, farmers are leaving the cocoa
sector and changing to crops that are more lucrative or to jobs outside of
agriculture. Meanwhile, the local cocoa processing industry was stimulated
by a tax on exports of raw cocoa beans, thereby stimulating grinding
companies to set up factories. Nowadays, there is an overcapacity ofgrinding factories in Indonesia. To keep its cocoa processing industry
viable, the country is now a net cocoa importer, of especially West African
beans.

Cocoa production increase:
Global overproducion / harvest increase Côte d’Ivoire

Globaloverproduction
300,000

metric tonnes

Côte d’Ivoire
harvests increase
400,000

Source: ICCO, Quarterly Bulletin of Cocoa Statistics.

Conclusions & Recommendations
Producing nations should alignment cocoa policies – including supply
management and holistic agricultural policies – to ensure significant
improvements for cocoa farmers. Transparency and integrity are key
principles within this alignment.

Developments in Consuming Countries

Western Europe, the United States, and Australasia are not only the largest
bloc of consuming nations; they are also the seats for almost all of theheadquarters for the large cocoa and chocolate multinationals. As such,they have a doubly important role to play in making the cocoa sector
respect human rights and protect the environment.

Consumer awarenessOver the last decade, consumer awareness of issues surrounding
cocoa production has increased. Fuelled by numerous campaigns,
particularly focused on child labour and more recently deforestation,
media and public awareness is a major driving force behind the moveto (higher) standards and certification in the chocolate industry. At thesame time, such campaigns can run the risk of overly simplifying someof the underlying reasons driving child labour and deforestation, such as
poverty and lack of infrastructure. Solutions to these issues will require
multifaceted approaches.
National platforms
National platforms have proved to be a valuable instrument to stimulate
the dialogue between the different stakeholders along the value chain.
However, the chocolate industry comprises many players of global andregional scope. Therefore, a stronger focus on multi-stakeholder dialogues
on a European or global level could be a step forward. Organised ina transparent and efficient way, such an initiative could facilitate theexchange of the experiences of the national platforms. At the same time,
dialogue platforms also consume a lot of personal and financial resources,
creating barriers for NGOs to actively take part, often also excluding
farmers from participating, while companies generally have moreresources to do so. Dialogue platforms are not an end in itself; they are
only worth the effort if they lead to real change on the ground.
The largest and most active national platform is the German Sustainable
Cocoa Initiative (GISCO). Though it is the most active, there still is a clear
lack of ambition; the only quantified goal is to increase the amount ofcertified cocoa to 70% by 2020. Its pilot project in Côte d’Ivôire, Pro
Planteurs uses a lot of resources, but it is unclear whether this programme
will have the desired impact and if it can serve as a role model for holistic
approaches.
Despite being a front runner several years ago, the Dutch national
platform “Choco Working Group” has slowed down considerably, mostly
revolving around monitoring a commitment to a roll out of 100% certified
cocoa consumption by 2025. The group is currently evaluating how

33

34

the Choco Working Group can be revived, and what that would meanin terms of ambitions, organisation and actions. It remains to be seen
whether the Choco Working Group can add value for members on top ofother (international) multi-stakeholder platforms that bring stakeholders
together more regularly and have a more focused and effective exchange.
Recently, the Swiss platform for sustainable cocoa was set up. However,its lack of ambitions is disappointing, considering the importance andsize of the Swiss chocolate sector globally. Rather than focus on thevalue chain of Swiss companies, the platform limits its sustainability goals
to the cocoa products that are physically imported into Switzerland,
thereby disregarding cocoa traded, processed and manufactured into
chocolate by Swiss companies abroad. Moreover, there is no definitionof ‘sustainable cocoa’, neither is there a commitment to tackling key
problems in the cocoa sector.
It is disappointing that there is still no significant coordinated action
on steps forward in many other major European consuming andmanufacturing countries such as Belgium, the United Kingdom, France,and Italy.
In the United States, the Department of Labor is continuing their workwithin the Child Labor Cocoa Coordinating Group (CLCCG), providing
annual overviews of progress made by companies in tackling child labour.
The CLCCG has now commissioned the University of Chicago to set up asurvey on the incidence of the worst forms of child labour in West Africa’s
cocoa production. It does not seem likely that there will be an American
national platform like some of its European counterparts any time in thenear future. Although Green America and the International Labor Rights
Forum proposed such an initiative, the American chocolate companies
referred to Cocoa Action as their preferred space for collaboration,
despite the fact that it is not a multi-stakeholder initiative.

Retailers
Retailers play a crucial role for the efforts to increase the sustainabilityof the cocoa sector for three reasons. Firstly, they put a lot of pressure
on chocolate producers, trying to get the lowest prices possible. This
conflicts with the necessity to pay more for cocoa at farm level, and with
the necessity to invest more in sustainability. Secondly, more and morecocoa is sold as an own brand of the big retailers. As such, they become
chocolate companies themselves. For example, on the biggest market inEurope, in Germany, nearly a third of the chocolate sales comes from own

brands.23 Thirdly, as we showed in the previous Cocoa Barometer, retailers
earn a significant portion of the profits in the cocoa value chain. As such,they also bear responsibilities.
Including retailers into the global discussions about cocoa is a challenge,
as many of them are large players on a national or regional level, but notglobally. However, retailers should be more aware that their local – butuniversal – pressure on chocolate prices is a significant problem in the
global discussion on farmer poverty and that they have a responsibility for
issues in their cocoa supply chains as well. They should become part of the
discussion and live up to their responsibility, not only on national levels,
but also on the global level.

Trade agreements
Many of the biggest cocoa producing countries, including Côte d’Ivôireand Ghana, have so-called Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) with
the European Union. These bilateral trade agreements are disputed as
the European Union tries to use them to open the markets of the former
colonies of some of its members. Cocoa producers and grinders profit
from these agreements, which give them free access to the European
market. Countries that refused to sign the trade agreements face noproblems for raw cocoa beans but barriers for processed cocoa products.
Nigerian producers, for example, pay tariffs up to 6.1% for cocoa products.
Due to the intensive competition on the grinding sector and the low
margins, this more or less excludes Nigerian grinders from the European
market. Countries that are not part of the EPA system, such as Ecuador andPeru, face similar barriers.
Conclusions & Recommendations
Consuming nations are not just important because of their consumption,
but because they are the home of the large cocoa and chocolate
multinationals. Platforms working on national strategies need to leadto actual change, not just more dialogue. There should be much morealignment at a transnational level to achieve proper impact. Retailers mustbe much more engaged in the global cocoa dialogue.

35

36

3. Certification

Certification
37

Produced/sold as certified

291
136

2016

252
93

70

2014

RFA/SAN

2015

178

2017

218

458

481
177

2016

223

2015

238

2014

2017

2016

2015

2014

UTZ

491

639

390

582

575

1,166

918

879

1,188

1,449

(data from questionnaire)

Fairtrade

When the only tool you have is a hammer, a lot of your problems start
looking like nails. For a long time, in the cocoa sector, it seemed likethe only tool available to achieve sustainability was certification. Withan increase in efforts, in data and research, and in actual experience,the sector now has a much wider range of interventions at its disposal.
Additionally, the standard organisations are starting to diversify in theiractivities, becoming more involved in capacity building and advocacy. All
standard organisations are deeply involved in the debate about a living
income and conducting research on how to achieve it.
The terms “certified cocoa” and “sustainable cocoa” are still often– mistakenly – used interchangeably, especially in ‘sustainability
commitments’, such as those made by several national platforms andby major companies. Though certification can be an important step forcompanies in improving their supply chain, becoming sustainable will
require a lot more, including joint efforts with other companies, as well as
significant government involvement.

38Standards and living income
None of the standards have been able to significantly contribute tofarmers achieving a living income, or even to lift farmers out of structural
poverty. Though average income of certified farmers might be slightly
higher, the overall impact is relatively low; the average certified cocoa
farmer is still poor.24 25 26 27 28
Though standard-setting organisations are aware of these problems,
the competition between certification schemes has put them underpressure. Chocolate companies and retailers have a tendency to look
for the cheapest label, neglecting the potential negative effects of thisprice pressure. The race for certified volumes has not led to the bar being
raised.
Additionally, standard-setting organisations have no direct control overa variety of variable that are essential to farmers’ livelihoods, including
access to infrastructure (schools, health care, roads and access to markets,etc.), the quality and enforcement of land laws, availability of inputs, etc.

Fairtrade
Fairtrade is the only one of the three major standards that has a minimum
price (of US$ 2,000 per tonne as export price) . With the 2016/17 pricecrash, for the first time in a decade, Fairtrade had to activate the minimum
price in Côte d’Ivôire for a few months. This means that the Fairtrade
minimum price is most likely far too low to be able to ensure that farmers
escape poverty. In addition to the minimum price, Fairtrade is also the only
one of the three major standards to have a fixed premium of US$ 200 per
tonne, providing some protection to farmers from their weak bargaining
position at the bottom of the supply chain.
Fairtrade is currently in the final stages of a much-needed major review of
their pricing systems in cocoa. This review is critically assessing both theguaranteed minimum price and their premiums, as Fairtrade’s researchshows that the average cocoa farmer is only earning 37% of a living
income in rural Côte d’Ivôire, while the median percentage this evenmuch lower (25%).29 Fairtrade’s choice to do this review, and publicise
the results, are an important step forward, and other standards areencouraged to follow suit.

UTZ/Rainforest
The two other major standards in cocoa, UTZ and Rainforest Alliance, havemerged, as of January 2018, and will go on under the name of Rainforest
Alliance. By mid-2019 the two standards will be operating under one – still
to be developed – standard. This merger is an opportunity to developinstruments and new approaches to make a living income for certified
farmers a reality. Neither UTZ nor Rainforest have systems in place toprotect farmers from market developments such as the current price crash.
Lessons could be learned from Fairtrade on fixed premiums and minimum
prices. The new standard will need to go beyond just agronomicalsolutions, and address the power imbalances in the supply chain, andspecifically the pricing of cocoa, to ensure a living income for smallholder
cocoa farmers.

CEN/ISO
After many years of being developed, the global CEN/ISO standard
is almost complete. In a global vote, it will either be approved or
disapproved later this year. Many elements of the standard are by now
already incorporated into the existing standards, or into company-owned
standards. There are still many questions as to how and if the CEN/ISO will
be used in practice, as there will be no central organisation responsible for
its implementation.
Company-owned projects
Some companies such as Hershey’s and Mars continue to roll out
100% certification commitments – often in conjunction with additionalsustainability programmes. Other companies are now choosing
to develop their own in-house sustainability programmes, such as
Mondelēz’s Cocoa Life programme, which has taken over their Fairtradecertification in Ghana.
Though it can be a good thing that companies choose to take ownershipof their sustainability efforts, rather than outsourcing responsibility to a
standard body, there are also concerns around this, specifically abouttransparency and reliability of reporting, making farmers – who are alreadystruggling with a severe power asymmetry in the relationship to theirpurchasers – even more dependent on the large cocoa companies.

39

Components

40

In the critique on certification, the various components are often
mistakenly used interchangeably, or seen as a single issue. The
first component is that standard bodies (such as Fairtrade, UTZ,or Rainforest Alliance/SAN) set a standard for cocoa, outlining
requirements for sustainable cocoa production. The second is that
auditing organisations conduct an audit to certify that the requirementsof the standard are met. The third is that cocoa companies purchasethe certified cocoa. The fourth component is the marketing body,
liaised to the standard body, which promotes the label.

Premiums
Although certified farmers might only receive a slight net income increase,the premiums do make a difference for the operation of the cooperativesof which the farmers are members. Even for this reason alone, certification
remains an important tool, provided this makes cooperatives stronger, andnot dependent on their buyer’s vision of sustainability.
One of the major challenges, however, is to see how cooperatives andcertification can roll out their reach beyond the easily organised farmers
towards the harder to reach, more distant farmers. This might be easier if
all certified cocoa could be sold as certified, and therefore at a premium;depending on the standard, between 20% and 60% of cocoa that is
produced as certified does not get sold as certified.

Overpromise/Underdeliver
It is essential that standards guard their messaging, ensuring that they do
not overpromise and underdeliver. Especially on topics such as poverty
alleviation or adherence to human rights, there seems to be a gap
between what consumers expect they are buying, and what standards
can reasonably claim to be selling. Also at the beginning of the supply
chain, there is often a gap between farmer expectation and reality. When
expectations are not met, this can lead to an all-round disillusionment thatwould disadvantage everyone in the sector. Certification should becomemuch more transparent both towards consumers, and towards farmers
and cooperatives.

Companies:
Certified cocoa* / used cocoa 20171* certified or own project verified cocoa

41

Trader/Grinders
36%

1,020

26%

950

42%

750

38%

593

19%

500

22%

400

102

Cemoi 4 31%

100

Cocoanect

N.A.

Blommer

Barry Callebaut 3
Olam

Cargill 5

Ecom

SucdenTouton 425%

Chocolate Producers
35%

450

Mondelēz International 2

43%

434

Nestlé

> 50%

410

75% 200

Hersheys 2

Mars 2,470%

135 Ferrero 3

45%

128 Lindt und Sprüngli 6(1) most companies refered to ICCO conversion(3) 1.9.16-31.8.17

rates: Cocoa butter 1.33, Cocoa paste/liquor 1.25,(4) 2016

Cocoa Powder and cocoa cake 1.18

(5) 01.06.2016 – 31.05.2017(2) cocoa demand estimated(6) traceable and verified

42

Conclusions & Recommendations
All standards should include living income as a key requirement intheir codes of conduct. This should include a minimum farm gate price– based on living income calculations. This could be coupled with aflexible premium. In parallel, farmers should not be dependent on theirbargaining power for the height of their premium. Further downstream, it
would be interesting to explore whether standards could require Human
Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) as part of their Trader Code of Conduct; aslong as legislation is missing, it would be interesting to require companies
or retailers wanting to sell a product with a certification label on it tocomply with at minimum a Living Income and HRDD standard.

4. Ensuringa Living Income

43Ensuring a Living Income
44

Achieving a living income is a human right.* However, it is still not clear
what an average cocoa growing family currently earns, or what they shouldearn to achieve a living income. However, in the past years, various newstudies have become available. The – at best incomplete – calculations thatwere made in the previous Cocoa Barometers can now be supplemented
by field-researched data. This provides a range of income calculations.
However, the main outcome is that the majority of cocoa farmers still live
well below the poverty line.

Poverty
Poverty lies at the root of almost all of the challenges facing the cocoa
sector, whether it is child labour, deforestation, infant malnutrition, or a raftof other problems. As such, the prime challenge for all in the cocoa sector
should be the elimination of poverty. One of the key starting points, as wehave advocated for several years now, is a common approach to a living
income.
Publicly available data
More and more companies are starting to define key performanceindicators (KPIs) for more sustainable cocoa procurement. The next stepis to identify the gap between the present situation and what is definedas sustainable. Only very little research discussing this gap is publicly
available. Often, companies commission studies but do not publish theresults. However, when they do get published – such as Barry Callebaut’s
2017 research into farmer income, and Fairtrade’s recent research into
living income – it is clear that the gap between the current and thesituation is large.
* The preamble to the founding document of the International Labour
Organisation in 1919 declares the necessity for a “payment adequate tomaintain a reasonable standard of living that is understood in their timeand country”. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “justand favourable remuneration” is a basic right, not just for the labourer, butalso for the labourer’s family (UN 1948: Article 23(3)). The UN International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights is even more specific,
naming a “decent living for themselves and their family” a basic right (UN1966: Article 7). Furthermore, the ‘UN Guiding Principles on Business andHuman Rights’ state that is it the duty of governments to protect people
from human rights violations, and that it is the responsibility of companies
to respect these human rights (UN 2011).

Income/Poverty Key Performance Indicators
Part of the questionnaire sent by the authors of the Cocoa Barometerto the major cocoa and chocolate companies was the question if
companies have “farmer income and/or reducing farmer poverty“ as Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs). In a change from previous Barometers,
several companies sent their KPIs and even figures on achievement. It is
not possible to validate these figures without access to the supporting
databases, but the fact they exist and were shared is an indicator thatat least some of the major companies now acknowledge the huge gap
between the present income of farmers and either a living income or atleast a minimum income according to World Bank Poverty Standards.
Price
It is obvious that the present cocoa price is too low to close the gap
between present income and living income. Many company employees
acknowledge this in private conversations. Cocoa traders and grinders
for example told the authors that they know that the price for cocoa has
to be significantly higher. However, to find a solution for that, many still
rely on the market. Despite having acknowledged the problem, cocoa
traders and grinders often stress they will only increase prices if chocolatecompanies are going to pay for increasing procurement costs. Many
chocolate companies meanwhile blame price pressure from retailers. The
debate – if even begun at all - has been stuck at this point for more than adecade now.

Definition of Living Income
Living income is the net income a household would need to earn toenable all members of the household to afford a decent standard ofliving. Elements of a decent standard of living include: food, water,
housing, education, health care, transport, clothing, and other essential
needs including provision for unexpected events.* As it is defined as a
net income, the costs for farming are included into this calculation.

* This is the definition of the “Community of Practice” on Living Income,hosted by GIZ, ISEAL, and Sustainable Food Lab.

45

46

Variables affecting income
Farmers and adult family members have a certain number of labour days
they can spend per year. How much income they derive from this labour
depends on a combination of various crucial factors. The yield per hectare,size of the fields, and of course the prices for the products they harvest
together determine whether a farmer earns a sufficient income for heror his household. All of these elements must be taken into consideration
to ensure a sufficient level of income. For example, it would be strange
to expect a farmer to escape poverty with a very low productivity, but at
the same time it would be unreasonable to demand a spectacular yield
for a farmer to earn a decent livelihood, as there are constraints to yield
increase, such as unsustainable levels of pesticide use, an unrealistic
amount of additional labour required, or unachievable demands for credit
and financing. These variables of yield, land, and price, encompass avariety of challenges that must be tackled as a whole.

Yield

Farmers should be supported and encouraged to increase yield. A major
challenge in increasing yield is how to do so sustainably, and without it
getting in the way of the other needed interventions.
There is a clear role for companies to fundamentally change theirapproach; promoting not just a one-sided productivity drive, but using
net income, not beans per hectare, as a key metric. This needs to becoupled with diversification in general – and agroforestry in particular and a limited and smart use of agrochemicals. Governments have a crucialrole in ensuring holistic agricultural policies and providing decent public
infrastructure such as access to markets and extension services.
Increasing yields offers a window of opportunity to decrease areas plantedwith cocoa trees. These areas might be converted to diversified crops (seebelow) or be converted back to natural forests to restore biodiversity androll back some of the adverse effects of deforestation.

Net income, not yield, as key metricThough an important step, increasing yield is not the panacea that willsolve the cocoa sector’s problems, contrary to popular belief among
companies. As the current price decline has shown, relying on yield
increase to solve income problems will not work as a stand-alone.
Yield increase can contribute positively to an increased farmer income,provided that prices do not decline, and the financial and labour costs
do not increase faster than yield increase can compensate. However,increasing total productivity of all cocoa farms will only exacerbate thecurrent global oversupply of cocoa, leading to an even further declineof focus. It also requires more investments and labour. Even at the pricelevels prior to the collapse, many farmers were too poor to invest in moresustainable and more productive cocoa farming.
47

Cocoa Action and Productivity
From an industry perspective, increasing yield is a way to ensure astable future low-cost supply of cocoa. It is therefore no surprise thatmany of the current industry approaches to cocoa sustainability arealmost exclusively based on increasing productivity per hectare. In fact,
yield per hectare is the main Key Performance Indicator for industrywide sustainability programme Cocoa Action. This should be changed
to include metrics on net farmer income.

Diversification
Crop diversification should be an important ingredient of any productivity
increase programme. Diversified crops make farmers less reliant ona single commodity, making them more resilient. Crop diversification
can also lead to an increased biodiversity, both in flora and in fauna.
Additionally, diversification – especially agroforestry – can inform longterm climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.
At the same time, research shows that many cocoa growing households
already have quite a diversified set of income. But farmers still rely
heavily on cocoa, as this crop usually promises the highest income,at least in many of the main cocoa producing areas of West Africa.30
It has to be carefully assessed if cocoa growing households have the(labour) resources for further diversification. Also, if there are no markets
for diversified products, farmers should not invest in diversification.
Simultaneously, producing governments should concentrate on
agricultural policies, supporting local markets for food crops. They should
also invest in infrastructure, specifically in roads, to reduce transport costsof perishable products to local markets.

Agrochemicals
Though the use of fungicides and pesticides can be an important
protection against crop diseases, there has been insufficient action within
the cocoa sector about the negative side effects of agrochemical use,
including hazardous working conditions for those applying agrochemicals,

48

contamination of ecosystems, and even more resistant strains of pests
and diseases due to improper application. The arbitrary manner of
distribution, especially in Ghana, has also led to widespread corruption as
agrochemicals earmarked for free of charge distribution to farmers weresold from the local market or even the neighbouring countries.
The distribution and application of agrochemicals has often beenhaphazard at best, coupled with insufficient knowledge of its application.
Preliminary results show that specifically the use of fertilisers may have
only a very limited impact if they are used on plantations with old tree
stocks. The use of pesticides is costly and will only lead to improved
incomes if it is done in time, applied in a good manner and combined withother good agricultural practices.

Rejuvenation
Especially in West Africa, most cocoa trees are ageing and becoming
less productive. A massive rejuvenation drive is going to be necessary,
especially with disease-resistant varieties, and will reduce the need for
agrochemicals. But rejuvenation is a costly exercise, and it would takeapproximately four years after rejuvenation to start making any money atall. With the price level of 2017, farmers are at a greater risk if they invest
in rejuvenation. According to data collected by the GIZ, the profit from therenewed plantation – even when using good agricultural practices andhaving a higher productivity – would in Côte d’Ivôire add up to only about€31 per year per hectare, over 25 years.31 To make the rejuvenation a
profitable business, price levels have to increase significantly.
Training
Most projects of cocoa companies and development cooperation
agencies are aimed at providing training for farmers. Often, farmers do
not attend these trainings or do not apply what they learn due to a lackof investment capital. In one study, 85% of cocoa farmers in eastern partsof Ivory Coast declared no need for further trainings; they had learned
enough already, what they needed was investment capital to implement
what they had learned.32 Trainers and company employees who worked
in West Africa often tell similar stories. Another major problem in West
Africa, but also in most other cocoa producing areas, is the weaknessof the cooperatives. Often they are not effective in organising farmers
and facilitating training. Even if that were the case, most farmers are notorganised at all, which makes it even more difficult to reach them withtraining.

Shortage of labour (and health care as a productivity increasetool)
One of the most effective measures to support cocoa growing families
is to increase access to health care facilities and clean drinking water.
Improving health and reducing productivity loss due to illness, is also aprime tool to reduce child labour, as a shortage of adult hired labour isa key determinant on the incidence of child labour.
For example, malaria is one of the leading causes of death for children
under five in Côte d’Ivôire. It is endemic in cocoa growing regions,especially during the rainy season. Malaria can exacerbate anaemia
and other indicators of malnutrition. In Côte d’Ivôire, according to
one study, vegetable farmers diagnosed as sick from malaria for
more than two days of a growing season had 47% lower yields and
53% lower revenues than farmers who missed no more than two daysof work. Moreover, when farmers fall ill they are likely to rely moreheavily on family members to help with tasks on the farm, includingchildren.33 Additionally, when children fall sick, members of the farming
household tend to work less to care for their children.

Labour and land
Reaching an ideal income from the cocoa farm is dependent on labour;
to run a larger farm, hired work is necessary. Many smallholder farmers
depend in part on hired labour, during the main harvest months, but also
for specific tasks such as pruning or spraying. Even farmers with a small
farm size hire labourers, although the number of labour days per hectareof cocoa varies significantly.
There is no data publicly available on how much labour a farmer should
ideally invest per hectare, nor what that means for the ideal size of theplantation. Research has found farmers with larger plantations invest asignificantly lower amount of labour, leading to much lower yields per
hectare.34

49

50

Depending on the costs of hired labour* and the price for cocoa, farms
with hired labourers and higher productivity potentially earn less thanfarmers who work a smaller farm with less hours and lower yields, as thecosts for hired labour are often significantly higher than a farmer’s income.
In 2014, farmers in Ghana paid US$5 a day for wageworkers, with a similarrate in Côte d’Ivôire between US$4-633. As such, a viable farm is not justdetermined by its size, but also by the availability of labour, and sufficient
farm income (and therefore cocoa price) to afford hired labour.

Price

More than a year has passed since the price of cocoa collapsed at the endof 2016. Farmers have been the hardest hit, while also having the leastcapacity to cushion the shock. Some reports from farmers indicate that
not only are they not earning a living income, they are now growing cocoa
at a loss. Still, there is no concerted effort by industry or governments toalleviate even a part of the burden of this income shock for the already
impoverished smallholder farmers.**
An increase in the farm gate price is especially needed. At the sametime, the long-term trend of cocoa prices points downwards.36 A recent
paper commissioned by the Dutch government argues “farmers needboth a major price increase for their cocoa and a substantial increasein productivity in order to make a decent living out of cocoa”37. This is
no longer a point only argued by activist campaigners or independent
researchers; many senior executives in the cocoa sector can now be heard
making the same claim in the global cocoa dialogue.
Not only is it necessary to look at ways to influence farm gate prices toprotect farmers from price shocks, it is also essential in increasing farmincome in general. Even at the price levels of mid-2016, before thedecline, most cocoa farmers did not earn a living income.

* In addition to living income for farmers, there is also a debate on living
wage for workers. It might be possible that present wages are far below
a living wage. Though a living wage would probably put even moreprice pressure on farmers, it is a necessary step to achieve a sustainablecocoa sector.
** In Ghana, the Cocobod has subsidized the farm gate price since
the crisis, keeping the price at the same pre-crash level, at a cost of
perhaps US$400 million. It is unclear how much longer the Ghanaian
government will be able to continue with this policy.

Long-term cocoa price trends
9Real price (2015) ́000 US$ per tonne

8

real price

7

51

6
5
4

trend

3
2
1
0

1952 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017

Source: LMC 201838

Pay more
Paying the farmers more is the fastest, most efficient, and simplest
way to address insufficient income in the short term. This should start
immediately; the effects of the price collapse will be too devastatingotherwise. Obviously, this short-term measure must be coupled withother measures to avoid a long-term unintended negative consequenceof increasing oversupply. Such measures are detailed extensively in thischapter.
Anti-Trust
Making collective agreements on minimum price levels is against thelaw, but there are indicators that authorities would allow conversations totake place, provided they are meant to protect human rights and combat
poverty. The ongoing discussion on living wage shows a way forward;
the sector should agree on means of calculating what a living income
should be, and should provide sufficient political will to make this the
key metric. In the follow-up, every individual company could go and pay
this reasonable price. This would be based on the decision of individualcompanies to adopt the results of the living income calculation, and not
on a collective agreement.
It is time for the companies to take the moral imperative, and raise farm
gate prices to ensure a living income for cocoa farming families living
in structural, destitute poverty. Though there might be concerns aroundcollusion if this were to be decided upon at a collective level, there is noreason why individual companies should not be able to unilaterally decideto pay their farmers more.

52

Futures Market
Since the liberalisation of the cocoa markets in the 1980’s, under pressure
from the IMF and World Bank, the sector has largely avoided talking
about how to raise farm gate prices. ‘The Market’ was expected to balance
supply and demand, thereby leading to the ‘right price’. However, themarket has failed the majority of cocoa farmers; they are extremely
poor. The time has come to address some of the core design flaws of
the system.* In cocoa, especially, prices are set at the futures market,
which is increasingly becoming dictated by computer-algorithms. Most
market actors claim they have no choice but to follow the future market’s
dynamics. Therefore, a first necessary step is to find ways to understandand curb the power of the algorithms in the market.
Premiums
Presently, the part of the premium paid by standard setting organisations
that gets distributed to cocoa farmers themselves leads to a marginalincome increase. Even the fixed Fairtrade premium is less than 10% of thepresent world market price and most of it is used to cover certification
costs or to support the cooperative.39 For households not having a living
income, even a marginal increase is important. However, there is a large
gap between the level of income alleviation consumers think they arecontributing to, and the reality on the cocoa farms.
Flexible Premiums
A possible way for companies to pay a higher price is through a flexible
premium. In such a system, the premium would go up when the world
market price goes down. Some smaller companies already successfully
work with a form of flexible premiums based on farm gate pricedevelopments.** Using a flexible premium approach, the risk of pricevolatility can be shared between farmer and companies. In essence, this* Although countervailing powers do lead to a reasonable balance of
price for most of the supply chain, the recent SEO research states“the main reason for the persistent poverty among cocoa farmers
is the fact that most of them are price takers, with little or no market
power.” Nienke Oomes, Bert Tieben, et al. Market Concentration andPrice Formation in the Global Cocoa Value Chain, SEO Amsterdam
Economics, p.1.
** A full explanation of how a flexible premium system could work has
been developed by the Südwind Institut, and can be downloaded here
(goo.gl/dyYTq1)

would be the most realistic way to put in place a price floor or other risksharing mechanisms.

Traceability and long-term trade relationships
Full supply chain transparency and direct, fair, and long-term business
relationships between farmers and companies are necessary steps,
for a variety of reasons. Firstly, it provides long-term stability to cocoa
farmers, facilitating access to credit and investments. It also provides theprerequisites to meet the United Nations Protect, Respect and Remedy
Framework, where companies have a responsibility to ensure they respecthuman rights in their value chains.
Increasingly, chocolate producers know exactly where the cocoa they use
comes from. Having become deeply involved in the trade on the groundin West Africa, they are often directly connected to farmer organisations
and cooperatives.
Now that companies have this knowledge, this has to be translated into
both supply chain traceability as well as long-term trade relationships,
including a responsible price setting.

Supply Management
If the only interventions were price-based industry-led solutions, however,there would be an increased oversupply of cocoa within a few years. Priceintervention must be coupled with a more long-term policy approachfrom producing nations’ governments looking at a coherent agricultural
policy, and at some level of global supply management. As such, there
is also a crucial role for cocoa producing nations’ governments to taketheir responsibility on this issue more seriously. However, most cocoa
producing governments are still persisting in national cocoa plans that aim
to increase cocoa production massively, thereby threatening to flood themarket even more than it already is.
At national level, governments must develop and implement agricultural
policies commensurate to the size of the challenges. This would include
the promotion of, and accessibility to, diversified sources of income andaccess to credit. Pension schemes and reforestation drives as describedearlier in this chapter should be part of this as well.
There are various approaches to limiting the supply of cocoa, including
the instalment of buffer stock funds, quotas, the introduction of an OPEClike collaboration between the major cocoa producing nations, and thephysical limitation of cocoa supplies through alternative uses of stockpiles.

53

54

Effective supply control would need to be achieved both within theindividual countries, as well as on a global level. At both nationaland global levels, this would require the establishment of workablemechanisms for (re)allocating individual production rights, monitoring
quality and production methods, overcoming rent seeking, corruption andtax avoidance, workable mechanisms for monitoring national production
and trade, (re)allocating production rights between countries, andovercoming free rider problems.
Clear lessons have to be learned from the international commodity
agreements that functioned until the 1980’s; as these largely failed due
to a combination of not properly addressing the issues mentioned above
coupled with ideological motives to deregulate and liberalise the global
commodities markets.40
Despite these past failures, however, technology and traceability is far
more advanced today. There is also broad international agreement under
the UN Protect, Respect and Remedy Framework that all companies havea responsibility to respect human rights in their supply chains. Given thesetrends, it should be possible to revisit old ideas with new tools in hand to
make them effective strategies.
In all situations, a supply management solution would require significant
political will. It would also require a higher level of trust and integrity atgovernment levels than currently exists.

Conclusions & Recommendations
New approaches are necessary to effectively achieve a living income.
Cocoa farming will not be sustainable until it can provide a living
income to the hard working farmers. Net farmer income must becomea Key Performance Indicator for the sector, and data on this must be
shared. Farmers should be supported and encouraged to increase
yield in a sustainable manner, including through diversification, properuse of agrochemicals and rejuvenation. Even then, the price is too low
to close the gap between current income and living income. In the
short term, companies should pay a higher farm gate price, potentiallythrough flexible premiums or unilateral price hikes. In the medium term,
government based supply management solutions should be put in place
to control the amount of cocoa available. This should be coupled withholistic national agricultural policies that also look at reforestation, crop
diversification, land reforms, and pension schemes.

5. Transparency &Accountability

55

Transparency &Accountability
56

Transparency and Accountability are essential steps towards safeguarding
human rights and implementing sustainability, not end goals. They
allow for a variety of improvements: better managing and accelerating
progress; identifying gaps in current approaches – both in terms ofadditional investments as well as additional impacts needed; preventing
transgressions from taking place; facilitating mitigation of effects oftransgressions for farmers and cocoa growing communities; and willbring to light available synergies and opportunities among different
stakeholders.
The main obstacles to Transparency and Accountability at present are
not technical, but political; there needs to be sufficient will within all
stakeholder groups in the sector. Both governments and companies
play a critical role in establishing Transparency & Accountability. If theywork together, the sector will be in a much better position to address
challenges in cocoa more effectively.

Human Rights Due Diligence
Transparency and Accountability are important tools in implementing
human rights. According to the UN Guiding Principles on Business andHuman Rights (UNGPs), corporations have to undertake human rights due
diligence (HRDD). This requires companies to analyse, prevent, mitigate,
remediate and report on risks in their supply chain, not only for their own
operations, but also for those of their suppliers.
This will require several steps, beginning with mandatory reporting on
relevant key measures, such as reporting on responsible risk management
capacities and practices (for example, on child labour, this would mean
reporting on cases identified as a result of those practices, as opposed
to claims of zero child labour). This reporting would have to be based onstandard, common definitions. This will, in turn, require harmonization oftransparency legislation across different jurisdictions and markets, to avoid
a regulatory fragmentation per nation.
A good starting point for such harmonisation would be implementing the
HRDD standards that are set forth in ILO Protocols, the UNGPs and OECD
Guidelines. In a smallholder context, many of the identified challenges
are linked to structural causes beyond a single company´s purview. The
indicators used when performing HRDD should capture the underlying

changes that would be required, and should also require engagementwith the other responsible stakeholders, such as national governments.

Cross commodity learning: Unilever fully published Palm Oil
supply chain
Knowledge and openness about a company’s supply chain (e.g.
where their products come from, and under which conditions they
were cultivated and/or produced) builds trust towards investors andcustomers, increases compliance, and shows company confidence intheir own human rights due diligence mechanisms. In recent months,
Unilever provided a list of all the mills and subcontractors for theirglobal palm oil supply chain. Such communication in the cocoa sector
would be an excellent next step for cocoa multinationals to take as well.
It is essential to note that this is a first step that increases chances ofidentifying and remedying risks.

Grievance Mechanisms
Transparency can also help victims of human rights violations in a supply
chain to find access to grievance mechanisms for the remedy of these
violations, ranging from forced labour to paying below the minimum
wage. This ‘access to remedy’ is the third pillar of the UN Protect, Respect,
and Remedy Framework besides the government’s duty to protect, andthe company’s responsibility to respect. Grievance mechanisms can be in
the form of judicial, administrative, legislative, or other appropriate means.
Individuals, trade unions and NGOs should be able to file complaints incase of company or government non-compliance.
Corporate Reporting
Corporate reporting on cocoa sustainability and human rights is often
based on a principle of only communicating successes. Lessons learned
are seldom made public, resulting in many companies trying the same
unsuccessful approaches. Additionally, most communication is based
solely on outcomes and numbers in absolute terms and not on the impactthat these expenditures might have had, nor on how they relate to the sizeof the challenge.
Collaborative efforts such as Cocoa Action are struggling to find reliable
data, and when they do, they report on a highly aggregated level.

57

Data from projects is kept proprietary, even when they are co-funded withpublicly financed development support from consuming governments, suchas through financial support from the IDH Sustainable Trade Initiative orother similar initiatives.
58

Indicators need to be measurable, and results need to be publicly available
for measuring progress. Care should be taken to ensure data is comparable,
e.g. through collaborating on indicators and coordination of reporting
periods. For all shared data projects, baseline studies should be carried out,
and living income benchmarks should be an integral part of the design.
Lastly, data should be based on impact, not effort; for example, it is not thebuilding of a school that is the relevant data, but whether school attendance
rates went up and illiteracy went down.

Nestlé/FLA reporting on child labour and plans of action
The collaboration between Nestlé and the Fair Labor Association (FLA)
is a good example of transparency in the cocoa sector. For several years
now, the FLA has conducted annual investigations into the occurrence oflabour issues within Nestlé’s Cocoa Plan, focussing on child labour. The
outcomes of these investigations are then publicly reported, and require
Nestlé to publish an action plan within a set timeframe. One of therecommendations was the development and implementation of a childlabour monitoring and remediation systems. This CLMRS – and its results– has been described elsewhere in this Barometer.

Public Services and Resources
The provision of social, educational and health services, the developmentof local communities, and the protection of the environment, are mainly
the responsibility of national governments and local authorities. Cocoa
growing communities suffer from a lack of schools and teaching material,
have insufficient access to health care and clean drinking water, bad roads,
no electricity, and other insufficient public infrastructure. For national andlocal governments to improve these public services, extensive financial
investments are required. While recognising that governments havesovereignty on expenditure, there is a real need for financial transparency
on revenues from various forms of cocoa taxes and export tariffs, as wellas transparency on expenditures on public services and the financing andlevels of national Cocoa Sustainability Funds or buffer stock systems, if
present.

In environmental protection, the current double catastrophe ofdeforestation and the pricing crisis is an important case in point. The past
years have seen a vast increase of cocoa production, especially in Côte
d’Ivôire. With no supply chain traceability, companies have been willingly(and often knowingly) purchasing vast amounts of cocoa from areasthat should have been protected natural parks for years. Governments
have not been enforcing the protection of classified areas. Transparency
in sourcing, as well as effectiveness of enforcement efforts, forms thefoundation of any functional protection of public resources.
Additionally, local civil society, farmers and farmer-based organisations,as well as individual citizens, would be able to play a more involvedrole when governments and companies operate in a transparent
and accountable manner. They would be empowered to demand
improvements in local infrastructure and provisions, have stronger
bargaining positions towards large commercial entities, and are more
informed to make decisions on collective steps forward.

Standards
For standards such as UTZ, Rainforest and Fairtrade, Transparency andAccountability should also include reporting on impact on livelihoods
and labour conditions, not just on efforts of remediation. Additionally,
standards must be more transparent on payments of premiums and farm
gate price, both to cooperatives as to farmers.
Summary
Transparency and Accountability are essential steps for both companies
and governments towards safeguarding human rights and implementing
sustainability. Human Rights Due Diligence should be implemented at EU
level. Grievance mechanisms for victims of human rights should also be
developed and put in place at a mandatory level.
Additionally, a more balanced perspective on corporate reporting should
be adopted by companies; not just communicating successes andintentions, but also being open to errors and failures so that sector-wide
lessons can be learned.
While recognising that governments have sovereignty on expenditure,
there is a real need for financial transparency on revenues from various
forms of cocoa taxes and export tariffs, as well as transparency on
expenditures on social, educational and health services, the developmentof local communities, and the protection of the environment.

59

60

6. Conclusions
Key Recommendations

Conclusions
Sector-wide efforts to improve the lives of farmers, communities and theenvironment made in the past decades have not led to significant impact.
The scope of proposed solutions is not even in the ballpark of the scopeof the problem. If business as usual continues, it will be decades – ifever – before human rights will be respected and before environmental
protection will be a basis for sustainability in the cocoa sector.
On paying a higher price, companies claim to be in a prisoner’s dilemma;
they acknowledge that they are not paying enough for cocoa, but unlessthe whole sector - first and foremost their competitors - also deal withthe price issue, they are unwilling to be front-runners and pay more. As aresult, the sector sticks to price competition, ignoring its effects on humanrights.
Investments to make cocoa production more sustainable are far too
low to have sufficient impact, and there is not enough alignment or
ambition to tackle the sector’s challenges. Common approaches need to
be implemented to achieve sector wide progress. The initiative for thislead should come from governments and leading chocolate and cocoa
companies alike.
The present approach – with a multitude of different strategies andhundreds of projects – will not be successful, especially as there are almost
no efforts to challenge the underlying issues around power and political
economy. A renewed sense of urgency must be coupled with alignment
and action commensurate to the size of the challenges.

61Key Recommendations
62

For companies• Commit to achieve a living income for farmers. Include not only
productivity aims, but also implement a price strategy. Where necessary,
unilaterally pay a higher farm gate price until structural price solutions
have been found.
• Make net income the key performance indicator of any sustainability
programme.
• Design and implement CLMRS to cover the entire supply chain within a
specified time frame.
• Publish data regularly on farmer livelihoods, human rights, and impacts
of projects.

For voluntary standards• Make Living Income – and the ensuing pricing consequences – a key
requirement.
• Explore possibilities to require Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) as
part of Trader Codes of Conduct

For governments of cocoa consuming nations• Introduce human rights due diligence through mandatory regulatory
frameworks both in consuming nations, as well as on a global level.
• Make publication of data mandatory for projects that are publicly (co)funded.
• Facilitate debate and concrete action about the massive market
concentration and resulting power imbalances, especially regarding theposition of smallholders.
• Review and remediate where existing competition laws hinder
sustainability, especially regarding fair pricing policies.
• Support and engage with industry and producing governments indefining and requiring living income standards.

For governments of cocoa producing countries• Develop and implement holistic national agricultural policies,
supporting farmers to diversify from cocoa and implement good
agricultural practices.

• Increase transparency and accountability of spending and efforts.
• Improve rural infrastructure, including roads, schools and health care.
• Align cocoa policies on a regional and global level to avoid further
oversupply.
• Implement and enforce protection of remaining forests, combined withthe reforestation of illegally deforested areas, whilst ensuring protectionof human rights, including those of farmers who operate in protectedareas.
• Design and implement due diligence/monitoring systems at scale,leveraging learnings from CLRMS to roll out preventive and responsive
interventions at scale.

Cross-cutting issues for all stakeholders• Move from voluntary to mandatory requirements, on human rights aswell as on transparency and accountability.
• Implement a sector wide commitment to living income• Develop transparency and accountability mechanisms both on a global
level, in cocoa producing nations, as well in supply chains down to thefarm-gate level• Develop tools to share the burden of price volatility (e.g. via flexible
premiums, supply management and long-term contracts between
farmers/cooperatives and cocoa and chocolate companies.)• Commit to a global moratorium on deforestation. Include agroforestry
and reforestation as key strategies.
• Engage with a renewed and increased urgency to scale up efforts sothey are commensurate to the size of the problem, with a specific focus
on the hard to reach farmers. Implement changes not only at a technicallevel, but also address issues around power and political economy.

63

64

Justifications
Colophon
Notes

Justification of figures and tables
Scale of solutions vs. scope of the problem (page 6)
The data for this infographic was publicly available in the case of Cocoa
Action and Fairtrade. The International Cocoa Initiative graciously
provided their data. The authors of the Barometer do not wish to imply
that these organisations are doing an insufficient job, but simply that thescale of the interventions chosen by the sector as a whole are dwarfed by
the size of the challenges.
Deforestation (page 19)
Cocoa consumption in the European Union: 1.9 million tonnes
500 kg per hectare * 1.9 million tonnes = 3,8 million hectare
3,8 million hectares = 38,000 km² = more than the land size of theNetherlands
Growth of cocoa production (page 32)
The average production of Ivorian cocoa in the seasons 2010/11,
2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 was around 1,600,000
metric tonnes (mt). Cocoa production in 2016/17 and 1017/18 is around2,000,000 mt, an increase of about 400,000 mt. (ICCO Quarterly Bulletins)
The overproduction in 2016/17 was around 300,000 metric tonnes,
according to the ICCO Quarterly Bulletin, Volume XLIV no 1, page 50,
table 1.

Certification tonnages (page 37)
Data kindly provided by UTZ, Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade
Company tonnages (page 41)
Data kindly provided by the companies.

65Colophon
66

Citation: Fountain, A.C. and Hütz-Adams, F. (2018) Cocoa Barometer 2018
Text: Antonie Fountain (VOICE Network), Friedel Hütz-Adams (Südwind
Institut)
Additional contributors: Caroline Chen and Todd Larsen (Green
America), Sjoerd Panhuijsen (Hivos), Evelyn Bahn and Johannes Schorling(Inkota Netzwerk), Judy Gearhart (International Labor Rights Forum),
Corrie Roeper (Mondiaal FNV), Bart van Besien (Oxfam Wereldwinkels),
Silvie Lang and Thomas Braunschweig (Public Eye), Boukje Theeuwes
and Bram Verkerke (Solidaridad), Fuzz Kitto and Carolyn Kitto (STOP THE
TRAFFIK), Mark Wijne (UNICEF Netherlands)
Design: Tegenwind, Roelant Meijer, Utrecht
Print: Drukkerij Mostert, Leiden
We appreciate the effort of companies and standards bodies in answering
our questionnaires, as well as the many respondents to the Consultation
Papers that were the lead-up to the 2018 Cocoa Barometer.
The final responsibility for the content and the views expressed in thispublication lies solely with the authors.
The 2018 Cocoa Barometer is based on publicly available data as well as
the off-record information provided to the authors. The authors welcome
any corrections to data provided, and challenge all actors of the cocoa
sector to be much more forthcoming with public data on the core
challenges the sector faces.

Copyright
The 2018 Cocoa Barometer is available as digital download, as are theseparate infographics used in this document. We encourage the use ofthis data in other publications, provided proper references are given.
Published under Creative Commons License Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
International
With financial support from:

Participating organisations
ABVV-FGTB/Horval (Belgium) *FNV (Netherlands) *Green America (USA) *Hivos (Netherlands)
Inkota Netzwerk (Germany) *International Labor Rights Forum (USA)
Mondiaal FNV (Netherlands)
Oxfam America (USA)Oxfam Novib (Netherlands) *Oxfam Wereldwinkels (Belgium) *Public Eye (Switzerland) *Solidaridad (Netherlands)
Stop The Traffik (Australia/Netherlands) *Südwind Institut (Germany) *VOICE Network (Global)* Members of the VOICE Network

Contact
www.cocoabarometer.org
Requests for information can be addressed to:Antonie Fountain, Managing Director of VOICE Network
antonie@voicenetwork.eu

67

Endnotes
1

ICCO (2018): Quarterly Bulletin of Cocoa Statistics Volume XLIV No. 1, Cocoa
Year 2017/18, London

68

2

Verein der am Rohkakaohandel beteiligten Firmen e.V. [Ed.] (2016):
Geschäftsbericht 2015/2016. Additional sources: communication with market
participants

3

ICCO (2018): Quarterly Bulletin of Cocoa Statistics Volume XLIV No. 1, Cocoa
Year 2017/18, London

4N’Kalô 2018: Bulletin sur le Marché du Cacao. 5 mars 2018 - Numéro 1 - www.
nkalo.com Additional sources: communication with market participants

5

ICCO (2018): Quarterly Bulletin of Cocoa Statistics Volume XLIV No. 1, Cocoa
Year 2017/18, London

6

Catherine Bonjean, Jean-François Brun. Price Transmission in the Cocoa-Cholate
Chain. CERDI, Université d’Auvergne, 2007

7

Barry Callebaut’s CEO highlighted the boost to margins from the “collapse” ofbean prices. AgriMoney. 2017. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.agrimoney.
com/news/barry-callebaut-shares-hit-all-time-high-as-cocoa-price-dip-helpsprofits--10628.html

8 FLA 2015: 17-19
9

Andrea Rusman, Reinier de Adelhart Toorop, Jelmer de Boer, Adria de Groot
Ruiz. Cocoa Farmer Income. The household income of cocoa farmers in Côte
d’Ivôire and strategies for improvement. True Price/Fairtrade, April 2018. https://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/resources/2018-04_
Report_Fairtrade_Cocoa_Farmer_Income.pdf

10 Nestlé & International Cocoa Initiative, Nestlé Cocoa Plan Tackling Child
Labour Report 2017, https://www.nestlecocoaplanreport.com/sites/default/
files/2017-10/NestleCocoaPlanReport2017_EN_0.pdf
11 Chocolate’s Dark Secret, Mighty Earth, 2017. http://www.mightyearth.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/chocolates_dark_secret_english_web.pdf

12 Bitty, E. Anderson et al. (Gonedele, Sery Bi / Koffi Bene, Jean-Claude / Kouassi,
Philippe K. / McGraw, W. Scott ) (2015): Cocoa farming and primate extirpation
inside Côte d’Ivôire’s protected areas. Tropical Conservation Science Vol.8 (1), pp
95-113.
www.tropicalconservationscience.org
EUREDD Facility (undated): Côte d’Ivôire, URL: http://www.euredd.efi.int/
CôtedIvôire
13 Bitty et al. 2015: 99-102, Ministère des Eaux et Forêts (2015): “Les rendez-vous
du gouvernement. Le nouveau code forestier: Enjeux et Perspectives pourune gestion durable du patrimoine forestier ivoirien“ http://www.gouv.ci/doc/
PROPOS_LIMINAIRES_CICG_2%20verminef.pdf
14 HRW (Human Rights Watch (2016): Côte d’Ivôire: Arbitrary Evictions in Protected
Forests, June 13, 2016: URL: https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/13/CôtedIvôire-arbitrary-evictions-protected-forests
15 Camargo, Marisa / Nhantumbo, Isilda (2016): Towards sustainable chocolate:Greening the cocoa supply chain, IIED, London.
16 Kroeger, Alan et al. (Bakhtary, Haseebullah / Haupt, Franziska / Streck, Charlotte)(2017): Eliminating Deforestation from the Cocoa Supply Chain, March 201717 Asamoah, Mercy / Owusu-Ansah, Frank (2017): Report on Land Tenure & Cocoa
Production in Ghana. A CRIG/WCF Collaborative Survey, February 2017, p7
18 Wessel, Marius / Quist-Wessel, P.M. Foluke (2015): Cocoa production in West
Africa, a review and analysis of recent developments, in: NJAS - Wageningen
Journal of Life Sciences 74–75 (2015) 1–7, p5
19 Schroth, Götz et al. (Läderach Peter / Martinez-Valle, Armando Isaac / Bunn,
Christian / Jassogne, Laurence) (2016): Vulnerability to climate change of cocoa
inWest Africa: Patterns, opportunities and limits to adaptation, in Science of the
Total Environment 556 (2016) 231–241
20 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-warming-could-impact-your-easterchocolate-21356
21 Ghana Web http://bit.ly/2gluds969

22 https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/09/15/human-cost-environmental-protectionCôte-dIvôire

70

23 GIZ 2012: Forum Nachhaltiger Kakao, Deutschland (Konzept-Note)
24 Balineau, Gaëlle / Bernath, Safia / Pahuatini, Vaihei (2017): Cocoa farmers’
agricultural practices and livelihoods in Côte d’Ivôire. Insights from cocoa
farmers and community baseline surveys conducted by Barry Callebaut between
2013 and 2015
25 Foundjem-Tita, Divine et al. (Donovan, Jason / Stoian, Dietmar / Degrande, Ann)(2016): Baseline for Assessing the Impact of Fairtrade Certification on Cocoa
Farmers and Cooperatives in Ghana. Nairobi. World Agroforestry Centre.
26 Kroeger, Alan et al. (Bakhtary, Haseebullah / Haupt, Franziska / Streck, Charlotte)(2017): Eliminating Deforestation from the Cocoa Supply Chain, March 201727 Ingram, Verina et al. (Waarts, Yuca / Ge, Lan / van Vugt, Simone / Wegner, Lucia/ Puister-Jansen, Linda / Ruf,, Francois / Tanoh, Roger) (2014): Impact of UTZ
Certification of cocoa in Ivory Coast Assessment framework and baseline. LEI
Wageningen UR. Den Haag
28 Waarts, Yuca et al. (Ingram, Verina / Linderhof, Vincent / Puister-Jansen, Linda/ van Rijn, Fedes / Aryeetey, Richmond) (2015): Impact of UTZ certification on
cocoa producers in Ghana, 2011 to 2014, LEI Wageningen UR, Den Haag, 201529 Andrea Rusman, Reinier de Adelhart Toorop, Jelmer de Boer, Adria de Groot
Ruiz. Cocoa Farmer Income. The household income of cocoa farmers in Côte
d’Ivôire and strategies for improvement. True Price/Fairtrade, April 2018. https://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/resources/2018-04_
Report_Fairtrade_Cocoa_Farmer_Income.pdf
30 Preliminary results of the upcoming study of the KIT.
31 Matthess, Annemarie 2017: E-Mail to Friedel Hütz-Adams, 26.07.2017. Data
based on surveys and the project „Sustainable Smallholder Agribusiness inWestern and Central Africa - SSAB“ of the GIZ.
32 Como Consult 2016: Baseline Report. Pro Planteures – Baseline / Côte d’Ivôire
33 Girardin et al. 2004. “Opportunities and limiting factors of intensive vegetable
farming in malaria endemic Côte d’Ivôire.” Acta Tropica

34 Kolavalli, Shashi / Vigneri, Marcella 2017: The Cocoa Coast. The BoardManaged Cocoa Sector in Ghana
35 ICI (International Cocoa Initiative) 2016: Researching the Impact of Increased
Cocoa Yields onthe Labour Market and Child Labour Risk in Ghana and Côte
d’Ivôire. ICI Labour Market Research Study. Researchers: Marcella Vigneri and
Renata Serra, with Ana Lucia Cardenas, URL: http://www.cocoainitiative.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/12/market_research_full_web.pdf
36 (ICCO 2018; LMC 2018)37 Oomes, Tieben, p.11, p.76 It is important to note that this report was publishedprior to the price-decline. It has become even more urgent since.
38 LMC 2018: Cocoa: the global market Outlook for beans, butter, liquor &powder 2018 Brochure
39 Fairtrade 2017: E-mail from Johanna Schmidt, Supply Chain Manager Fairtrade
Deutschland, an Friedel Hütz-Adams
07.06.2017. UTZ (2017): Cocoa Statistics Report 2016. https://utz.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/170515-COCOA-Statistics-Report-External-Version.
pdf
40 Niek Koning, Muriel Calo, Roel Jongeneel. Fair Trade in Tropical Crops
is Possible. International Commodity Agreements Revisited. North-Southdiscussion paper no 3, Wageningen UR, 2004

71

72

www.cocoabarometer.org