AGROFORESTRY IN THE COCOA SECTOR:A NEED FOR AMBITIOUS COLLABORATIVE LANDSCAPE APPROACHES
Consultation paper for the 2020 Cocoa Barometer / July 2020

Cocoa agroforestry systems can bring a wide range of ecological benefits; biodiversity conservation of floraand fauna, carbon sequestration, preserving and strengthening soil moisture and fertility, contributing to pest
control, and microclimatic control such as stimulating rainfall, and many other benefits.
However, a large gap separates the current reality of agroforestry in the cocoa sector from its potential.
Alignment on an adequate definition is missing. Sector commitments and certification have low impacts.
Existing diverse agroforestry systems are at risk. There is confusion about and artificial tension between yield
improvements and biodiversity. Tree distribution campaigns have low success rates, and there is low adoptionof agroforestry by cocoa farmers. Decent monitoring is absent. Finally, agroforestry and zero-deforestation
are wrongly conflated with each other.
Agroforestry should not replace forest areas1, nor can simplified agroforestry be a substitute for more diverse
agroforestry systems. Instead, agroforestry systems should be used to strengthen resilience of cocoa
production regions and to restore degraded land. All monoculture cocoa should over time be replaced withagroforestry cocoa, with progressively more robust agroforestry systems put in place. Approachingagroforestry development on a landscape scale and adopting multi-stakeholder approaches could enhance
emergence of initiatives well-suited to local and regional contexts. These landscape approaches must include
solutions to land and tree tenure issues, innovative ways to finance the costs of agroforestry are equallynecessary, and these must provide additional sources of income for farmers as well.
This paper highlights shortcomings in current industry and government approaches to agroforestry in cocoa.
It also suggests a way forward to ensure that cocoa agroforestry delivers on its promise of environmental
sustainability while contributing to farmers’ livelihoods. Lastly, it proposes basic parameters of integrated
agroforestry cocoa standards on both farm and landscape scale and sets forward recommendations for all
actors in the supply chain.

1. Shortcomings in the cocoa sector’s current approach to agroforestry
Lack of adequate definitions should be remedied
A clear definition on agroforestry is sorely lacking, at least for the cocoa sector. Strictly defined, agroforestry
only signifies that there is an association between trees and cultivated crops (Nair 1993). As such, a wide rangeof agricultural systems can be called agroforestry. This is demonstrated by the problematic range ofperspectives on operational definitions provided in response to the questionnaire for the 2020 Cocoa
Barometer (see Box 1: Definitions of agroforestry by cocoa companies).
It is essential for the cocoa sector – and for cocoa-producing governments – to come to a consensus on what
we are speaking of when we discuss agroforestry.
Box 1. Definitions of agroforestry by cocoa companies
Direct responses from cocoa and chocolate companies to the 2020 Cocoa Barometer.
For Ghana, the recommendation is to plant up to 18 emergent trees (≥12 m height) per hectare also providing
permanent canopy cover corresponding to approximately 30–40 % shade;
For Ivory Coast, the regulatory authorities have defined the expectation of a canopy cover by forest trees of 30 to
50% for cocoa agroforestry systems with no specific number per hectare;
Our company’s definition: Cacao agroforestry is a managed, intentional system of cultivation of cacao with othertrees and crops over time and space. Agroforestry can optimise cocoa production, farmer income, carbon storage andenvironmental benefits, and supply chain resilience.
30% shade cover achieves a balance between maximising productivity potential, diversifying a farmer’s income
thereby assuring food security of communities, and achieving the desired environmental benefits
We understand agroforestry as the deliberate integration of trees on farms or in the wider landscape agroforestry
system is a multifunctional land-use system where woody perennials (e.g. trees, shrubs, palms and bamboos) aredeliberately used on the same plot as other crops (e.g. cocoa)
Cocoa-based agroforestry system maintains the production of cocoa while incorporating at least one additional
species. The term agroforestry may refer to a multitude of structures, planting designs and management phases

1

As defined under national regulations and using HCS and HCV methodologies for cocoa production.

We understand Cocoa Agroforestry as the promotion, conservation, and renewal of different woody perennials in
addition to cocoa on a plantation. Tree diversification can occur through domestication to meet the farmer’sfunctional needs or to take advantage of market opportunities
We do not have an operational definition
Aligned with the World Cocoa Foundation and Climate Focus.
Agroforestry can take many forms and in the broadest sense can be defined as any farming system that involves thedeliberate planting or retention of trees on the farm and at a sufficient population to interact with cocoa e.g. in theform of shade
We work with farmers and recommend the introduction of economic shade trees inside or at the border of theircocoa farms, which is what we will refer to as agroforestry. The density of trees can vary from 15 to +50 trees/ha andthere shouldn’t be a minimum number of different species per ha. What is important is that the farmers themselves
decide what species they plant.
We recognize agroforestry systems to include the intentional integration of non-cocoa trees into cocoa agricultural
systems to create environmental, economic, and/or social benefits
We would keep a strict definition, approx. 50 multi-purpose trees per ha
Min. 30% shade cover and min. 25 permanent shade trees of min. 5 different species per hectare
Discussion and definition within CFI

Low impact of sector commitments and certification must be addressed
Agroforestry and sustainability commitments like the Cocoa & Forests Initiative (CFI) launched in 2017 have
led to investments in large-scale certification and to tree distribution campaigns by industry. Unfortunately,commitments from some entities in industry and government have not extended to all key actors, nor havethese commitments been monitored or fully implemented on the ground (Higonnet et. al.). Thus, thesepromises have not led to a significant increase in agroforestry, nor to improved farmer livelihoods orresilience.
This has much to do with the low – and changeable – criteria to achieve agroforestry not only in CFI but also
for both large-scale certification labels with an agroforestry component2 as well as the government
agroforestry and deforestation standards in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire.
Fairtrade and Organic certifications do not even attempt to address agroforestry. Though Rainforest
Alliance/UTZ does address agroforestry, it has not monitored and enforced strict implementation of their own
stated agroforestry goals, such that much of the cocoa certified by them is, in fact, often not robust agroforestry
even when requirements and definitions are adequate.
Most efforts also remain uncoordinated, with little synergy between companies and the landscapes they
operate, resulting in minimal landscape transformation and agroforestry improvements.

Diverse agroforestry systems should not be watered down
Promoting agroforestry in its simplest forms is not enough to meet the needs of forest preservation andrestoration, sustainability and farmers’ resilience, especially not when simpler forms replace diverse
biodiversity agroforestry systems (Ruf 2011). Despite good intentions, low shade standards (as exist in thecurrent voluntary sustainability standards – VSSs) encourage and enable degradation of existing, more
complex agroforestry systems to stimulate productivity.
Currently, a number of chocolate and cocoa companies are mostly establishing simple forms of agroforestry
such as promoting high yielding varieties that are propagated to grow without or little shade mixed withcommercial timber3. Whilst this strategy can offer some environmental services compared to full-sun cocoa
systems (Blaser, W. J., Oppong, J., Hart, S. P., Landolt, J., Yeboah, E., & Six, J.), it is a degradation if it replaces
diverse pre-existing agroforestry systems or fallow secondary forest regrowth.
Companies and VSS put in place low agroforestry standards because they seem easy to realize in the field, forexample by giving away tree seedlings. However, these new trees often do not survive in established cocoa
2 Rainforest Alliance (RA) and UTZ (now merged with RA) certified farmers were respectively told to keep 18 and 12

trees per hectare in 2015. Then, in 2017 RA required 30% shade cover with 5 different indigenous tree species before
both ending up to requiring “an optimal agroforestry” in the draft for 2020 standard. Organic certification has nothing
to do with agroforestry; a farm can be certified organic while being a full-sun monoculture plantation. Fairtrade has noagroforestry standard for cocoa. An example of a standard with a high bar for agroforestry is Bird Friendly Coffee,
though this is not used in cocoa.
3 Barry Callebaut’s “agroforestry" in Côte d'Ivoire uses “Mercedes” cocoa – a full sun cocoa variety – in combination
with trees such as Niangon, Acajou, Cédrela, Teak, Framiré, Fraké, Samba that address timber industry needs.

monocultures or are not even planted, which due to a lack of monitoring is then not documented. As aconsequence, a greater number of cocoa plantations can be certified, or touted as being “agroforestry”, without
significant improvement on the ground.

Artificial tension between productivity and agroforestry must be debunked
Many stakeholders express fears about alleged tensions between agroforestry and productivity. However,yields can be just as high in certain high-biodiversity agroforestry systems as in full-sun production (Clough
et al. 2011), and there are indications that cocoa agroforestry systems can have similar or even better
economic performance compared to conventional, full sun systems (Jezeer et al. 2017).
A great deal of research has been done by a large cooperative in the Dominican Republic (Conacado 2018)
and elsewhere, showing that senescent cocoa plantations can be rehabilitated to increase production throughgrafting (whilst maintaining phytosanitary hygiene to avoid the spread of diseases), hand-pollinating, pruning,
agroecological fertilization, and weed management without altering the shade composition above the cocoa.
In addition, when communicating with farmers, the focus needs to shift from measuring just cocoa yields tototal system yields, and comprehensive cost-benefit analyses that consider food security, long term effects ofintensified agriculture, and diversified income as well as costs (especially minimizing costs of agrochemicals
and labour), and ultimately and most importantly achieving a living income.
Best practices in agroforestry cocoa and in cocoa productivity enhancement can be combined to ensure thatagroforestry does not need to be paired with increased use of agrochemicals. Programs adopting the paradigmof “sustainable intensification” or “climate smart agriculture” need clear insights into these trade-offs.
Furthermore, cocoa varieties should be developed that thrive under diversified shade conditions, varietiesthat do not need high levels of external inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides or fungicides.

Farmer inclusion & education is needed to reverse low success rates in tree distribution campaigns
The impact of agroforestry reforestation campaigns for existing cocoa plots is unfortunately minimal. In Côte
d’Ivoire, despite a great number of tree distribution campaigns, distributed tree survival was less than 2%(Sanial 2019). Even when trees do survive distribution, most young tree seedlings are cut down during
weeding, due to a lack of training on agroforestry practices provided to the person who is doing the actual
work at farm level, such as sharecroppers (Uribe-Leitz and Ruf 2019). This clearly shows the need for intensive
training, education, and collaborative work with cocoa farmers and farm workers to ensure success in anytransition away from monoculture towards agroforestry. In Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire CFI signatory companies
collectively distributed 2,144,440 multi-purpose trees to farmers for agroforestry and trained 224,500
farmers in climate smart cocoa in 2018&19 seasons (CFI 2019 Progress report Ghana & Côte d’Ivoire). How
many of these will survive and grow out to serve their purpose?

Industry and governments must address root causes of low adoption by cocoa farmers
Adoption of agroforestry by farmers currently in cocoa monoculture systems is minimal, for several reasons.
First, knowledge and information are crucial. Costs and benefits of agroforestry are often unclear to farmers,
and many farmers have been led to believe that full-sun monoculture is the way to go.
Second, money matters. Few farmers – most of whom are on the edge of food insecurity and earn less than $1
per day - can afford the initial investments to transition to agroforestry.
Thirdly, land tenure and tree tenure insecurity provide additional barriers (see section below for details).
Fourthly, men and women are impacted differently regarding income and land tenure. When agroforestry
programmes are not rolled out taking gender into account, adoption rates by women farmers will also be low.
Finally, when farmers have access to new cocoa planting material, these are often varieties that have been
adapted to full-sun conditions, and therefore are not very suitable to agroforestry.

Lack of monitoring means progress is hard to track and achieve
Strong monitoring systems (that include satellite mapping) are absent from current cocoa environmental
agroforestry initiatives such as the Cocoa & Forests Initiative, national government action plans, orstandards such as RA/UTZ. Without these it is hard to verify whether or not companies live up to theircommitments (Uribe-Leitz and Ruf 2019), especially in areas where cocoa fields are established underthinned forest cover, such as in Cameroon.

Industry must stop confusing zero-deforestation commitments with cocoa agroforestry
There is no direct relationship between promotion of agroforestry and halting deforestation. Agroforestry
cannot replace natural forest.
However, agroforestry cocoa can play a minor part in compensation and restoration measures for previous
historic deforestation. In this sense, it is important for companies in the cocoa industry, who have benefitted
from past deforestation in their supply chains.
Agroforestry is also important for major cocoa producing countries, as they urgently need to re-green theirnations, some of which are on a collision course to desertification because of tree cover loss. For example, itis estimated that Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire have lost between 80-95% of their forests since 1955, leading towidespread rainfall loss and increasingly unpredictable weather patterns. For such countries, rolling out
agroforestry wherever possible can help anchor rainfall and restore some tree cover.
Box 2: Definitions of deforestation and forest degradation
Currently, the Cocoa & Forests Initiative (CFI) maintains the following definition on deforestation: There will
be no further conversion of any forest land (as defined under national regulations and or using methodologies
such as High Carbon Stock (HCS) and High Conservation Value (HCV) approach) for cocoa production.
However, since the CFI was launched, there has been considerable progress made on deforestation definitions,
within the High Carbon Stock Approach and the Accountability Framework, among other platforms. CFI would
do well to update their definitions based on the evolving current discussions.

2. A way forward: collaborative development of landscape approaches

Structural changes in the governance of agroforestry approaches are needed; a shift from cocoa-plot tolandscape, collective and inclusive development of locally defined landscape approaches, with farmers in thedriver’s seat, and innovative financing making this economically possible.

Embrace agroforestry at landscape scale
Many agroforestry initiatives are currently limited to cocoa-plot scale (e.g. through promoting good
agricultural practices, distributing trees, or rolling out certification). However, a landscape level perspective
is needed, both to protect remnants of natural forests intertwined with farm plots using agroforestry and to
remediate past deforestation and forest degradation – including restoration of natural forests that have been
degraded by cocoa production.
A landscape-level approach places agroforestry in the wider context of environmental sustainability,
resilience, climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. It also integrates the interests for a variety ofcommodities, apart from cocoa, food, non-timber forest products, timber. This diversity of land uses can bringenvironmental benefits such as stable water provisioning, habitats for pollinators, improved soil quality,
corridors for fauna, and the control of pests and diseases such as swollen shoot disease.

Implementation plans must be locally defined and collaboratively developed
Although based on a set of minimum threshold criteria that should apply globally (see Box 3: Minimum
requirements for agroforestry), landscape approaches to agroforestry must be developed and definedcollaboratively at a local level, bringing together a variety of stakeholders and actors to coordinate for
integrated management, protection, and restoration of their landscape. Local ownership helps ensure thattrees are fully integrated into local socio-political and economic contexts so they can survive longer thanproject lifetime and reach true farmer interest.
Cocoa industry actors have an important role to play, as do local governments, expert researchers,
communities, individual farmers, and forestry administrations. It is also important to integrate other value
chains that are involved in buying or processing the non-cocoa crops grown in cocoa agroforestry systems,
from kola nuts in Nigeria to acai in Brazil and vanilla in Madagascar, palm oil in Indonesia, etc.

Put cocoa farmers in the driving seat
A landscape approach should be based on a more inclusive process to agroforestry development; farmers
should have a strong voice in planning land use, forest protection and restoration. This should start withputting cocoa farming communities in a driving seat – in a gender-sensitive manner and ensuring that not justlandowners, but also farm labourers and sharecroppers are involved. By giving a voice to those with on-theground experience, local landscape agroforestry approaches could be strengthened with realistic and diverse
farming practices (e.g. shade management, tree pruning, organic fertilisation, tree nurseries, harvestingtechniques of non-timber forest products, etc). As such, farmer-based organisations and local civil society
organisations should be included – as equal decision-makers, not just in consultation – in the development
and governance of landscape approaches.

Joint local monitoring of progress is needed
Joint monitoring of forest protection and restoration commitments is key to making this work. This requiresa full mapping of the agroforestry landscape, including remaining forested areas, forest patches at risk of forest
degradation, and of all land that should be converted from monoculture or simple agroforestry to more diverse
agroforestry systems. Results of this initial mapping should be publicly available. Regular monitoring of
progress should be done in a collaborative and inclusive way, ensuring that local civil society and farmerbased stakeholders are empowered members of the monitoring bodies alongside government actors andindustry.

Different landscapes require different approaches
Cocoa-producing landscapes vary greatly between countries and regions. Though landscape agroforestry
approaches should be locally developed, the following three categories of agroforestry approaches should
form the basis of these local definitions.
Current situation: Full-sun monoculture.
Goal: introduce diverse agroforestry
Geographies: West Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, South-West Cameroon, Sulawesi (Indonesia).
Necessary interventions: Introduce trees in existing farms, designate land for reforestation, scale up to
more complex agroforestry systems
Current situation: diverse agroforestry systems in place
Goal: preserve and promote diverse agroforestry systems
Geographies: East Côte d’Ivoire, cabrucas systems in Brazil, Bolivia, and other parts of Central and SouthAmerica and the Caribbean, Central and East Cameroon.
Necessary interventions: Recognise the value of these systems, preserve, and find ways of scaling-up,
prevent transformation into monoculture or down-grading to simple agroforestry
Current situation: Old-growth forest with (risk of) new cocoa farms encroaching
Goal: protect forests through agroforestry in fallows.
Geographies: Amazon Basin, Chocó-Darién Rainforest, Mesoamerican Rainforest, Congo Basin, South East
Asia
Necessary interventions: Establish agroforestry systems on fallows to limit deforestation/forest
degradation, coupled with mapping, monitoring, and strong enforcement of no-deforestation policies.

Governments must enhance land tenure and tree tenure security
Clarity and security of land tenure and tree tenure are essential for agroforestry to work at scale. In West
Africa, national governments and the cocoa sector are struggling with this thorny issue. As long as this has notbeen properly addressed, investments in agroforestry and forest restoration – both by farmers and private
sector – in cocoa-forest landscapes will be problematic. Even though companies can sometimes support
farmers in obtaining their land certificates or tree tenure, the issue of tree and land tenure rests squarely on
the shoulders of local decisionmakers in producer governments. These governments must urgently revise
their tenure laws.

Governments, industry, and financial institutions should finance landscape agroforestry approaches
It is both unrealistic and unjust to expect farmers – the vast majority of whom do not earn a living income – tobear the costs of transitioning to and maintaining cocoa agroforestry systems. Resilient cocoa-agroforest
landscapes serve the interests of all stakeholders; farmers, local communities, and local governments should
be in the lead, but the necessary investment needs to be mobilised by governments and the cocoa sector, withthe help of international financial institutions and private banks.
Costs and benefits are a collective responsibility. It is key to create a mechanism which commits the entire
cocoa sector, thus mobilising the necessary resources and creating a level playing field.
A potential route to consider could be applying an environmental tax set on all cocoa exports. Such a tax shouldin no way decrease the prices paid to farmers. Transparency and accountability of any “Cocoa Environment
Tax” revenues would be key. The allocation of resources should be managed by participatory local platforms
including local governments, farmers organisation and local NGOs, whereby the resources are invested in
restoring past environmental damage and/or maintaining resilient cocoa landscapes, as well as ensuring fairpayment to farmers for their agroforestry efforts. Other routes could include adequate Payment forEnvironmental Services systems.

3. Minimum requirements for a sector wide agroforestry standard

Locally defined landscape agroforestry approaches should deliver on the following four goals:
1. Maintaining on-farm ecosystem services
such as CO2 sequestration, biodiversity, nutrient cycling, pest control, pollinator habitats, soil quality
2. Aiding the restoration of degraded forests, thereby restoring environmental functions
including protecting biodiversity, connecting primary forests, providing habitat for native species,
avoiding soil degradation and associated water pollution, and preserving natural streams, local humidity,
and rainfall
3. Increasing long-term productivity and resilience of cocoa-growing areas
especially in light of climate change
4. Providing diversified income and food to farmers
Box 3: Minimum requirements for agroforestry
Development of local landscape agroforestry approaches should cover at minimum the following criteria:
-

-

-

-

To have 15% of total native vegetation coverage across the farm or group of farmers and a minimum
landscape-level canopy cover of 40%. The latter can be 10% canopy cover in one part of the group offarms but compensated by 50% in another part.
Native trees should not be short-lived pioneer species
At the (group-)farm level (i) a minimum of 12 species per ha on average (structurally and taxonomicallydiverse native species); (ii) retain any original rainforest trees that remain; (iii) maintain and establish
plot boundary tree hedges; (iv) the tree crowns must comprise at least two strata or stories; and (v)shade species should eventually attain a minimum of 12 to 15 meters in height. (vertical structural
diversity results in increased bird diversity)
At the landscape level the tree canopy would include (i) forests in protected and reserved forests; (ii)forest growth or other natural vegetation maintained at a width of at least 5 meters from each side ofsmall streams and at least 10 meters along riverbeds; (iii) sacred forests; (iv) community forests andother locally managed remnants of natural forest.
These standards will be validated and/or contextualized with local (farmers') organisations receiving
better prices for diversified-agroforestry cocoa production, and for clear arrangements on the financingof the transition to and maintenance of agroforestry.

Any agroforestry approach should pay attention to environmental justice and discourage biodiversity
offsetting or land-sparing approaches in cocoa cultivation. Cocoa from diversified agroforestry should be thegoal for all cocoa, not just some.
As a first step in setting the local landscape level standard, a participatory mapping should be carried out of
all farmland and remaining forests (HCS/HVC) in the cocoa producing landscape, including protected forests
and riverbeds.

4. Recommendations
For all-Commit to transitioning all monoculture cocoa to diverse agroforestry systems, with timebound
implementation plans;
Clarify agroforestry definitions, integrating the concept of agroforestry into the broader landscape as
proposed in this paper;
Develop and implement sector-wide traceability and monitoring.

For policy makers, especially in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana-

Put in place inclusive landscape-level land-use planning processes that include agroforestry, based on
the best available science and local practice;
Address the land tenure and tree tenure crisis with law and policy reforms;
Provide extension services for cocoa farmers seeking to diversify their portfolio of crops, assist them inbringing these diversified crops to market;
Shoulder the financial burden of the transition to agroforestry; stimulate true price accounting that
includes environmental costs, in combination with improved transparency & accountability;-Establish monitoring systems to ensure the commitments to agroforestry become a reality; undertake
mapping of cocoa including a differentiation of monoculture vs. agroforestry.

For Voluntary Standard Systems, especially Rainforest Alliance/UTZ, Fair Trade, and Organic-

Set standards that all cocoa must be transitioned to agroforestry;
Monitor standards effectively;
Stop permitting existing diverse agroforestry systems to be downgraded to simplified cocoa/timber
combinations or monoculture.

For cocoa and chocolate companies-

Commit to a timebound plan to buy only agroforestry cocoa;
Help pay for the transition from monoculture to agroforestry;
Collectively develop incentives for farmer adoption of agroforestry practices;
Train farmers and farm labourers in company supply chains better;
Contribute financially towards establishment of agroforestry and work with producer governments andstakeholders at the level of cocoa producing landscapes to establish mechanisms for financing
agroforestry as defined by local stakeholders.

For civil society and knowledge institutions-

Provide and translate knowledge about cocoa agroforestry systems;
Promote and facilitate landscape approaches;
Promote and facilitate access to affordable finance for agroforestry systems at the farmer level.
Campaign for land and tree tenure reforms;
Strengthen and help represent the voice of farmers and local civil society in relevant platforms;
Monitor government and corporate commitments to agroforestry, and implementation thereof.

Colophon
Research: Elsa Sanial
Text: Elsa Sanial, Antonie C. Fountain, Henk Hoefsloot & Rosalien Jezeer
Citation: Sanial, E., Fountain, A.C., Hoefsloot H., & Jezeer, R. (2020): Agroforestry in Cocoa, a need for HighBar Collaborative Landscape Approaches.
Additional contributors: Ruth Bennett (Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute), Julia Christian (Fern),
Maartje de Graaf (Tropenbos International), Etelle Higonnet (Mighty Earth), Friedel Huetz-Adams (Südwind
Institut), Johanna Jacobi (University of Bern), Eric Mensah Kumeh (University of Hohenheim).
Published by the Cocoa Barometer Consortium, administered by the VOICE Network. The Cocoa
Barometer Consortium consists of ABVV/Horval, Be Slavery Free Australia and the Netherlands (formerly
Stop The Traffik), European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT), Fair World
Project, FNV/Mondiaal FNV, Fern, Green America, Hivos, Inkota Netzwerk, International Labour Rights
Forum, Mighty Earth, Oxfam America, Oxfam-Wereldwinkels, Rikolto, Solidaridad, Südwind Institut,
Tropenbos International.
This consultation paper is released in preparation of the 2020 Cocoa Barometer and is based on a Tropenbos
International draft paper under development, which will be published summer 2020.
This publication is co-financed byPublication bibliography
Blaser, W. J., Oppong, J., Hart, S. P., Landolt, J., Yeboah, E., & Six, J.: Climate-smart sustainable agriculture in lowto-intermediate shade agroforests. In Nature Sustainability.
Clough, Yann; Barkmann, Jan; Juhrbandt, Jana; Kessler, Michael; Wanger, Thomas Cherico; Anshary, Alam et al.
(2011): Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests. In Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 (20), pp. 8311–8316. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1016799108.
Conacado (2018): Sistematización de parcelas demostrativas. La experiencia del CONACADO en la
implementación de un paquete técnico en 8 parcelas. Available online athttps://equalexchange.coop/sites/default/files/INFORMEParcelasDemostrativasCONACADO2018.pdf, checked on
5/22/2020.
Higonnet et. al.: Problems-and-solutions-concerning-the-CFI-in-Ghana-and-Côte.-final. Available online at
http://www.mightyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/Problems-and-solutions-concerning-the-CFI-in-Ghana-andCo%CC%82te.-final.pdf, checked on 3/6/2020.
Jezeer, Rosalien E.; Verweij, Pita A.; Santos, Maria J.; Boot, René G.A. (2017): Shaded Coffee and Cocoa – Double
Dividend for Biodiversity and Small-scale Farmers. In Ecological Economics 140, pp. 136–145. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.019.
JOHNS (1999): Conservation in Brazil's Chocolate Forest: The Unlikely Persistence of the Traditional Cocoa
Agroecosystem. In Environmental Management 23 (1), pp. 31–47. DOI: 10.1007/s002679900166.
Nair, P. K. R. (1993): An introduction to agroforestry. Dordrecht, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers incooperation with International Centre for Research in Agroforestry. Available online at https://www.docdeveloppement-durable.org/file/Fertilisation-des-Terres-et-des-Sols/agroforestrie/An-Introduction-toAgroforestry_World-Agroforestry-Centre.pdf, checked on 5/22/2020.
Ruf, François Olivier (2011): The Myth of Complex Cocoa Agroforests: The Case of Ghana. In Human ecology: aninterdisciplinary journal 39 (3), pp. 373–388. DOI: 10.1007/s10745-011-9392-0.
Sanial, Elsa (2019): A la recherche de l'ombre, géographie des systèmes agroforestiers émergents en cacaoculture
ivoirienne post-forestière. Available online athttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/338549035_A_la_recherche_de_l'ombre_geographie_des_systemes_
agroforestiers_emergents_en_cacaoculture_ivoirienne_post-forestiere.
Smith Dumont, E.; Gnahoua, G. M.; Ohouo, L.; Sinclair, F. L.; Vaast, P. (2014): Farmers in Côte d’Ivoire value
integrating tree diversity in cocoa for the provision of ecosystem services. In Agroforest Syst 88 (6), pp. 1047–
1066. DOI: 10.1007/s10457-014-9679-4.
Uribe-Leitz, Enrique; Ruf, François (2019): Cocoa Certification in West Africa: The Need for Change. In Michael
Schmidt, Daniele Giovannucci, Dmitry Palekhov, Berthold Hansmann (Eds.): Sustainable global value chains.
Cham: Springer (Natural resource management in transition, 2198-9702, 2), pp. 435–461.