NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 74–75 (2015) 1–7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/njas

Review

Cocoa production in West Africa, a review and analysis of recent

developments
Marius Wessel a,∗ , P.M. Foluke Quist-Wessel b,1
a
Emeritus professor Wageningen University, Arnhemseweg 78, 6711 HG Ede, the Netherlands
b
Director and Senior Agronomist of AgriQuest, Narcissenstraat 10, 6666 BA Heteren, the Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper reviews the present condition of cocoa growing in West Africa where some six million ha are
Received 24 September 2014 planted with cocoa which provide about 70 percent of the total world production. Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana
Received in revised form 28 July 2015 are the largest producers, followed by Nigeria and Cameroon. In the beginning of the 21st century the
Accepted 7 September 2015
cocoa production increased from about 2,000,000 tons to about 3,000,000 tons in 2010 and subsequent
Available online 26 September 2015
years. While in this period expansion of the cocoa area (at the expense of forest land) contributed to
increased production, nowadays more cocoa has to come from higher yield per ha which is very low at
Keywords:
present. This paper highlights at first cocoa growing in each of the cocoa producing countries and then
Pests
Diseases deals with the common constraints and options to higher yields, especially those in Côte d’Ivoire and
Replanting Ghana. The major causes of low yield are a high incidence of pests and diseases, the old age of cocoa
Rehabilitation farms and lack of soil nutrients.
Fertilizers Concerns about declining output due to aging and diseased trees have urged the government of Côte
Amazon hybrids d’Ivoire and Ghana to launch large rehabilitation and replanting schemes which provide farmers with
Agroforestry improved planting materials, plant protection chemicals and fertilizers. As owners of small farms do not
Intensification earn enough income from their cocoa to purchase external inputs, the traditional mixed planting of cocoa
Prospects
and forest and fruit trees and some oil palms is discussed as an alternative to a high input approach. This
low input low output system is sustainable but not the way forward to higher yields.
It is thought that in the short run higher cocoa prices and improved management including pest and
disease control and to a certain extent fertilizer use offer scope for a larger cocoa output. In the more
distant future the predicted climatic change and increased land use for food production will reduce the
size of the cocoa area and affect the leading position of West Africa on the world cocoa market. This
review shows that at present the conditions for sustainable production are not met and concludes that
important structural changes in the cocoa sector are needed to reach this goal. These changes concern the
economic viability of cocoa on small farms, extensive land use and the ecological impact of the current
cocoa growing practice. The implementation of these changes requires area specific programs with as
their common goal increased economic and environmentally sustainable cocoa production on less land.
© 2015 Royal Netherlands Society for Agricultural Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights
reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Production in the main cocoa growing countries of West Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1. Côte d’Ivoire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2. Ghana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.3. Nigeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.4. Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.5. Common causes of low yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 (0) 318 616082.

E-mail address: mwessel@tiscali.nl (M. Wessel).
1
Tel.: +31 (0) 6 25401772.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2015.09.001
1573-5214/© 2015 Royal Netherlands Society for Agricultural Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 M. Wessel, P.M.F. Quist-Wessel / NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 74–75 (2015) 1–7

3. The impact of major pests and diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3.1. Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.2. Phytophthora Pod Rot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3.3. Mirids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. Rehabilitation and replanting of cocoa fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.1. Rehabilitation of mature cocoa fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.2. Partial or complete replanting of old cocoa fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.3. The use of improved planting material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4.4. The use of Upper Amazon hybrid cocoa without shade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
5. The role of fertilizers in increasing the yield of farmers’ cocoa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. Cocoa agroforestry as an alternative to a high-input approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7. Prospects for future cocoa production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.1. Short-term demand and supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
7.2. Problems of the cocoa sector in the long run . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8. Towards sustainable cocoa production: growing more cocoa on less land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.1. The economic viability of cocoa on small farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.2. Extensive land use and low yields, the need for intensification of the cropping system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.3. Reduction of negative ecological effects of cocoa cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
8.4. An integrated approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1. Introduction production area, a government policy to stimulate cocoa growing

as an export crop, the availability of large virgin forest areas and a
In West Africa cocoa is mainly grown by small holders who tradi- large scale labour migration from the north [4].
tionally planted their cocoa at random under thinned forest shade. The spectacular production increase in the 2013-2014 season,
It is a low input cultivation system which uses the forest soil fertility however, is mainly attributed to a 40 percent increase in the farm
and the existing shade. This simple method explains that some six gate price which prompted farmers to invest more time and inputs
million ha of the West African forest zone are planted with cocoa, in their plantations [5]. This rapid increase shows that there was a
which provides about 70 percent of the total world production. At latent production capacity that could be mobilized quickly. Accord-
present Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana are the largest producers followed ing to FAOSTAT data [6] the harvested area was about 2.5 million
by Nigeria and Cameroon. The cocoa production increased from, ha in 2012. The yield has remained 500–600 kg per ha during the
about 2,000,000 tons in 2000 to about 3,000,000 tons in 2010 and last 20 years. Average cocoa farm sizes of 3 and 4 ha are mentioned
subsequent years (Table 1). The average yields however remain low but no reliable statistics are available. Almost all Upper Amazon
because many farms are old and extensive cultivation methods are cocoa hybrids (see 4.3.) in the south-western part of the country are
used. Farmers wishing to increase their cocoa output established grown without shade. The major constraints facing the cocoa sector
new farms elsewhere in the forest zone. This search for new land are apart from deforestation and land degradation, the widespread
has led both in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire to large-scale deforesta- occurrence of pests and diseases, early ageing of unshaded trees,
tion. As at present little land is available for the expansion of the no access to credit and agricultural inputs, and lack of land owner-
cocoa area a further increase in production has to come from an ship [4]. At present the negative impact of the no-shade and low
increase in yield of the existing mature trees and the replanting input use is manifesting itself in high tree mortality and declining
of old unproductive cocoa farms. This paper reviews at first cocoa yields [7]. To improve this situation and to stop further deforesta-
growing in the main cocoa producing countries and then deals with tion the department of agriculture has launched the Programme
the major causes of low yields and options to higher productivity, Quantité-Qualité-Croissance  2QC  2014-2023, to improve and
especially those found in the two largest cocoa producing countries intensify the existing farmers coffee and cocoa production systems.
Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. These causes are high incidence impact of This envisages that by 2023 a cocoa area of 800,000 ha (including
pests and diseases, old age of cocoa farms and lack of soil nutrients. 150,000 ha affected by swollen shoot disease) has been replanted
As the options to improvements imply the use of costly external with improved planting material and that about 1,000,000 ha of
inputs cocoa agroforestry is discussed as alternative to a high input cocoa has been rehabilitated by proper management and input
approach. Finally the prospects of cocoa production in West Africa use [8]. In addition the Cocoa Fertilizer Initiative has started a
and the conditions for its future economic and environmental sus- programme in 2012 to deliver fertilizers to 200,000 farmers by
tainability are discussed. 2020 [9].

2. Production in the main cocoa growing countries of West 2.2. Ghana

Africa
In Ghana the cocoa production has steadily risen from 300,000
This review starts with the largest cocoa producing country Côte tons in 1995 to 900,000 tons in 2014 (Table 1). According to Asante-
d’Ivoire and ends with the smallest one Cameroon. Poku and Angelucci [10] the main factors that have contributed to
the increase in Ghana’s cocoa production are the support meas-
2.1. Côte d’Ivoire ures of the government-owned cocoa marketing board COCOBOD.
These include increases in farm gate prices, introduction of free pest
In Côte d’Ivoire the annual production increased from 900,000 and disease control programmes, the introduction of packages of
tons in 1995 to 1,500,000 tons in 2011. This increase is related to hybrid seeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides, improved mar-
an expansion of the cocoa area which began in the 1970s when keting facilities and the repair of roads in cocoa growing areas. An
the cocoa production shifted from the southeast to the southwest. important factor is also the expansion of the cocoa growing area,
This development is the outcome of land scarcity in the traditional especially in the Western Region. According to FAOSTAT [6] the
 M. Wessel, P.M.F. Quist-Wessel / NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 74–75 (2015) 1–7 3

Table 1
West African and world production of cocoa beans (thousand tons).

1984-1985 1989-1990 1994-1995 1999-2000 2004-2005 2009-2010 2010-2011 2012-2013 2013-2014

Cameroon 120 125 107 120 130 205 229 225 210
Côte d’Ivoire 565 708 876 1300 1273 1242 1511 1449 1741
Ghana 175 295 304 440 586 632 1025c 835 897
Nigeria 151 170 140 165 190 235 240 238 250
West Africaa 1011 (52)b 1298 (54) 1427 (60) 2025 (69) 2179 (70) 2314 (64) 3005 (70) 2747 (69) 3098 (71)
World 1944 2412 2368 2937 3289 3635 4312 3945 4365

Sources: 1984-2000. Cocoa Growers’ Bulletin 40 (1988), 45 (1992), 50 (1996), 52 (2000) [1].
2004-2015. ICCO Quarterly Bulletin of Cocoa Statistics XXXI (2006), XXXIX (2013), XL (2014) [2].
a
West Africa: total production of Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Nigeria.
b
Between brackets: percentage of world cocoa production.
c
Although there is no official data it is anticipated that about 75,000 to 100,000 tons cocoa beans may have been smuggled from Côte d’Ivoire into Ghana in
2010-2011 [3].

harvested area increased from 1.0 million ha in 1995 to 1.6 mil-
lion ha in 2010. This expansion has led to large-scale deforestation.
Most cocoa farms are small, 2 ha or less [11]. Because of inad-
equate management and input use the planting of potentially
high-yielding Amazon hybrids has hardly increased and the aver-
age yield of the majority of the farmers has remained low, about
400 kg per ha [12]. Another reason for the low average yield in
Ghana is the age of many cocoa fields. To deal with the age prob-
lem COCOBOD has announced a National Cocoa Rehabilitation
Programme providing 20 million cocoa seedlings to farmers for
free in 2012 and a rehabilitation and replanting scheme which
includes the replanting of 20 percent of the existing cocoa farms in
2014 [12,13].
2.3. Nigeria
2.5. Common causes of low yield
This review shows that the four major cocoa producing
countries have most causes of low yield in common. These are low
input use, inadequate maintenance and pest and disease control,
poor shade management, little or no fertilizer use and old age of
cocoa farms. How these factors cause low yields is shown in Fig. 1. In
this model the farm gate cocoa price, high input prices, no access to
loans and credits and the small farm size are considered as external
factors beyond the control of the individual farmer. They affect the
general conditions for cocoa production but have no direct effect
on yield. Direct effects have the constraints and options for higher
yields which operate within the cropping system. These are high-
lighted in the following paragraphs and further discussed in the last
two sections of this paper.

3. The impact of major pests and diseases

In Nigeria cocoa production has steadily grown from 165,000
tons in 1999-2000 to 250,000 tons in 2013-2014 (Table 1), mainly
as a result of high grower prices and to a limited extent also to the
government support as outlined in the 2011 Cocoa Transformation
Action Plan [14]. The total harvested area amounts to 640,000 ha
and the average yield is about 400 kg per ha.1 Yield improvement
is constrained by the age of the farmers (most of them are over 60
years old), a lack of proper farm management, low farm input use,
inadequate supply and high costs of recommended chemicals, poor
access roads to the major cocoa production areas and an inadequate
extension service. Many cocoa fields are old and there is an urgent
need for replanting of old farms. The Cocoa Transformation Action
Plan envisages to improve this situation and to raise the production
to 500,000 tons by 2015.
2.4. Cameroon
In Cameroon the cocoa production has almost doubled in the
last decade to the current level of about 220,000 tons. The aver-
age yield is low, about 300-400 kg per ha. The main yield limiting
factors are the age of the cocoa trees, an inadequate input supply
system and climatic conditions [15]. Due to high rainfall during
the cropping season the Phytophthora pod rot (black pod) dis-
ease causes great yield losses in the shaded (agroforestry) cocoa
farms which can only be controlled by very frequent spraying
with copper fungicides. This is expensive and not totally effective,
and in practice little fungicide is used [16]. The high rainfall also
causes post-harvest losses due to inadequate drying and storage
facilities.
Pests and diseases cause major economic losses in cocoa. This is
particularly so in West Africa with its very large number of small
and often isolated cocoa farms in which adequate pest and disease
control is lacking.
3.1. Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus Disease
In all cocoa growing areas of West Africa the Cocoa Swollen
Shoot Virus Disease (CSSVD) occurs. Especially in Ghana virulent
strains have destroyed large cocoa areas in the past. Removal of
millions of infected trees and planting of virus tolerant Upper Ama-
zon hybrid cocoa have controlled the disease to a certain extent,
but have not prevented the occurrence of new virus outbreaks in
newly planted areas in Ghana [17]. Quite recently virus outbreaks
were also found in western Côte d’Ivoire, where the CSSVD was
thought to have been eradicated since the 1950s [18]. Given the
size of the cocoa area and the fact that also symptomless trees may
carry the virus, it is clear that removal of infected trees does not
stop the disease from spreading. The ultimate answer to the CSSVD
problem is a preventative strategy based on the breeding of resis-
tant varieties. As long as these are not available planting of the most
resistant hybrids is seen as the best solution. In swollen shoot areas
the newly planted fields should be surrounded by non-CSSVD host
crops such as citrus, oil palm or coffee to prevent virus infection
from adjacent cocoa trees. Farmers are not in favour of this concept
although the so-called barrier crops bring in extra income [17,18].
3.2. Phytophthora Pod Rot

In West Africa Phytophthora Pod Rot (PPR) or black pod disease

1
According to FAOSTAT [6] the cocoa area, production and yield are about: is caused by two pathogen species P. palmivora and P. megakarya.
1,200,000 ha, 360,000 tons and 300 kg per ha respectively. These species cause in parts of Ghana and Côte d‘Ivoire mean annual
4 M. Wessel, P.M.F. Quist-Wessel / NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 74–75 (2015) 1–7
Low farm
gate price
High input
prices
Low input
Low income
use
from cocoa
No access
to loans and
credit
Small farm
size
Fig. 1. Causes of low yield in farmers’ cocoa in West Africa.
pod losses of about 40 percent and even higher [19,21]. The high-
est incidence of PPR is found in the shaded cocoa in Cameroon.
Regular removal of infected pods and shade reduction to lower
the humidity can reduce pod losses to a certain degree but usu-
ally additional chemical control by regular spraying of fungicides
is needed. Most farmers, however, are unable to adopt this tech-
nology because of the high costs of the fungicides and application
problems. In practice little fungicide is used [19,20].
3.3. Mirids
Mirids (Distantiella theobroma and Sahlbergella singularis) are the
most important insect pest of cocoa in West Africa. They cause
annual crop losses of about 25 percent in Ghana [22] and 30-40
percent in Côte d’Ivoire [21]. By feeding on young twigs and flush
leaves mirids damage the cocoa which often results in deteriora-
tion of the canopy and in extreme cases in the death of the trees.
The greatest damage occurs in lightly shaded and unshaded cocoa
where the highest insect populations are found and more or less
permanently new flushes are formed. Although proper shade man-
agement can prevent major pest outbreaks additional chemical
control with insecticides is often needed. Surveys in Ghana have
shown that due to the high costs of spraying equipment, chem-
icals and labour most farmers do not practice insect control. In
the absence of appropriate measures the Ghanaian government
has been financing pest control programs including mass spray-
ing of entire areas. In view of the concern that mass spraying of
pesticides can affect human health and the environment, the use
of plant-based instead of synthetic pesticides was investigated. A
profitable method was developed but it required labour and cap-
ital investments which farmers are mostly unable to secure [23].
Further research on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods
proposes a strategy based on the use of cultural practices and host
variety resistance, while depending on pest population and dam-
age level supplementary application of insecticides may be needed
[24]. Before this strategy can be put into practice farmers have to
be taught the principles of mirid biology and damage assessment.
4. Rehabilitation and replanting of cocoa fields
4.1. Rehabilitation of mature cocoa fields
Paragraph 2 has highlighted that the old age of cocoa trees is
one of the main causes of low yields. There are two options to deal
with this problem: rehabilitation of existing farms or the planting
of new trees. As the economic lifetime of cocoa trees is between
30 and 40 years only farms less than 30 years old may qualify for
Inadequate:
- maintenance
- pest and
disease control
Low yields
- nutrient supply
Age of cocoa
farms
rehabilitation. Detailed field trials in ten cocoa districts in Côte
d’Ivoire have shown that on sites with 25 to 30 year old cocoa
trees rehabilitation is feasible and profitable. Good maintenance
and integrated pest and disease control raised the average yield
over a four year period by 40 percent, from around 500 to 700 kg per
ha. Additional fertilizer use raised the yield further to 1000 kg per
ha from the third year of application onwards [25]. At present large-
scale rehabilitation and replanting programs are in progress in Côte
d’Ivoire and Ghana (see paragraph 2). As participants will face less
favourable growing conditions and limited financial resources their
future yields will be lower than those reported from the experimen-
tal sites.
4.2. Partial or complete replanting of old cocoa fields
Old farms can be partially or completely replanted. Trials in Côte
d’Ivoire have shown that the planting of young trees among old
trees (partial replanting) can be successful and more profitable than
the planting of trees under temporary banana and Gliricidia sepium
shade on fields cleared from a natural fallow vegetation [25]. An
advantage of partial replanting is that farmers continue to have
some income from trees that remain. One of the drawbacks is the
risk of spreading of diseases from the trees that are left. Partial
replanting in swollen shoot affected areas is therefore not feasi-
ble. On old farms where the majority of trees are low-yielding and
many trees are missing complete replanting is considered the best
option. Farmers are generally not in favour of complete replant-
ing because of immediate loss of income and high clearing and
establishment costs [26]. They prefer the planting of new cocoa
trees on new fields. Young farmers especially see the expansion of
land and planting it with cocoa as a long-term investment and as
a means to establish land ownership [27]. Planting trees on virgin
forest land is attractive because of the accumulated soil fertility and
the absence of weeds. As long as new land is available expansion of
the cocoa area is for most farmers a better economic option than the
replanting of old fields and intensifying their cultivation practices in
existing fields.
4.3. The use of improved planting material
The provision of improved planting material is one of the key
elements of the government supported replanting schemes. It
concerns distribution of seeds and seedlings of vigorous Upper
Amazon hybrids which come early into bearing and can poten-
tially produce high yields over a 25 to 30 year period and have
a degree of resistance to the Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus Disease
(CSSVD). These hybrids were developed in the second half of the
 M. Wessel, P.M.F. Quist-Wessel / NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 74–75 (2015) 1–7
20th century after Pound’s Upper Amazon cocoa collection was
introduced from Trinidad to West Africa to obtain greater genetic
variability for breeding varieties resistant to CSSDV [28]. Edwin and
Masters [29] studied the yield gains in farmers’ cocoa in Ghana
that can be attributed to the use of Amazon hybrids. They found
that planting of hybrids was associated with 42% higher yields.
The yields, however, varied considerably from 330 to 930 kg per ha
and the average yield of 500 kg was about half the achievable yield
on well-managed farms. Aneani and Ofori-Frimpong [30] studying
the yield gap between the farmers’ yield in Ghana and the poten-
tial yield, showed that the mean cocoa yield was only 18 percent
of both the experimental and farm-based potential yield of about
1900 kg per ha. Both studies confirm the earlier findings of Ado-
mako and Adu-Ampomah [28] that there is apparently a strong
genotype-environment interaction: the hybrids are doing well in
good conditions and rather badly in poor conditions. So far the
planting of Upper Amazon hybrids has contributed to a large and
rapid increase in the total production but hardly to a higher average
yield.
4.4. The use of Upper Amazon hybrid cocoa without shade
Since the vigorous full-light tolerant Amazon hybrids became
available many farmers turned to growing cocoa without shade.
Without shade frequent weeding and fertilizers are needed while
insect damage tends to be wide spread and more frequent espe-
cially where the cocoa canopy is incomplete. Because of lack of
knowledge and financial means farmers have not adopted the
appropriate cultivation practices. This has led to early degenera-
tion and early death of cocoa trees which is now apparent in Côte
d’Ivoire and Ghana. The problems are so serious that some farmers
are thinking of giving up cocoa farming all together and replanting
their fields with less demanding crops such as rubber and oil palm
[4,31].
5. The role of fertilizers in increasing the yield of farmers’
cocoa
On-farm trials in the Ashanti region in Ghana [32] have shown
that fertilizers can increase the yield of mature cocoa by 50 percent
and more on sites where environment and management are not the
main yield limiting factors. In on-farm trials in Côte d’Ivoire in the
period 2005-2009 fertilizers increased the average yield from 600
to 1000 kg per ha in the third year of application. This high response
was obtained under favourable conditions, on sites of the Interna-
tional Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Sustainable Tree Crop
Program with an almost complete stand of 20-30 year old trees
and with good maintenance and integrated pest and disease con-
trol. Fertilizer use did not pay in the first two years of application
but became enumerative in the third year [25]. A review of on-
farm experiments in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana [7] showed a wide
range of results and an average yield increase of 100 percent in the
third year of application. On some sites in Côte d’Ivoire fertilizers
were also found to have a positive impact on the health and vital-
ity of cocoa trees. In Ghana with relatively high cocoa prices and
subsidized fertilizers even the lowest responses looked profitable.
In Côte d’Ivoire, however, with heavily taxed cocoa and no fertil-
izer subsidy, fertilizer use was considered to be too risky. In both
countries little fertilizer is used for cocoa, according to Ruf and Bini
[7], about 33,000 tons in Côte d’Ivoire and 90,000 tons in Ghana. As
to the future the farmers’ decision on fertilizer use will depend on
the producer cocoa price, the costs of fertilizers and on their finan-
cial resources to buy fertilizers in the initial years when fertilizer
use is not profitable [25].
5
6. Cocoa agroforestry as an alternative to a high-input
approach
The above mentioned options to higher yields all mean a higher
use of external inputs. As the owners of small farms are unlikely
to earn enough income from their cocoa to pay for these inputs,
the question arises if a low-input system is not a more appropri-
ate production model for them e.g. the traditional way of growing
cocoa with the shade of some forest and fruit trees and oil palms.
This system, nowadays called cocoa agroforestry, is still dominant
in Central Cameroon. Its sustainability is illustrated by the fact that
around 80 percent of the farms are over 40 years old and that with-
out fertilizer, cocoa yields are maintained over a long period with
little degradation of soil resources [33,34]. Yields are low, approx-
imately 300 kg per ha, because of the age of trees and the high
incidence of Phytophthora pod rot (PPR). Alemagi et al. [16] studied
the prospects of higher profitability of the present system and men-
tion two options: intensification by the planting of additional trees
and the use of fungicides to control PPR. The researchers stressed
the importance of planting timber trees because of the expected
reduction of forest degradation, deforestation and increased carbon
sequestration. Farmers, on the other hand, favoured the planting
of fruit trees for personal consumption and to supply the local
markets. By planting fruit trees farmers also avoid the problem of
getting a land title, which is required to obtain ownership of forest
trees but is not needed for fruit trees. Farmers viewed fungicides
to be effective but too expensive. Only farmers with an off-farm
income had the ability to improve their cultivation system but pre-
ferred to use the money to enlarge their cocoa farm. However this
situation might change if the role of agroforestry systems in carbon
sequestration could be recognised and farmers would receive extra
income from carbon payment schemes [16,35]. A study of cocoa
agroforestry in Ghana confirmed the sustainability of this system.
With medium shade of 10-15 trees per ha yields of 500 kg were
maintained over a very long period [36].
Whereas researchers consider cocoa agroforestry as a sus-
tainable production system, farmers generally favour a no-shade
system. Ruf [27] studied this paradox in Ghana. His findings are that
especially young farmers are of the opinion that the availability of
high-yielding, light-tolerant hybrids makes the planting of shade
trees superfluous and that farmers considering tree diversification
preferred the planting of trees in separate plots. As for sustainable
cocoa growing some degree of shade is needed to control insect
damage and premature decline of yields, there is apparently a need
for the development of shaded high and low-input cocoa systems
which are acceptable to farmers.
7. Prospects for future cocoa production
7.1. Short-term demand and supply
The International Cocoa Organization (ICCO) [37] forecasts a 10
percent increase in the world cocoa production and a 25 percent
increase of the cocoa price in the next decade. Based on this forecast
the total cocoa production will be about 4,700,000 tons in 2022-
2023, with a supply deficit of 100,000 tons. If West Africa wishes to
maintain its present world market share a 10 percent increase in
production is needed in the next decade. While in the past expan-
sion of the cocoa area contributed to an increase in production at
present more cocoa has to come from a higher yield per ha. On-
farm trials have shown that with good maintenance and chemical
inputs 50 to 100 percent higher yields are feasible. In practice how-
ever farmers are unable to make these investments because they
are trapped in a vicious circle of inadequate financial means, low
input use, high crop losses and low yields. Several factors affect this
6 M. Wessel, P.M.F. Quist-Wessel / NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 74–75 (2015) 1–7
cycle. The most important one is the farm gate cocoa price. Past
experience learns that an increase in price leads to higher yields.
It prompts farmers to invest more time and money in their cocoa
farms and to mobilize an apparently latent production capacity.
Other external production limiting factors are loan and credit facil-
ities, a reliable input and output delivery system and appropriate
technical advice. To relieve these constraints various large-scale
rehabilitation and replanting projects are ongoing in Côte d’Ivoire
and Ghana. It is thought that, if farmers will get a fair share of the
expected higher world cocoa price and can benefit from the gov-
ernment support schemes, a 10 percent higher cocoa output from
West Africa can be realized in the next decade.
The role of cocoa certification in raising farmers’ income and
promoting ecologically sound cultivation methods is mentioned
for the sake of completeness. So far the cocoa industry has com-
mitted itself to use certification to achieve these objectives while
organizations such as COCOBOD in Ghana do not consider it as the
way forward [12]. Up till now certification projects have had little
impact. Most farmers do not belong to farmers organizations and
cannot be reached while the price received by certified farmers is
often not significantly different from that received by non-certified
farmers. A positive point was that certification through its training
program was associated with much higher yields [38].
7.2. Problems of the cocoa sector in the long run
In the more distant future the West African position on the world
cocoa market is uncertain. A study on the future climate in West
Africa [39] predicts an increase in temperature which will reduce
the size of the current cocoa growing area in Ghana and in Côte
d’Ivoire. In the area that will remain suitable for cocoa, farmers have
to adapt their agronomic management to the new conditions. The
doubling of the West African population in the next 35 years [40]
and the development of large urban centres [41] such as Abidjan,
Accra and Lagos directly south of the cocoa zone, is likely to result
in a greater demand for food and higher food prices. This makes
a shift from cocoa to food crop growing a realistic scenario. Both
climatic change and population growth underline the necessity to
grow more cocoa on less land. Another aspect of the rural-urban
migration is likely to be a shortage of farm labour and an exodus of
the future generation of cocoa farmers.
8. Towards sustainable cocoa production: growing more
cocoa on less land
The proposed and ongoing rehabilitation and replanting
projects and a higher producer price offer scope for an increase
in cocoa production. However before there can be sustainable pro-
duction, important changes in the cocoa growing sector are needed.
These changes concern the economic viability of cocoa cultivation
on small farms, the present extensive land use and low yields, and
the ecological impact of cocoa growing. Criteria for sustainability
such as farmer empowerment to ensure that the farmers obtain real
benefit from higher cocoa production [42] are beyond the scope of
this paper.
8.1. The economic viability of cocoa on small farms
The Sustainable Tree Crop Programme (STCP) 2001 survey in
four West African cocoa production countries gives data on the eco-
nomic viability of cocoa on small farms. They show that the top 25
percent of households (ranked by the amount of cocoa produced)
have average production costs four times lower and yields nearly
four times higher than the bottom 25 percent and that a significant
share of small farms incur losses [31]. A baseline survey of 3000
cocoa farmers in Ghana confirms that low productivity results in
an extremely low income for many cocoa farming households. This
inhibits the adoption of more advanced farming practices, including
use of pesticides and fertilizers [11].
The STCP recommends for the larger producers in the most
densely populated regions of the cocoa belt to implement inno-
vations through the distribution of improved planting material
and fertilizers. Effectively this means selective replanting of larger
cocoa farms. Since farmers generally prefer planting of cocoa on
new fields to replanting of old fields, programmes must be devel-
oped which make replanting financially attractive. For the less
efficient cocoa producers STPC recommends a different set of poli-
cies that would either allow them to shift to other crops or support
their transition to an alternative production system, for example
to a low input system, in which cocoa is intercropped with other
economically valuable trees.
8.2. Extensive land use and low yields, the need for intensification
of the cropping system
Realisation of the STCP recommendations implies a considerable
reduction of the existing low-yielding cocoa area and a transition
of the present extensive cocoa growing practice into a more inten-
sive cultivation system. A condition for a successful intensification
is that replanting of cocoa is restricted to suitable soils and that
farmers invest in high-quality planting material and in land prepa-
ration including the timely planting of shade trees. Furthermore
they should be encouraged financially to give priority to the con-
trol of pests and diseases which cause 30 to 40 percent yield losses
at present. Intensification requires a complete change of mind of
the farmers who are used to growing their cocoa at little costs on
fertile forest soils and to investing the returns from their cocoa crop
in health and education rather than in their cocoa farm. Security of
tenure of land ownership is considered as an important condition
and incentive for farmers to invest in their farm. It gives collateral
for credit and other inputs and the security that investments will
provide future income to the farmer and his/her family [42]. Other
conditions which keep farmers away from making investments and
the adoption of new technologies need further investigations.
8.3. Reduction of negative ecological effects of cocoa cultivation
To reduce further deforestation for the expansion of cocoa land,
land use planning is needed to determine the areas which from
the ecological point of view should be preserved under forest cover
and those which might be planted to cocoa. To ensure productive
land use, cocoa planting should be restricted to suitable soils and
land titles should only be granted to farmers who have successfully
established and maintained a healthy cocoa farm.
Mass spraying of insecticides of existing cocoa fields is also a
matter of concern. By the reduction of the low yielding cocoa areas
and by paying farmers a premium for removal of isolated and low
yielding trees, the areas that are mass-sprayed with insecticides
can be reduced. From the economic and the environmental point
of view this would be a desirable development. To make cocoa cul-
tivation less dependent on the use of synthetic plant protection
chemicals further research on alternative pest and disease control
methods deserves priority.
8.4. An integrated approach
As the proposals for structural change of the cocoa sector
are interrelated, integrated programs are needed which take also
into account aspects of the rural infrastructure such as education,
health, and roads and access to credit and inputs. These plans
should not only be directed towards the continuity and growth of
cocoa production but also to ensure that cocoa farming provides a
 M. Wessel, P.M.F. Quist-Wessel / NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 74–75 (2015) 1–7 7

competitive income as compared to other crops. The programs have black pod disease, in: O. Grillo (Ed.), Biodiversity Loss in a Changing Planet,
to be country and area specific but should have as their common INTECH, 2011, pp. 303–319.
[21] K.F. N’Guessan, Major pests and diseases, situations and damage assessment,
goal: environmental and economic sustainability of cocoa produc- protocols in Côte d’Ivoire, in: Presentation at Regional workshop on
tion. The predicted impact of climatic change and an increasing integrated management of cocoa pests and pathogens in Africa 15 to 18 April
demand for land for food crop production will have a negative 2013, Accra, 2013.
[22] B. Padi, G.K. Owusu, Towards an integrated pest management for sustainable
impact on the size of the present cocoa growing area. Both fac- cocoa production in Ghana, Paper from workshop in Panama 1998,
tors underline the need for intensification of cocoa cultivation in Smithsonian Institute, Washington, 2003, pp. 16, Available at:
West Africa, in short, the need for growing more cocoa on less http;//nationalzoo.sci.edu/scbi./migratorybirds/research/cacao/padi.cfm,
February 19, 2015.
land.
[23] E.N.A. Dormon, A. van Huis, C. Leeuwis, Effectiveness and profitability of
integrated pest management for improving yield on smallholder cocoa farms
References in Ghana, International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 27 (2007) 27–39.
[24] R. Adu-Acheampong, J.E. Sarfo, E.F. Appiah, A. Nkansah, G. Awudzi, E. Obeng,
P. Tagbor, R. Sem, Strategy for insect pest control in cocoa, American Journal
[1] R.A. Lass (Ed.), Review of production and consumption, Cocoa Growers’
Experimental Agriculture 6 (6) (2015) 416–423.
Bulletin, 40, Cadbury Ltd, Birmingham, 1988, 45 (1992), 49 (1995), 52 (2000).
[25] A.A. Assiri, E.A. Kacou, F.A. Assi, K.S. Ekra, K.F. Dji, J.Y. Couloud, A.R. Yapo,
[2] ICCO, Production of cocoa beans, Quarterly Bulletin of Cocoa Statistics,
Rentabilité économique des techniques de réhabilitation et replantation des
London, 2006, XXXI, XXXIX (2013), XL (2014). Available at: http://www.
vieux vergers de cacaoyers (Theobroma cacao L.) en Côte d’Ivoire, Journal of
icco.org/, March 18, 2015.
Animal & Plant Sciences 14 (2012) I939–I1951.
[3] E. Ashitey, Cocoa Report Annual, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service Gain
[26] R.A. Lass, Replanting and rehabilitation of old cocoa farms, in: G.A.R. Wood,
Report Number H1202, Accra, 2012, 7 pp.
R.A. Lass (Eds.), Cocoa Fourth Edition, Tropical Agriculture Series, Longman,
[4] A. Hatløy, T.A. Kebede, P.J. Adeba, C. Elvis, Towards Côte d’Ivoire Sustainable
New York, 1985, pp. 210–233.
Cocoa Initiative, Baseline Study Report, Fafo Institute for Applied
[27] F.O. Ruf, The myth of complex cocoa agroforests: The case of Ghana, Human
International Studies, Oslo, 2012, pp. 57.
Ecology 39 (3) (2011) 373–388.
[5] A.C. Fountain, F. Hütz-Adams, Cocoa Barometer, 2015, USA edition, 2015, 56
[28] B. Adomako, Y. Adu-Ampomah, Reflections on the yield of Upper Amazon
pp.
cocoa hybrids in Ghana with reference to breeding for cocoa swollen shoot
[6] FAOSTAT, The agricultural production, [Online], 2015. Available at:
virus resistant varieties, Cocoa Growers Bulletin 52 (2000) 33–45.
http://faostat3.fao.org/download/Q/*/E, April 20, 2015.
[29] J. Edwin, W.A. Masters, Genetic improvement and cocoa yields in Ghana,
[7] F. Ruf, S. Bini, Cocoa and fertilizers in West-Africa, CIRAD, UMR Innovation
Experimental Agriculture 41 (4) (2005) 491–503.
(2012) 5.
[30] F. Aneani, K. Ofori-Frimpong, An analysis of yield gap and some factors of
[8] Ministère de l’Agriculture République de Côte d’Ivoire, Programme
cocoa (Theobroma cacao) yields in Ghana, Sustainable Agricultural Research 2
Quantité-Qualité-Croissance « 2QC » 2014-2023, Résumé, 2014, 17pp.
(4) (2013) 117–127.
http://www.conseilcafecacao.ci/docs/PROGRAMME 2QC 2014-2023.pdf.
[31] S. Kolavalli, M. Vigneri, Cocoa in Ghana: Shaping the success of an economy,
[9] IDH, the sustainable trade initiative, Cocoa Fertilizer Initiative, Restoring soil
in: P. Chuhan-Pole, M. Angwafo (Eds.), Yes Africa can, World Bank,
fertility in West Africa for a rejuvenated and economically viable cocoa sector,
Washington, 2011, pp. 201–217.
2015. Available at: http://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/Fertilzer, March 17,
[32] FAO, Fertilizer use by crop in Ghana, FAO, Rome, 2005, pp. 53.
2015.
[33] B. Duguma, J. Gockowski, J. Bakala, Smallholder cacao (Theobroma cacao
[10] A. Asante-Poku, F. Angelucci, Analysis of incentives and disincentives for
Linn.) cultivation in agroforestry systems of West and Central Africa:
cocoa in Ghana, Technical note series, Monitoring African Food and
challenges and opportunities, Agroforestry Systems 51 (2001) 177–188.
Agricultural Policies project, (MAFAB), FAO, Rome, 2013, pp. 35.
[34] P. Jagoret, I. Michel-Dounias, E. Malézieux, Long-term dynamics of cocoa
[11] M. Hainmueller, M.J. Hiscox, M. Tampe, Sustainable development for cocoa
agroforests: A case study in central Cameroon, Agroforestry Systems 81
farmers in Ghana, Baseline Survey: Preliminary Report, MIT and Harvard
(2011) 267–278.
University, USA, 2011, pp. 67.
[35] J. Gockowski, D. Sonwa, Cocoa intensification scenarios and their predicted
[12] A. Laven, M. Boomsma, Incentives for sustainable cocoa production in Ghana,
impact on CO2 emissions, biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods in
Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, 2012, pp. 49.
the Guinea rain forest of West Africa, Environmental Management 48 (2010)
[13] COCOBOD, COCOBOD to rehabilitate aging farms. Available at
307–321.
http://citifmonline.com/2014/10/27, May 26, 2015.
[36] I. Nunoo, V. Owusu, B.O. Darko, Cocoa agroforestry a bridge for sustainable
[14] U.M. Nzeka, Nigeria hikes target on cocoa production, USDA Foreign Service
cocoa production, in: G. Rahmann, U. Aksoy (Eds.), Proceedings 4th ISOFAR
Gain Report, Lagos, 2014, pp. 8.
Scientific Conference “Building organic bridges”, Organic World Congress
[15] V. Ngo Nkelle, The sustainability of Cameroon cocoa economy, in:
2014, 13-15 Oct. Istanbul, 2014, pp. 555–557.
Presentation at the ICCO roundtable for a sustainable cocoa economy, 2007, p.
[37] ICCO, The world cocoa economy: current status, challenges and prospects,
8, Available at: http://www.icco.org/sites/www.roundtablecocoa.org/
Presentation at Multi-year expert meeting on commodities and development
documents/3%20Mr.%20Ngo%20Nkelle%20Victor%20-%20Cameroon.pdf.
9-10 April 2014. Available at: http://unctad.org/meetings/en/Presentation/
[16] D. Alemagi, L. Duguma, P.A. Minang, M. Feudjio, F. Nkeumoe, Z. Tchoundjeu,
SUC MEM2014 09042014 ICCO.pdf.
Intensification of cocoa agroforestry systems as a REDD+ strategy in
[38] M. Paschall, D. Seville, Certified cocoa: Scaling up farmer participation in West
Cameroon: hurdles, motivations, and challenges, International Journal of
Africa, International Institute for Environment and Development/Sustainable
Agricultural Sustainability (online first) 2014183 (2014) 19.
Food Lab, 2012, pp. 28.
[17] H. Dzahini-Obiatey, O. Domfeh, F.M. Amoah, Over seventy years of a viral
[39] CIAT (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical), Predicting the impact of
disease of cocoa in Ghana: from researchers’ perspective, African Journal
climatic change on the cocoa-growing regions in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire,
Agricultural Research 5 (7) (2010) 476–485.
Cali, 2011, 35 pp.
[18] K. Kouakou, B.I. Kébé, N. Kouassi, S. Aké, C. Cilas, E. Muller, Geographical
[40] UNICEF, Generation 2030/Africa, Division of Data, Research and Policy, 2014,
distribution of cocoa swollen shoot virus molecular variability in Côte
68 pp. http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF Africa Generation
d’Ivoire, Plant Disease 96 (2012) 1445–1450.
2030 en 11Aug.pdf.
[19] I.Y. Opoku, A.A. Appiah, A.Y. Akrofi, G.K. Owusu, Phytophthora megakarya: A
[41] United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects, the 2014 revision, Highlights,
potential threat to the cocoa industry in Ghana? Ghana Journal of Agricultural
(ST/SEA/SER.A/352) Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
Science 33 (2000) 237–248.
Division, 2014, 32 pp.
[20] J. Mpika, I.B. Kebe, K.F. N’Guessan, Isolation and identification of indigenous
[42] ICCO, Report on the World Cocoa Conference 2014, Amsterdam, 2014, 29 pp.
microorganisms of cocoa farms in Côte d’Ivoire and assessment of their
Available at: http://www.icco.org/, May 26, 2015.
antagonistic effects vis-à-vis Phytophthora palmivora, the causal agent of