Climate-smart cocoa in Ghana: Examining discourses, trade-offs and implications for cocoa smallholders
Felix Nasser Master’s thesis (60 ECTS) Landscapes research theme Social-ecological Resilience for Sustainable Development Master’s programme 2017-19 Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC), Stockholm University
Supervisor: Grace Wong (SRC)
Co-supervisor: Victoria Maguire-Rajpaul (University of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute)
“All be lie, some be true.”
I dedicate this thesis to Isaac De-Graft, also known as “Uncle Alhaji”.
1 Contents
1. Introduction ...... 6 2. Theoretical frameworks ...... 8 2.1. Meta-discourses ...... 9 2.2. Equity ...... 11 2.3. Agroecology ...... 13 2.3.1. Agroecology and agroforestry in Ghanaian cocoa ...... 13 3. Methods ...... 15 3.4. Research Design ...... 15 3.4.1. Literature review ...... 16 3.4.2. Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions ...... 17 3.4.3. Participant observation (PO) ...... 18 3.4.4. Data analysis ...... 18 3.5. Case study sites ...... 19 4. Results ...... 22 4.1. Local reflections of meta-discourses ...... 23 4.1.1. Ecological modernisation ...... 23 4.1.2. Green governmentality ...... 25 4.1.3. Civic environmentalism ...... 25 4.2. Equity ...... 26 4.2.1. Distributive Equity ...... 26 4.2.2. Procedural equity ...... 28 4.2.3. Contextual Equity ...... 29 4.2.3.1. Tree tenure ...... 29 4.2.3.2. Financial and gender related constraints ...... 30 4.3. The role of agroecology in CSC ...... 31 5. Discussion ...... 33 5.1. Ecological modernisation – does the win-win hold? ...... 33 5.1.1. Tree tenure rights and contextual equity ...... 34 5.1.2. Optimal shade and tree cover ...... 35 5.1.3. The role of agrochemicals ...... 35 5.1.4. Land sparing or rebound effect? ...... 36 5.2. Agroecology and ecological modernisation ...... 37 5.3. CREMAs and local governance structures ...... 38 6. Conclusion ...... 40 7. Acknowledgements ...... 41
2 8. References ...... 42 9. Appendices ...... 52 Appendix I Ontological and Epistemology of this study...... 52 Appendix II General interview guide ...... 53 Appendix III Interview and FGD guide for farmers ...... 55 Appendix IV Limitations and methodological reflections of study ...... 56 Appendix V Ethics review – final review ...... 59 Appendix VI Coding structure used in the analysis of the data...... 60 Appendix VII Main CSC related interventions in the study sites...... 61 Appendix VIII Boom and bust cycle in the cocoa sector ...... 63 Appendix IX Initial ethics review ...... 64
3 Acronyms
CSC – Climate-Smart Cocoa CSA – Climate-Smart Agriculture CREMA – Community Resource Management Area Mechanism FAO – Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations GMO – Genetically Modified Organism ICRAF – World Agroforestry Centre IDH – The Sustainable Trade Initiative NCRC – Nature Conservation Research Centre NTFP – Non-Timber-Forest-Product PES – Payment for Ecosystem services REDD+ – Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
Word count: 9961
4 Abstract
Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) has emerged as a concept to address the multiple challenges and interdependencies of agriculture and climate change. Within CSA debates, equity and agroecology are especially contested. In Ghana, the concept of climate-smart cocoa (CSC) has emerged to simultaneously respond to high rates of deforestation, climate change pressures and low productivity of cocoa – Ghana’s principal agricultural export. Since CSC in Ghana is a nascent concept, it has received very little academic or critical appraisal. By applying a meta- discourse framework, this study aimed at gaining insights into local CSC discourses in Ghana and how these reflect global environmental meta-discourses. The adoption of certain discourses can reveal insights into subsequent policies and their implications for already marginalised cocoa smallholders. My findings are based on 37 qualitative interviews with cocoa smallholders, extension officers as well as governmental, non-governmental and private sector representatives of Ghana’s cocoa sector. Overall, my results suggest that an ecological modernisation discourse was the most pronounced meta-discourse reflected within CSC. A sustainable intensification discourse was the most common CSC practice to achieve a win-win between environment and development aspirations. Agroecological practices within CSC were mainly adopted to serve ecological modernisation discourses and are thus diametrically opposed to those promoted by more radical meta-discourses. Issues of contextual equity, especially regarding tree tenure, were ubiquitous, and discussed by a large majority of cocoa stakeholders. I caution that an overly simplistic win-win approach risks side-lining contextual equity issues and complexities regarding shade cover and agrochemical input. Community Resource Management Area Mechanisms (CREMAs) and other local governance mechanisms represent promising ways to balance trade-offs within the dominant CSC discourse by giving cocoa smallholders a stronger voice. However, given the dominance of large agricultural actors – such as foreign chocolate companies – within the current political economy of Ghana’s cocoa sector, this study cautions not to overestimate the potential of these local governance structures.
5 1. Introduction
Today’s dominant global agricultural model is not only a major driver of climate change, responsible for around 25% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but it is also vulnerable to climate change impacts (Vermeulen et al. 2012, Tubiello et al. 2015, IPBES 2018). In particular, agricultural expansion into tropical rainforest has been identified as a substantial driver of global GHG emissions and local climatic changes (Lawrence and Vandecar 2015). To address the complexity of these challenges, climate-smart agriculture (CSA), has become an increasingly popular concept (Taylor 2018). It proposes “triple wins” through an approach that incorporates: i) climate change mitigation ii) climate change adaptation, and iii) food security (Lipper et al. 2014). Proponents of CSA include the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), or the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). In Africa alone, USD 1 billion has already been committed to CSA trials and implementation (Rosenstock et al. 2018). But like other market-driven climate interventions such as REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), CSA is not without its critics (see Fletcher et al. 2016 on REDD+). The ambiguity of the triple-win concept and associated agricultural practices have caused several scholars and civil society groups to question its underlying discourses and practices, which range from the adoption of agroforestry to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) (Karlsson et al. 2017, Afrika Kontakt and La Via Campesina 2018). Critics fear the continuation or reinforcement of the current, in their opinion, inequitable agricultural system, which is based on heavy inputs, dominance of multinational actors and the ‘exploitation of nature and the most marginalised’ (Climate Smart Agriculture CONCERNS 2015, Taylor 2018). Against this background, equity, concerned with benefit sharing, and agroecology, as a counter-narrative to conventional agriculture, play a central role in CSA debates (Karlsson et al. 2017).
In Ghana, concurrently with the global emergence of CSA, the concept of climate-smart cocoa (CSC) has become a new umbrella term for sustainability and supply-chain initiatives in the cocoa sector. At face value, adopting the triple-win concepts seems an appropriate response to the multiple challenges in the cocoa sector, such as projected climate change impacts, cocoa’s increasing pressure on remaining forests, and low cocoa productivity. Climate change is projected to negatively impact West African cocoa production, albeit with spatial variation (Läderach et al. 2013, Schroth et al. 2016, 2017). Moreover, estimates indicate that 2.3 million hectares of West African forests have been lost due to cocoa cultivation between 1988 and 2007
6 (Gockowski and Sonwa 2011). Evidence suggests that reduced forest extent would have dire implications for regional climate patterns (Asare et al. 2014, Lawrence and Vandecar 2015), which will not only impact biodiversity but also the almost 1 million cocoa smallholders in Ghana (IDH 2018). That said, cocoa companies face increasing international pressure due to their supply chain being associated with deforestation (Mithöfer et al. 2017). Some scholars even see cocoa as the ‘new’ palm oil, with its associated illegal deforestation and bad reputation for chocolate companies (Carodenuto 2019). CSC has thus become increasingly popular and has been adopted by actors of the private, public or non-governmental sector to simultaneously address climate change, deforestation, and productivity (Kroeger et al. 2017, Dohmen et al. 2018, Feed the Future. 2018, Touton and IDH 2018).
However, as a nascent concept, peer-reviewd literature on CSC in Ghana remains limited (but see R. A. Asare 2014; Akrofi-Atitianti et al. 2018). Consequently, there is no common academic understanding of the discourses and agricultural practices adapted within CSC. Yet, the adoption of certain discourses and subsequently practices, mechanism or investments are thought to create path-dependencies, which can keep cocoa systems locked-in inequitable pathways for years or decades. This study thus examines CSC in Ghana across various levels along the supply chain. Applying Bäckstrand and Lövbrand's (2006) set of global environmental meta-discourses and McDermott et al.'s (2013) multi-dimensional equity framework to Ghanaian CSC, this study’s aims was to elicit: 1) local reflections of meta- discourses, 2) in-depth narratives and perceptions on equity and agroecology, and 3) subsequent implications for smallholders and sustainability initiatives in the Ghanaian cocoa sectors. To address these objectives, this study asks the following three research questions:
1. How are meta-discourses reflected in Ghanaian CSC and what are the subsequent implications for cocoa smallholders? 2. What are dominant equity issues regarding cocoa smallholders in Ghanaian CSC and how does CSC reinforce or resolve these? 3. What role does agroecology play in Ghanaian CSC and how does this reflect meta- discourse positions on agroecology?
7 2. Theoretical frameworks
Following Hajer (1995), this thesis understands discourses as “specific ensembles of ideas, concepts and categorization that are produced, reproduced and transformed in a particular set of practices.” Discourses are not detached from socio-political contexts and are embedded in power relations (Foucault 2003). Discourses can thus enable or constrain policy action (Hajer 1995, Karlsson et al. 2017). Constructivist scholars argue that policy change is not only restricted to changes in bargaining power among actors, but also influenced by changes in meanings and belief (Hajer 1995). In this sense, organisational leaders rarely advance their own discourses and policies separate from boarder discourses on environmental governance (Bäckstrand and Lövbrand 2006). I use Bäckstrand and Lövbrand’s (2006) proposed broader discourses, or meta-discourses, which have emerged and are documented from countless discursive acts over time (Di Gregorio et al. 2017). A central focus of this study is, thus, to explore which meta-discourses are adopted within CSC and their potential implications for cocoa smallholders.
Figure 1 Overview of theoretical frameworks used to examine CSC in Ghana. (Source: personal creation for the purpose of this thesis)
The second aim of this study is to shed light on local reflections of meta-discourses by using equity and agroecology as illustrative entry points. Equity and agroecology are central themes in both global environmental governance and CSA debates and have provoked contestation
8 over their meaning as well as to what extent they are included in on-the-ground projects (McDermott et al. 2013, IFOAM 2015, Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Kerr 2015, Pimbert 2015, Chandra et al. 2017, Karlsson et al. 2017, Giraldo and Rosset 2018, Taylor 2018, Totin et al. 2018). Equity and agroecology thus represent ideal lenses to examine local complexities and implications on local livelihoods (see Adger et al. 2001; and Figure 1).
2.1. Meta-discourses
In order to examine global environmental discourses and their local discursive interpretations within afforestation and climate change mitigation programmes Bäckstrand and Lövbrand (2006) proposed three meta-discourses: ecological modernisation, green governmentality, and civic environmentalism (Table 1).
Table 1 Overview of meta-discourses as identified by Bäckstrand and Lövbrand (2006). Ecological Green Civic environmentalism modernisation governmentality Win-win between economic and Techno-fixes (GMOs, Counter-narrative to the other environmental dimensions maps, artificial) two narratives intelligence
Market-driven strategies Monitoring deemed as Agroecological and community- key based practices are core
Equity not a priority Equity not a priority Equity core
Driven by big agricultural actors Top-down and expert Reformist version suggests driven transnational civil society increase public legitimacy and accountability and complements state centric practices
Radical version suggests fundamental transformation of industrial food systems and the underlying roots of inequality
9 Ecological modernisation is a win-win narrative, where economic growth and environmental protection are compatible. It focusses on flexible and cost-effective environmental problem- solving, with less attention to social justice. For instance, this narrative was predominantly adopted in earlier versions of climate interventions such as REDD+ (Di Gregorio et al. 2013, 2017). A dominant criticism of the ecological modernisation discourse is that market-based solutions to complex social-ecological problems tend to simplify, or even ignore, of human rights concern, diverse belief systems, and practices of cultural minorities (Dawson et al. 2018). Within CSA, the ecological modernisation discourse emphasises the potential of the private sector and win-win solutions, such as sustainable intensification, for both the environment and the economy (Climate Smart Agriculture CONCERNS 2015, Karlsson et al. 2017, Giraldo and Rosset 2018). Although some agroecological practices may form part of ecological modernisation discourses, they are used alongside agrochemical inputs or GMOs.
Green governmentality focusses on techno-scientific management, monitoring with mega- science and big business as solutions to environmental challenges. Experts are granted positions of authority. Less reflective versions of green governmentality emphasise elitist, top-down approaches. (Rosner, 2013). Within CSA and other climate interventions this discourse can be reflected by the dominant role of satellite supervision of forest cover, other scientific monitoring tools, or the use of GMOs. However, according to Bäckstrand and Lövbrand (2006), green governmentality positions overlap with ecological modernisation discourses regarding their managerial, top-down approaches, while reflective positions overlap with weak civic environmentalism discourses. These overlaps have constrained the clear identification of green governmentality discourses in previous studies (Di Gregorio et al. 2017).
Civic environmentalism can be understood as a counter-narrative to the other discourses (Adger et al. 2001), calling for increased participation of marginalised groups, accountability, and a focus on equity and justice issues. Civic environmentalism’s radical versions demand a drastic transformation of agriculture’s unsustainable and inequitable institutional arrangements. Within CSA debates, there is a strong account of radical counter-narratives (Holt-Giménez and Altieri 2013, Pimbert 2015, Karlsson et al. 2017, Mier y Terán et al. 2018). At the same, more reformist versions of civic environmentalism have entered CSA discourses, with an increasing focus on issues of equity and human rights (Gupta 2012, Di Gregorio et al. 2013, 2017, Schroeder and McDermott 2014, Klinsky et al. 2017). This study only examines the radical version of civic environmentalism to avoid an overlap with other meta-discourses.
10 2.2. Equity
Equity can be understood as ‘‘a branch of law that developed alongside common law in order to remedy some of its defects in fairness and justice’’ (OED, 2010). In contrast to equality – which is often understood as equal treatment of all, irrespective of personal advantage or disadvantage – equity focusses more one people’s relative circumstances (Grasso 2007, Resnick and Curtis 2010, McDermott et al. 2013). While equity is closely linked to equality, equal is often synonymous with ‘fair’. Yet, a ‘fair share’, as a measurement of equity, is not consequently an equal share (McDermott et al. 2013). Moreover, what is regarded as a ‘fair share’ can vary with regards to different situations, contexts and cultures (Fisher, 1989).
The framing of equity in environmental discourses has seen recent development, with the creation of more nuanced definitions and their applications to concepts such as payments for ecosystem services (PES). Due to the frameworks demonstrated adaptability to the context of CSA and smallholder issues (see e.g. Karlsson et al., 2017; Saeed et al., 2018), this study applies McDermott et al.’s (2013) multi-dimensional equity (Figure 2): (i) distribution (ii) procedure (iii) recognition or context.
(1) Distributional equity refers to material and non-material benefits, costs and risks associated with an intervention. This dimensions is often framed as who wins and who loses (Karlsson et al. 2017). Different actors may apply different ‘fairness’ criteria or principles depending on socio-cultural and economic contexts (Loft et al. 2017). Distributional equity has received most attention within equity discourses (Ikeme 2003). Yet, climate interventions that only focus on the distribution of payments, e.g. for sequestration of carbon, without taking local decision- making, access to other resources, or power relations in to consideration, are unlikely to have equitable outcomes (McDermott et al. 2013).
(2) Procedural equity focuses on the participation or representation in decision- and policy- making. In this context, participation can range ‘from minimal guarantees of equal basic rights in decision-making and judicial processes to affirmative action favouring groups that have been marginalised, such as women, the landless and ethnic minorities’ (McDermott et al. 2013).
11
Figure 2 Multi-dimensional equity framework. Adapted from McDermott et al. (2013).
(3) Contextual equity appraises pre-existing social, political, and economic conditions. These are seen as the “playing field” (Chomba et al. 2016), which includes laws, processes or policies and will enable or restrain the resources users from benefits. Contextual equity emphasises that deriving benefits is not only dependent on individual capabilities but can be enabled or constrained by community or higher organisation levels such as tenure rights or traditional benefit sharing systems (Ribot and Peluso 2003, Forsyth and Sikor 2013). Correspondingly, contextual equity acknowledges that besides resource distribution, other resources might be necessary in order to benefit from distributed resources (McDermott et al. 2013). This may include capital, labour, market networks, technology and information. For example, the success of alternative livelihood programmes, such as collecting non-timber forest products (NTFPs), will likely depend on market and road networks for its commercialisation.
While dimensions of equity are interdependent, these interrelations are still insufficiently understood. (McDermott et al. 2013). Rather than examining one equity dimension in isolation, this study had for a more flexible approach. During the initial stage of data collection, equity concerns were examined without paying much attention to specific dimensions. Through an iterative process, these were then structured and analysed through the analytical lens of McDermott et al.’s (2013) equity framework.
Moreover, equity can be understood, framed and examined at different levels, from farmers’ benefit-shares in CSA as a local equity concern to the global distribution of climate change mitigation costs as a national equity issue (Sen 2009). The main focus of this study is on equity issues at the local level, and especially those of smallholder cocoa farmers, who represent the most marginalised group within the cocoa value chain (Südwind 2016). CSA is often presented
12 as a strategy to address long-standing equity challenges for smallholder farmers. (FAO 2012, 2013, World Bank et al. 2015). Yet, there is still much debate as to what extent climate change related interventions should invest into equity issues, such as land tenure reforms or poverty alleviation (McDermott et al. 2013).
2.3. Agroecology
Agroecology generally presents itself as an alternative to industrialised agricultural systems and associated negative social-ecological effects (Wezel et al. 2009, Holt-Giménez and Altieri 2013). Originally interested in the ecological study of agricultural systems, the term agroecology dates back to the early 20th century (Gliessman 2015). Yet, agroecological practices are as old as agriculture itself (Lovell 2012). Today, agroecology can be understood as a science, a set of agricultural practices, and a social movement (Wezel et al. 2009). Agroecology embraces diverse believe and knowledge systems, such as indigenous knowledge on biodiversity, soil, and water management (Claeys and Delgado Pugley 2017). Especially in the light of climate change and biodiversity loss, agroecology has gained attention (Altieri et al. 2015, Mier y Terán et al. 2018). While a more reformist version of agroecology promotes adoption of practices such as ‘sustainable intensification’ to make food systems more sustainable, the more radical version calls for a transformation of current food systems (IFOAM 2015, Gliessman 2016). More political versions of agroecology are closely linked to equity and civic environmentalism due to its focus on issues of access, land tenure, and farmers’ independence from external inputs (IFOAM 2015, Afrika Kontakt and La Via Campesina 2018).
2.3.1. Agroecology and agroforestry in Ghanaian cocoa
In Ghanaian cocoa production, agroecology gains its entry point through cocoa’s biophysical characteristic as a forest or agroforestry crop. (Asare et al. 2014). Traditionally, cocoa was thus planted under the shade of large forest trees, which created biodiversity-rich agroecosystems (Rice and Greenberg 2000, Ruf and Schroth 2004, Schroth and Harvey 2007). Such agroforestry systems represented many agroecological practices such as crop diversification, biological weed and pest control management, or natural soil fertility. (Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2007, Clough et al. 2011, Daghela Bisseleua et al. 2013, Kassa et al. 2018). Yet, since the 1980s, shade levels have been dramatically reduced to achieve short‐term increases in production
13 (Kaziango and Masters 2006, Ruf 2011, Tscharntke et al. 2011). With the emergence of sustainability and certification schemes in the early 21st century, several agroecological methods are increasingly promoted involving the re-integration of shade trees, more focus on biological pest management, pruning, or mulching (Gockowski et al. 2013, Ingram et al. 2018, Newsom and Milder 2018).
14 3. Methods
3.4. Research Design
To explore local discursive reflections of the meta-discourses in Ghanaian CSC, this study used a variety of qualitative research methods (Table 2). Methods included a literature review, semi- structured interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), participant observation (PO), and transect walks. Data collection was conducted at multiple study levels (from international to local) and combined deductive and inductive approaches (Bryman 2016). The multitude of methods and study levels aimed at adequately capturing the perceptions of the multitude of stakeholders involved in CSC as well as enabling triangulation (Bryman 2016). Elaboration on ontological reflections are summarised in Appendix I.
Table 2 Multi-level overview of research methods and data collection. n indicates the number of interviews, FGD, or transect walks, whereas ø describes the average number of participants per FGD. Level Method Respondent/Event/Focus Location (if applicable) International Participant COP24 Katowice, Poland observation Global Landscape Forum 2018 Bonn, Germany Literature Global discourse on CSA review
National Semi-structured Government representative Accra, Ghana Interviews Government representative Accra, Ghana Private sector representative Accra, Ghana Private sector representative Accra, Ghana Private sector representative Accra, Ghana Private sector representative Accra, Ghana NGO representative Accra, Ghana NGO representative Accra, Ghana NGO representative Suhum, Ghana Research Kumasi, Ghana
Literature National, corporate and academic CSC review documents
15 Intermediary to Semi-structured Governmental district officer Juaboso-Bia, Ghana local Interviews Governmental extension officer (n=3) Juaboso-Bia, Ghana Private sector extension officer (n=2) Juaboso-Bia, Ghana NGO field officer Juaboso-Bia, Ghana NGO field officer Assin-South, Ghana Farmers (n=15) Juaboso-Bia, Ghana Farmers (n=3) Gomoa, Ghana Women’s group representative Juaboso-Bia, Ghana Female chief farmer Assin-South, Ghana
FGDs Farmers (n=2, ø 7 farmers) Juaboso-Bia, Ghana Farmers (n=2, ø 7 farmers) Assin-South, Ghana Farmers (n=1, 6 farmers) Gomoa, Ghana
Transect walks Farmer (n=2) Juaboso-Bia, Ghana Farmer Assin-South, Ghana Farmer Gomoa, Ghana Forest guards Assin-South, Ghana PO Launch of Kakum Cocoa Agroforestry Assin-South, Ghana Landscape Program
3.4.1. Literature review
Prior to data collection, academic literature as well as government and corporate policy reports on CSA and CSC were reviewed for an enhanced understanding of the global and national reflections of meta-discourses. This review served to provide preliminary context for the field work and the study in general. Search strings such as “climate-smart agriculture”, “climate- smart cocoa”, or “equity and climate-smart agriculture” were applied to Google Scholar and Web of Science. National documents sighted included the Benefit Sharing Plan Ghana Cocoa Forest REDD + Programme 2018 (Ghana Forestry Commission, 2018), Cocoa & Forest Initiative Joint Framework for Action in Ghana (Cocoa & Forests Initiative, 2017), and Ghana Cocoa & Forests Initiative National Implementation Plan 2018-2020 (IDH, 2018). Moreover, the work drew on the vast body of equity-related REDD+ literature. REDD+, although not focused on agriculture, is often compared to or merged with CSA (World Bank et al. 2015, Karlsson et al. 2017).
16 3.4.2. Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions
Through snowball sampling, approximately 14 key organisations involved in CSC were identified. Of these, I engaged with 11 through 37 semi-structured interviews with national representatives or extension officers between December 2019 and February 2019. Local-level interviews were conducted in 12 different communities and three district capitals in the Juaboso-Bia and Assin-South Districts (Figure 3). Communities were selected because of the existence of CSC interventions, recommendations by interviewees and informants, or the willingness of these communities to participate. In order to cover a broad range of local perceptions, farmer interviewees included chief farmers, traditional leaders, and women’s group representatives. The selection of farmer interviewees was supported by extension officers who provided their extensive knowledge of the study sites
Overall, the interviews aimed to elicit diverse perceptions and experiences regarding CSC and subsequently deforestation, climate change, equity and agroforestry (see interview guides in Appendix II and III). If appropriate, and when consent was granted, interviews were recorded on a dictaphone. Additionally, notes were taken during and after interviews. At the start of each interview, respondents were encouraged to talk freely about their perceptions of CSC. This open approach was elected to avoid strong biases in initial responses, especially when eliciting reflections of meta-discourses. The language of national-level interviews was English, while local level interviews were conducted in Twi. No translator was employed, but field officers, when present, would sporadically explain answers or questions in Twi to the researcher or interviewee. This allowed all participants to communicate in the same language at all times. To avoid research fatigue and respect farmers’ time, a very flexible interview approach was employed. This meant that interviews ranged from being informal and short to being formal and long, depending on the perceived willingness of farmers to participate. Close to the end of data collection, a theoretical saturation point was reached (Patton 2002).
FGDs complemented the interviews and had the aim to create more realistic accounts of what people think through a record of their interaction with each other (Bryman, 2007). The FDGs informed this study by eliciting a diverse range of views on how farmers respond to each other’s views on CSC. FGDs followed the same themes used in the interviews (Appendix III). A potential limitation of the FGDs was that some participants might have felt inhibited to voice their perspectives due to social hierarchies in the groups.
17
Additional farmer interviews and a FGD in the Gomoa District of the Central Region, outside the CSC intervention area, served as a ‘control group’ to further complement the data with a better understanding of the impact of CSC interventions,
Despite efforts for gender-balanced data sources, the generalisability of the collected data is constrained by the underrepresentation of women and their perceptions in both farmer interviews and FGDs (six female interviewees out of 37 and five female FGD participants out of 34; see Appendix IV for further limitations of this study).
3.4.3. Participant observation (PO)
Local PO complemented the data by providing additional local context and insights. As part of PO, numerous informal conversations took place with regional, district, and field officers from government, private sector, or civil society, as well as forest guards and cocoa farmers. Additional insights on the local context were gained during transect walks. Transect walks involved an open dialogue with farmers and forest guards as I visited their cocoa farms or the forest. Similar to Ingold (2011), I understand PO as ‘learning with people’ since researchers can never be fully detached from the spaces they study. Accordingly, my role as a researcher was always highlighted during participant observations (see Appendix V for ethical reflections). PO was generally open and unstructured but remained influenced by the chosen theoretical frameworks.
As a part of an iterative reflexivity approach, I took notes and wrote journals at the end of each day, which were used during the coding process and analysed in the broader context of the dataset. Additionally, I conducted PO at two climate events in Europe, which served an initial understanding of global discourses on CSA and CSC.
3.4.4. Data analysis
Nvivo 12 was used to analyse interview transcripts, field notes from participatory observation, as well as to identify emerging codes and themes. The coding was both deductive – guided by the theories and concepts explained in section 2 – and inductive to allow for emerging themes
18 (see Appendix VI for the coding structure). Even though coding took place after field work, the data analysis was a continuous process. FGDs were used to discuss, redefine, and validate initial data. Further external validation was sought through one key informant interview after the field work. The overlapping nature of green governmentality and ecological modernisation discourses presented minor constraints to the analysis (see Appendix IV for limitations).
3.5. Case study sites
The study sites of Western Region’s Juaboso-Bia districts and the Central Region’s Assin- South districts (Figure 4) fall within the tropical ecological zone of moist evergreen forest located in southern Ghana. The landscape is predominantly characterised by a mosaic of cocoa farms and forest reserves.
Figure 3 Study sites in the Ghanaian high forest zone indicated through red circles or dots. The bigger circle indicates the Juaboso-Bia and the smaller circle the Assin-South study sites. Adapted from Boakye (2015).
19 In the two study sites, cocoa production is the major income source of rural households (Hirons et al. 2018a). While there are generally little alternative livelihood sources in Juaboso-Bia (Gockowski et al. 2011), some smallholders in Assin-South generate additional income from oil palm. Even though land tenure is largely held by traditional authorities, a plurality of different land tenure arrangements exist (Hirons et al. 2018b), which include farm owners and short or long-term farm leases (approximately from two to 50 years). Due to economic challenges in other regions of Ghana, a large proportion of cocoa farmers are migrants. This influx of migrant cocoa farmers has put additional pressure on existing forests (Ruf et al. 2015) The social-ecological dynamics of the study sites are further characterized by the dependence on forest cover for the provision of a suitable climate for cocoa production (Asare et al. 2014, Lawrence and Vandecar 2015).
Figure 4 Deforestation (indicated in pink) in forest reserves (dark green) and off-reserve areas in the Juaboso-Bia study site from 2000-2013. Source: Global Forest Watch.
Forest reserves include Bia National Park or Krokosua Hills in the Juaboso-Bia site, and Kakum National Park in Assin-South. The forest areas of Juaboso-Bia are, in particular, under increasing threat of deforestation (Figure 4). Mainly due to forest degradation and climatic changes, dominant cocoa production areas have shifted over the past half-century from the
20 Central Region to the Western Region (Anim-Wapong and Frimpong 2004, Ruf et al. 2015). Further climatic changes are expected to impact cocoa production, such as through heat and drought stress (Schroth et al. 2016).
The selection of the two study sites was primarily based on the presence of CSC interventions. At the time of research, Juaboso-Bia districts had received the most CSC interventions, while CSC efforts in Assin-South districts were predominantly characterized by the implementation of Community Resource Management Area Mechanisms (CREMAs). To concurrently address deforestation, climate change, and low productivity, CSC interventions have been piloted in the Juaboso-Bia districts since 2010. This include the Forest Investment Program (FIP), the multi- stakeholder ‘Partnership for Productivity, Protection and Resilience in Cocoa Landscapes (3PRCL)’ or Olam’s Climate-Smart Landscapes initiative (Appendix I). These interventions are often merged with existing extension and sustainability schemes. CSC interventions in Assin-South are, in contrast, relatively new, with the first landscape-wide CSC intervention active since 2018. Here, the NGO Nature Conservation Research Centre (NCRC) led the implementation of two CREMAs, as part of the ‘Kakum Cocoa Agroforestry Landscape Program’ (Appendix VI). Nevertheless, major cocoa buying companies such as Mondelez, Touton, or ECOM have been implementing sustainability interventions in Assin-South for several years, which often include several elements of CSC, such as the promotion of agroforestry systems. Rather than comparing study sites, the aim was to explore the range of CSC interventions currently present in Ghana.
21 4. Results
Following an overview of CSC (Table 3), the findings are depicted in the order of the frameworks presented: starting with the identification of meta-discourses, then equity issues, and finally aspects of agroecology in CSC discourses.
Table 3 Overview of CSC in Ghana. The data is mainly based on the findings from this study’s data collection. Reasons for its creation High deforestation rates, low cocoa productivity, and expected negative impacts due to climate change Definition As yet, no common definition of CSC in Ghana Emergence Started with the formation of a cross-sectoral working group in 2011, which included governmental, private sector, and NGO representatives (e.g. Forestry Commission, Touton or NCRC; Appendix VI) Main practices and modes benefit Distribution of shade tree seedlings/assistance with agroforestry; sharing access to extension services (e.g. agronomic information or agrochemical input); CREMAs and additional livelihoods programmes. CREMAs consist of farmer committees and are a mechanism that aims to create a community-based governance structure for benefit-sharing, forest conservation, and enhanced alternative livelihood initiatives, such as beekeeping or NTFP collection. CREMAs were mainly supported by NGOs or the Forestry Commission Stakeholders and governance Cross-sectoral consortia, including stakeholders from government, private sector, and NGOs (Appendix VI). Interventions are mainly driven by these actors and implemented through extension and field officers in the respective intervention areas. For the first time in their histories, the Ghana Forestry Commission and COCOBOD work closely together Dominant interventions Forest Investment Programme (FIP), the ‘Partnership for Productivity, Protection and Resilience in Cocoa Landscapes (3PRCL), Olam’s climate-smart cocoa landscape programme or the Kakum Cocoa Agroforestry Landscape Programme (Appendix VI)
22 4.1. Local reflections of meta-discourses
Features of all three meta-discourses were observed during data collection (Table 4). Respondent answers often reflected features of all meta-discourses. Yet, ecological modernization was the most reflected discourse in CSC. Another noteworthy result was that no respondent group was observed to be significantly distinctive from other groups in their reflections of meta-discourses.
Table 4 Summary of key local reflections and contradictions of meta-discourses in CSC. Ecological Green Civic environmentalism modernisation governmentality Local reflections CSC as a win-win solution Scientific knowledge Tree tenure a key issue in CSC important CSC as a business Baseline maps for cocoa Shade trees at core of CSC opportunity productivity and forest strategy cover important
Big private sector actors New agricultural Negative perceptions of play an increasingly methods, such as chemical inputs important role irrigation or hand pollination
Mix of agroecological and agrochemical-based practices
Contradictions Strong awareness of tree Role of scientific above Dominance of private sector and within the tenure issues local knowledge agrochemicals in CSC certain contested discourses
4.1.1. Ecological modernisation
Ecological modernisation’s main feature is its win-win narrative of economic and environmental interests. Although several respondents contested a general win-win on a societal level (e.g. between industrialisation and environmental protection), a win-win solution between cocoa production and forest conservation was shared by the stark majority of
23 respondents, and across levels. Almost all respondents, especially farmers, saw forests and cocoa farming as interdependent, reflecting the importance of forests to provide rainfall and regulate the climate. Close to all respondent deemed successful forest conservation as dependent on the involvement and incentivization of cocoa farmers, while cocoa productivity depended on the protection of forests. The great majority of national representatives and extension officer stated that sustainable intensification of farms would lead to higher farm incomes and less need to expand into the forests. Timber from shade trees and alternative livelihood programmes would further mitigate farmers encroachment on forests. The sustainable intensification narrative was further reflected in several corporate documents (World Cocoa Foundation 2017, Feed the Future. 2018, Touton and IDH 2018). One national- representative explained:
You have fruit trees. You have timber trees on your farm. You are not expanding into new forest areas. You're cutting down deforestation.
However, there was little discussion to back the assumption as to why a successful farmer, follwing intensification, would not set up a new farm on forested land.
Most respondents, including most farmers, agreed, moreover, on the idea of CSC being a “business opportunity” for both farmers and the economic growth of the cocoa sector. One national-level private sector respondent stated:
It's a business opportunity. I elaborated that so much. Especially, the private sector sees this as a business opportunity. That’s why they are willing to be involved. It's important that the farmers also see this as a business opportunity. Otherwise we continue to do business as usual.
Local interpretations showed the increased involvement of the private sector. One government respondent explained:
The way forward in environmental sustainability issues is the private sector. We see private sector as playing the lead. The government will play the regulatory and monitoring role.
24 4.1.2. Green governmentality
The green governmentality discourse was less clearly and frequently reflected, and generally more contested than ecological modernisation positions. This discourse, which proclaims the advantages of techno-scientific management, was reflected through the use of forest monitoring maps, importance of scientific knowledge, and the creation of new agricultural practices such as hand pollination or irrigation systems. Nevertheless, all of these interpretations were contested by various respondents on all levels. Around one fifth of respondents warned of disaccrediting local knowledge. Indeed, several farmers felt their own knowledge to be more appropriate to their realities than that given by extension services. Complementing scientific knowledge with local knowledge was proclaimed by about half of the respondents. A national- level representative’s statement reflects this:
“I would argue for complementarity because you can introduce all these (science-based) things. Then at the end of the day their local experiences, which has to do with their local knowledge, are also very important. You don't go there and teach them how to cultivate cocoa how to take care of trees on their farms. They have been doing this already.”
4.1.3. Civic environmentalism
Civic environmentalism as a meta-discourse often plays a counter-narrative role to conventional approaches by demanding the inclusion of civil society or a major transformation towards equitable food systems. In Ghanaian CSC, the single most dominant reflection of this discourse – which was shared by the great major stakeholders across levels and sectors – was the emphasis on tree tenure as a major equity issue. In particular, this meta-discourse was reflected through the emphasis of agroforestry as part of CSC, which stands in contrast to cocoa monocultures. Despite the fact that civic environmentalism explicitly calls for new approaches to agrochemical input, and rejects mixed practices, the stark majority of respondents did not interpret agroforestry as a substitute for agrochemical inputs, but rather as incorporated into an input-based system. This is illustrated by a quote of a national-level representative:
How do you improve your production if you're not expanding (into forests)? … you have to intensify. So, we give you more inputs more fertilizer. We give you chemicals to deal with pests and diseases.
25 While civil society actors are the dominant actors of the civic environmentalism discourse, this study only encountered a few local NGOs or community-based farmers organisations involved in CSC, in contraposition to a strong involvement of the private sector.
4.2. Equity
The following sections depict findings regarding distributive, procedural, and contextual equity (see Table 4 for a summary).
Table 4 Summary of the main equity concerns encountered during field work Main equity concerns Distribution Not all farmers benefit due to limited resources and coordination Areas outside of intervention areas do not benefit Lack of resources and continuity for CREMAs and additional livelihood programmes
Procedure Farmers included through consultations, rather than direct representation in creation and discussion of CSC Insufficient, or malfunctioning, mechanisms to file complaints or voice dissatisfaction with CSC interventions Context Tree tenure uncertainty and subsequent lack of tree registration is a major barrier to benefits Female farmers typically benefit less and engage less in CSC due to a lack of financial and time resources. Financially-poor farmers likely to benefit less due to lack of resources to engage and invest in CSC strategies
4.2.1. Distributive Equity
Looking at the distribution of benefits and risks, the main economic or material benefits that cocoa smallholders received through CSC were derived from the distribution of ‘shade tree’ seedlings, advice from extension services, and additional livelihood programmes. The general narrative was that shade trees and extension service, as part of the sustainable intensification of farms, will increase productivity and provide farmers with co-benefits such as timber and additional incomes.
26 In practice, however, the large majority of respondents shared the dominant concern that CSC interventions did not reach all regions and farmers. One local field officer in Assin-South explained:
You can see that most of the private sector, NGOs, and government attention goes to one landscape. For instance, look at the number of organisations in the Juaboso landscape, and look at this place. You see a vast difference.
Especially farmers who live in remote areas or those outside the CSC intervention areas were generally perceived as disadvantaged or excluded from benefits. Access to extension services often depended on making an extra effort as reflected in this extension officer’s statement:
It is the duty of us extension officers to go there (remote farms). Staff is little. But we are trying the best we can, because staff numbers are not enough. I will still do my best.
The group that many farmers singled out as receiving least benefits were short-term caretakers, who take care of shade trees on cocoa farms without eventually benefiting once timber trees are felled and sold. In addition, several extension and national-level respondents explained that older farmers, which constitute the large proportion of cocoa smallholders, would not benefit from newly-planted shade trees, since it would take 10-20 years for these trees to be felled and sold.
While almost all farmers and respondents generally had positive perceptions of shade trees and were satisfied with the number of seedlings distributed to them, many complained about the lack of benefits received through CREMAs and additional livelihood programmes. This was especially true for Juaboso-Bia, where farmers predominantly complained about a lack of financial resources and inactivity of CREMAs. Moreover, about half of the farmers were concerned about the lack of financial support for initial investments into additional livelihood practices.
Even though almost all respondents saw shade trees as the best way to combine environmental benefits – such as shade or biodiversity – with economic benefits such as timber, interviews and transect walks with farmers revealed a more in-depth understanding of possible risks and
27 negative impacts of shade trees, such as increased pests and diseases. A national-level respondent explained:
We should have more research or models that show farmers that, if they want to go into shaded cocoa, they should be willing to allow a certain margin of trade-off.
4.2.2. Procedural equity
Apart from consultations, farmers were generally not directly involved in the creation or official negotiations of CSC. A national-level respondent explained:
When the idea came (CSC), there were workshops that were organized for representatives from the government, private sector, and from academia to discuss the issues and where we agreed that this is the way to go, seeing the results of the analysis. But to sit farmers down and say that this is the direction you want to take, didn't happen, like it happened with us.
Several respondents across most levels complained that the lack of farmer participation will be a barrier to the success and general uptake of CSC, as a national-level respondent warned:
Farmers have accepted (CSC production), but as to whether they believe this is the solution to the problem…I don't know.
Correspondingly, more than half of all farmers saw existing mechanisms for filing complaints or voice dissatisfaction with cocoa and tree related issues – made through traditional leaders or the Forestry Commission – as inefficient and ineffective.
CSC interventions promoted CREMAs as a way to increase local governance structures and participation, by involving farmers and traditional leaders on all district governance levels and officially recognising the CREMA committees though the government. Moreover, CREMAs promote additional livelihood initiatives. Yet, most CREMAs that were encountered seemed inactive or at the stage of creation. A local field officer explained the complexities of CREMAs:
28 It's a process. CREMA is not like a one-year project, where you go and do an intervention and leave. I think that was the approach a lot of organisations were taking there… But they come and go, this organisation comes and starts the whole process again. You confuse the people.
Correspondingly, a farmer explained the importance of greater community involvement and participation by highlighting the lack of continuity of CREMAs:
“Before regional meetings, they (a CREMA NGO) did meetings in every community. That was really good. But they left and we have never heard from them again. Now another NGO came. But they only take two people to the regional meeting without any meetings in the villages. Meetings in every community would help people to understand the process. But like this, people will be less interested (in the CREMA).”
4.2.3. Contextual Equity
4.2.3.1. Tree tenure
Contextual equity in this case is concerned with pre-existing social, political, and economic conditions of cocoa smallholders in order to benefit from CSC. Against this backdrop, the current tenure system for on-farm trees was cited as a critical issue by an overwhelming majority of all stakeholders across levels. According to the Ghanaian constitution, ‘naturally- occurring trees’ on cocoa farms belong to the government, while planted trees belong to farmers. The complexity of the tenure system has created a lot of uncertainty for farmers regarding their rights to trees and the role of trees on farms. This is reinforced by farmers’ experience with legal and illegal timber contractors, who felled timber trees on cocoa farms without compensating for damages to cocoa. One farmer explained:
“When we leave the trees on the farm, contractors might enter and cut them. They destroy the cocoa. But they will not give you anything (no compensation).”
One national-level representative explained the historical persistence of tree tenure issues in the Ghanaian cocoa sector:
29 It is not easy to change these things overnight. These are legislations that we must amend. That's why I mentioned what has been there for a long time and that has not been able to change. You do not expect that the next morning everything's changed because we are going climate-smart cocoa production.
To provide farmers with a documentation of their tree ownership, the registration of on-farm shade trees has been announced by governmental and non-governmental extension services. According to the overwhelming majority of stakeholders, despite the distribution of shade tree seedlings, no registration form has been released. Moreover, around one quarter of farmers were not even aware of the planned registration. One farmer in Juaboso-Bia explained:
Registration would be great. Many more farmers would engage in planting trees. If the registration comes today, you will see people planting trees tomorrow. But where are the registration letters (forms)? If we don’t see them, how can we know that they will actually come and register our farms?
Several national-level respondents agreed, that the registration is a legal and practical challenge yet to be solved, which was constrained by a limited common understanding of execution, funding and data storing of tree ownership.
4.2.3.2. Financial and gender related constraints
Furthermore, wealthier farmers seemed to benefit more from CSC. These farmers had more available resources to invest in tree maintenance and additional livelihoods. Meanwhile, financially-poor farmers were struggling to invest in, and thus benefit from CSC related initiatives. Correspondingly, about half of the farmers stated that additional livelihood initiatives payed insufficient attention to the limited access to markets for products such as plantains, cassava, or NTFPs, or to the specific contexts of farmers. Limited access to markets or decent roads often meant higher transportation prices or dependence on opportunistic intermediaries, which was frequently cited as a barrier to the commercialisation of additional livelihood products. Moreover, one farmer complained that additional livelihood initiatives assume “that everybody wants to be a bee-keeper or snail farmer”, thus neglecting local context.
30 An examination into further socio-economic contexts reveals that women were disadvantaged in many cases. Almost all women stated that female farmers are generally constrained by their lack of spare time, physical strength, and financial resources. These respondents explained, that they had to take care of the house and children, go to the market and cook, while simultaneously maintaining their cocoa farms. Their lack of time is reflected through lower female attendance at CSC-related meetings, or when picking up shade tree seedling. Women respondents tended to pay workers on their farms due to the lack of time and physical strength. Consequently, they had fewer financial resources available for farm inputs or initial investments in alternative livelihoods. About half of the women further stated that the flow of information often depended on their husbands to share and that man thought of their farms first when participating in interventions. One female farmer stated that, whereas a man could call extension officers when asking for support, many women did not own a cell phone. One private sector respondent explained that to increase female engagement, all farmers meetings were held outside of market hours. To address gender challenges, the creation of women groups in several communities. The leader of the women farmers group explained:
“We help everybody in this women’s group. We will come to your farm to help you with the planting of trees. And we share information with other women. We have become more informed than before. But there is still a difference between towns and villages. “
She made clear, that while women face similar challenges, these challenges still greatly vary from family to family and were more pronounced in rural areas.
4.3. The role of agroecology in CSC
Agroecology was predominantly represented in CSC through the adoption of shade trees. Apart from shade trees, only very few respondents emphasised on other agroecological techniques. Those techniques named were pruning or mulching with cocoa pods. Some farmers in Assin- South had participated in experiments of mulching with cassava and banana disks. However, more than half of all farmers agreed, especially during focus group discussions, that there was little knowledge on diverse agroecological techniques. On the ground, most agroecological techniques were applied together with agrochemicals such as herbicides, pesticides or inorganic fertilisers. One national-level respondent explained the dominant role of agrochemicals in sustainable intensification: 31 What are the options for us to be able to maximize profits and to spare land? The sure way to go is to have inputs increased, and the inputs here are fertilizer and pesticides.
While more than half of the respondents expressed negative perceptions of agrochemicals and some suggested more effective use of these, the majority of these respondents felt that agrochemicals were a “a necessary evil” for farm productivity. Around two thirds of respondents at all levels stated that agroecological practices are only limitedly substitutable for agrochemical input. Nevertheless, some respondents pointed to organic farming as an alternative to the current agrochemical-based system. However, most of these respondents perceived organic farming as hardly implementable due to the high costs and “bulkiness” of organic fertilisers, weak knowledge on low-costs practices. One extension officer in favour of organic farming explained:
Snails and mushrooms are not there anymore. Chemicals affect the environment and farmers will spend all their money to repay input…farmers will want to see results fast but organic takes time, and it is expensive.
Moreover, rather than creating farming systems based on local agroecological practices, the vast majority of respondents understood organic cocoa farming as a heavy input-based system, with organic fertilisers and pesticides subsidising synthetic ones.
32 5. Discussion
The aim of this study was to better understand local reflections of global environmental meta- discourses on CSC and their impacts on cocoa smallholders. This study’s analysis revealed several new insights into how these discourses affect local policies and practices, which, in turn, influence the lives and livelihoods of marginalised cocoa smallholders. My results suggest that an ecological modernisation discourse was the most pronounced meta-discourse on CSC. In the field, sustainable intensification with shade trees was the most common practice to achieve a win-win in terms of environmental and developmental outcomes. Most interviewees, though, voiced tree tenure concerns – an issue that might be a significant barrier to CSC achieving equitable outcomes. This section will first discuss the implications and limitations of the dominance of ecological modernisation discourse. In a next step, the potential of CREMAs as a mechanism to engage with current shortcomings in CSC will be assessed.
5.1. Ecological modernisation – does the win-win hold?
The dominance of the ecological modernisation discourses in climate and sustainability interventions has been reported by other scholars (see e.g. Di Gregorio et al., 2017; Adger et al., 2003; Lemeilleur et al., 2015; Bäckstrand and Lövbrand, 2006). In this study, two closely related win-win solutions were identified. The first narrative – a win-win proposition involving forest protection and cocoa productivity at a landscape level – is backed by strong scientific evidence. Various scholars have shown the crucial importance of forests ecosystem services to sustain cocoa production (Lawrence and Vandecar 2015, Odijie 2018). On the ground, this win- win has been translated into a sustainable intensification narrative. Following this logic, cocoa farmers sustainably intensify their farm production, which, in turn, increases productivity and farm income. The assumption is that because farmers do not have to increase acreage, forests are protected from further encroachment. CSA interventions have, however, been criticised for proposing win-win solutions to complex social-ecological challenges (Taylor 2018). In the following, I address four key issues which can pose a challenge to an overtly simplistic win- win approach: contextual equity and tree tenure, shade optimum, agrochemicals and rebound effects. By paying more attention to these complexities and potential trade-offs, CSC interventions might be more likely to create the synergies they aim for (Howe et al. 2014).
33
5.1.1. Tree tenure rights and contextual equity
While planting shade trees predominated in terms of CSC practices, issues related to tree tenure were identified as likely the most limiting factor to CSC’s successful implementation. Tree tenure insecurity is not a new phenomenon but deeply embedded in the Ghanaian cocoa and forestry sector (Ruf 2011), and it could impede current and future CSC efforts. This is due to great uncertainty among farmers with regards to their rights to trees on their farms. Clear tenure rights and tree registration are thus key to make CSC work and to sustain into the future. Addressing this far-reaching issue might also be helpful for other CSC stakeholders such as chocolate companies which have pledged, under the Cocoa & Forests Initiative, to deliver tangible deforestation outcomes (Cocoa & Forests Initiative 2017). Thus, the increasing awareness of tree tenure’s key role could lead to a window of opportunity, firstly to coordinate the process of tree registration and, secondly, to lobby and facilitate legislative reforms of current tree tenure systems.
While tree tenure was identified as the most prevalent equity issue, the issue of gender and financial or resource constraints were seen as yet another significant barrier to equitable benefit sharing. These results are in line with Jost et al. (2016), who found that women tend to benefit and participate less in CSA interventions in Uganda, Ghana, and Bangladesh due to their disproportionate financial and time constraints. Similar to my findings, the authors observed that men were more likely to receive information and extension services and thus benefit from interventions. My results also suggest, in line with Jost et al. (2016) and Friedman et al. (2018), that a homogenised discourse on gender does not match the heterogeneity of gender realities and challenges in Ghana. CSC might risk increasing inequality by disproportionately benefiting male or wealthier smallholders. Such outcomes were observed by Chomba et al. (2016) and Andersson et al. (2018) in climate interventions in several tropical countries. Thus, unless stakeholders in CSC also address contextual equity issues, current and future interventions are unlikely to provide equitable outcomes. Secure tenure documentation, access to markets, and equitable credit schemes present necessary first steps to address current issues of contextual equity.
34 5.1.2. Optimal shade and tree cover
Although promoted as part of sustainable intensification in CSC, the potential of shade trees to increase both productivity and ecological sustainability is not straightforward. Trade-offs, mainly related to shade cover, are inherent in cocoa agroforestry systems. For example, adopting inappropriate shade levels can lead to decreased production and thus turn win-win situations into precarious ones for farmers. Asare et al. (2018) and Blaser et al. (2018) suggest that shade cover exceeding 30% makes it increasingly difficult to create win-win situations. Against this backdrop, there is a risk that reportedly insufficient extension services will not be able to provide farmers with sufficient technical guidance for them to deal with the complexities when adopting shade trees. Even though extension programmes translate shade levels into recommended numbers of trees per hectare, this kind of information is insufficient. As a result, farmers may end up depending on crown size and species, with very different shade levels. Any intervention that leads to shade levels above 30% would have to provide farmers with a premium to compensate decreased production. While shade-related premiums are, however, rare, and consumer demands and prospects for yet another eco-label or certification are low (Harvey et al. 2014, Camargo et al. 2018), the development of a CSC standard is a feature of recent CSC discussions in Ghana (R. Asare, personal communication).
The commercialisation of timber from shade trees might be one way to compensate for high levels of shade and the current lack of a premium. Unless insecurity in tree tenure is, however, adequately addressed, this is not a feasible option for farmers. Empirical research on shade levels in CSC interventions and trade-offs and on the complexities of agroforestry systems could help stakeholders to identify other potential challenges and issues to gain a better understanding of, for example, the complex relationship between shaded cocoa and resilience to climate change (Abdulai et al. 2018). Supported by this kind of research, smallholders in particular could more carefully consider appropriate levels of shade. This can avoid farmers paying for the global demand for zero-deforestation cocoa and on-farm carbon sequestration.
5.1.3. The role of agrochemicals
The results of this study and the literature suggest that shade trees alone will not be able to achieve the production intensification proposed through CSC from around 400kg/ha to more
35 than 1000/ha (Gockowski and Sonwa 2011, IDH 2018). Given this situation, unsurprisingly agrochemical input was seen as a necessary part of the CSC strategy. Apart from GHG emissions from agrochemicals (Tubiello et al. 2013), there are further trade-offs associated with the use of agrochemicals. Due to the boom and bust cycle of the Ghanaian cocoa sector (Appendix VIII), which is well described by (Clough et al. (2009), diminishing forest ecosystem services have led to, among other issues, a high dependence on agrochemicals, which are needed to artificially fertilise soils and to control pests (Green 2017, Odijie 2018). Accordingly, cocoa prices would either have to be raised to compensate increased production costs or farmers would have to shift to cash crops more suitable to the new conditions (Odijie 2018). The current political economy of cocoa does not, however, allow farmers to regulate prices, and a shift towards other cash crops is not part of the CSC strategy. Thus, external farm inputs are currently the dominant option to increase cocoa production. Promoting agrochemicals within CSC in the face of increasing production costs can create a new form of long-term input dependency from cocoa multinationals and NGOs among smallholders (Carodenuto 2019). Against this background, it remains unclear if increased farm productivity will also increase smallholder incomes due to high input costs (Hirons et al. 2018c). Simply refraining from agrochemicals seems, however, an unlikely and, for many farmers, undesirable option given these are currently the only route for them to raise productivity. It is clear, however, that the use agrochemicals and its environmental effects may prevent farmers from tapping into other sources of potential income, for example harvesting NTFPs like mushrooms or snails, whose numbers have been shown to decrease when are introduced. Their decline is not felt equally, but mostly affects women, who are especially involved in the harvest of NTFPs (Ahenkan and Boon 2011). Ultimately, it seems unavoidable that prices for cocoa will have to increase so that farmers can compensate increasing production costs and shift to more labour- intensive but ultimately more sustainable agroecological practices such as organic composting or integrated pest management. However, the findings suggest that these potential alternatives are, at this point, still underrepresented.
5.1.4. Land sparing or rebound effect?
Within CSC, sustainable intensification is expected to prevent expansion of cocoa production into forests. There is, however, little empirical evidence that production intensification will lead to land sparing in Ghana (Ruf and Varlet 2017, Carodenuto 2019). To some extent, this is to be expected. Jevon’s paradox, which is also known as the rebound effect, suggest that in theory,
36 increased productivity and gains in resource efficiency do not necessarily lead to a decreasing use of that resource. Ceddia et al. (2013;2014;2019), in their extensive studies conducted in South America showed that only under certain circumstances, agricultural intensification leads to reduced expansion. They suggest that when accompanied by high inequality and weak environmental governance, agricultural intensification more frequently leads to agricultural expansion rather than to land sparing.
Ruf and Varlet (2017), who analysed the zero-deforestation initiatives in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, present a grim outlook on the effectiveness of these schemes to avoid deforestation. They suggest that current tree tenure uncertainty is a key limitation when it comes to on-farm trees and a driver of deforestation. As noted earlier, tree tenure is also a major challenge identified in the CSC context, but whether all of the findings and implications of the observations in South America also apply in the case of this study is not entirely clear.
Looking forward, empirical research based on forest cover and cocoa productivity baselines could provide further insights regarding the complex interaction of intensification and land sparing. Future research would also have to investigate what type of governance and related issues such as inequality, corruption control, accountability, or rule of law (Ceddia et al. 2014, Ceddia 2019) are crucial to avoid rebound effects in Ghana. Further deforestation in Ghana will not only have dramatic environmental consequences but would also increase cocoa production costs and thus ultimately affect smallholder livelihoods.
5.2. Agroecology and ecological modernisation
To better understand how the ecological modernisation discourse can influence practices and distinguish itself from other meta-discourses, one could examine CSC’s adoption of agroecology. Since agroecology is a broad term, which is used to refer to farming practices but also as a political and transformative concept, it leaves ample room for interpretation for those who seek to apply it (Giraldo and Rosset 2018). For example, proponents of the civic environmentalism have suggested that ecological modernisation discourses would reduce agroecology to a matter of productivity, yields and competitiveness (Giraldo 2013). La Via Campesina (2015a) suggest that in these cases, agroecology, rather than picking up on its transformational potential, is mostly seen as offering technological solutions ‘to make agriculture less unsustainable’. In the case of CSC, this is reflected by the absence of more 37 political or social justice dimensions of agroecology. In contrast, the organic coffee boom in Chiapas, Mexico, for example, involved a combination of agroecological practices and an emphasis on indigenous identity (Mier y Terán et al. 2018). Agroecology beyond its technical dimensions is sensitive to historical and political contexts (Mier y Terán et al. 2018). Thus far, the most successful cases of agroecological transformations and dominant civic environmental discourses have been observed in Latin America, where these have been pushed by indigenous and social movements, strong farmer organisation, peer-learning, or favourable market dynamics. In the Ghanaian cocoa sector, due to the dominance of powerful agricultural actors and weak farmer organisation, practically none of these factors are present. Correspondingly, a transformational agroecology discourse as the backbone of civic environmentalism discourses in CSA is absent in Ghana’s CSC discussions, policy potential, and on-the-ground reality. The analysis suggests that agroecology in CSC is adopted to fit an ecological modernisation approach due 1) the absence of political and social dimensions of agroecology and 2) the reduction of agroecology to the technical aspects of agroforestry. CREMAs and other local and farmer-led governance mechanisms, as promoted by CSC interventions, might be, however, a way to balance the dominance of ecological modernisation by bringing aspects of civic environmentalism into the discourse.
5.3. CREMAs and local governance structures
CREMAs and similar local governance structures (e.g. the Land Management Board in Juaboso-Bia), which have been promoted as part of the CSC strategy, have the potential to address issues side-lined by an ecological modernisation discourse and to strengthen the voice of farmers in the landscape. Because CREMAs are traditionally and legally recognised, these entities can be powerful and represent perhaps the only farmer-centred governance mechanism in CSC. If implemented successfully, they could be a platform for active participation in CSC interventions, farmer-to-farmer learning, informed land-use choices, and increased landscape accountability regarding benefit sharing (Asare et al. 2013). Such community-led governance could, thus, push pressing issues such as tree tenure and tree registration or more context- appropriate additional livelihood initiatives. That said, the financial sustainability of CREMAs remains a challenge, and most CREMAs encountered in this study depended on external support. Chocolate and cocoa buying companies might be well suited to provide CREMAs with long term financial commitments, especially in contrast to many NGOs, whose involvement tends to be short-lived. It would be important to conduct further research on finance
38 mechanisms such as independent landscape funds, in part to identify those that are not necessarily subject to political influence by corporations or other sources of funding.
Furthermore, my findings suggest that CREMAs are not merely a different kind of development project but challenging, complex and context-dependent endeavours, whose success is influenced by a wide range of factors, for example the participation of local leaders, tenure arrangements, trust or social cohesion. Underestimating these complexities may lead to unsuccessful implementations, a result which might, among other outcomes, exacerbate elite capture or mistrust and fatigue among stakeholders. Moreover, given the current political economy and power asymmetries within the Ghanaian cocoa sector (Leissle 2018), tapping into the potential of these local structures represents a major challenge.
39 6. Conclusion
This study provides new insights concerning complex CSC discourses and practices and presents several implications for cocoa smallholders. Overall, my results indicate that CSC is dominated by an ecological modernisation discourse, which emphasizes the possibilities of win-win solutions and conceives of CSC as a business opportunity for all stakeholders involved. Applying equity and agroecology lenses allowed me to shed light onto implied and potentially side-lined trade-offs and limitations of this discourse. As Barnett and Paultikof (2015) note, the failure to identify and educate the general public about potential trade-offs in climate change interventions may lead to a further marginalisation of those without influence and power. While sustainable intensification with agrochemicals is currently deemed, and promoted, as the dominant way to increase productivity and to protect forests, associated trade-offs and limitations should be further investigated and be transparently addressed, especially since smallholders are likely be the ones to be negatively affected. This study, thus, suggests that without: i) secure tree tenure rights and documentation, ii) access to markets, iii) equitable investment opportunities into additional livelihoods, and iv) adequate cocoa prices, many smallholders are, alongside illegal and legal timber contractors, likely to further encroach on forests for additional and often crucial incomes.
CREMAs and similar mechanisms could promote and advance local governance and farmers’ interests, provided local complexities and associated costs and efforts are recognised and covered by those promoting CSC. That said, a short-coming of this study is the lack to present a sufficiently nuanced and disaggregated perspective of the local contexts and gender realities, which follow-up studies will have to provide. Future research could, thus, help to identify more differentiated local challenges and assess the potential of local participation and governance mechanisms to address these.
Finally, by removing most shade trees on their farms in the past, farmers expressed their discontent and consequently reacted to tenure policies affecting them. Although not sufficiently included into formal CSC discussions, most smallholders are likely to, again, make their voices heard to express potential discontent with CSC interventions. Adequately addressing equitable benefit sharing is likely to determine whether, in the near future, national and global cocoa actors will be able to deliver tangible outcomes and prove the success of CSC or zero- deforestation chocolate to the public. Consequently, confronting equity concerns is not a mere add-on to climate policy, but at the core of effective climate action. 40 7. Acknowledgements
First of all, I would like to thank all farmers as well as other local and national-level interviewees without whom this study would not have been possible. Their time and insights are highly appreciated. Further, a big thank you to Rebecca Asare and Mr. Samuel Ankamah, who supported me with valuable insights and contacts throughout the data collection. A special thank you to the district and extension officers in Juaboso-Bia and Assin-South for being wonderful host as well as supporting me with transportation and their knowledge. I cannot thank Uncle Alhaji as well as Margret and Joyce Aidoo enough for providing me with a home, indispensably delicious food and mental support throughout the data collection. Last, but by all means not least, I wholeheartedly thank my supervisors Grace Wong and Victoria Maguire- Rajpaul, my thesis groups as well as William Dumenu for their time, imensly valuable comments and discussions on earlier versions of this thesis.
41 8. References
Abdulai, I., P. Vaast, M. P. Hoffmann, R. Asare, L. Jassogne, P. Van Asten, R. P. Rötter, and S. Graefe. 2018. Cocoa agroforestry is less resilient to sub-optimal and extreme climate than cocoa in full sun. Global Change Biology 24(1):273–286. Adger, W. N., T. A. Benjaminsen, K. Brown, and H. Svarstad. 2001. Advancing a Political Ecology of Global Environmental Discourses. Development and Change 32:681–715. Adger, W. N., S. Huq, K. Brown, D. Conway, and M. Hulme. 2003. Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3(3):179–195. Afrika Kontakt, and La Via Campesina. 2018. Peasant Agroecology Achieves Climate Justice. a primer. Building Climate Justice Advocacy Project. Derived from: https://viacampesina.org/en/wp- content/uploads/sites/2/2018/05/primer_english_print.pdf. (Accessed: 04. 06. 2019). Ahenkan, A., and E. Boon. 2011. Non-timber forest products farming and empowerment of rural women in Ghana. Environment, Development and Sustainability 13(5):863–878. Akrofi-Atitianti, F., C. Ifejika Speranza, L. Bockel, and R. Asare. 2018. Assessing Climate Smart Agriculture and Its Determinants of Practice in Ghana: A Case of the Cocoa Production System. Land 7(1):30. Altieri, M. A., C. I. Nicholls, A. Henao, and M. A. Lana. 2015. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35(3):869–890. Andersson, K. P., S. M. Smith, L. J. Alston, A. E. Duchelle, E. Mwangi, A. M. Larson, C. de Sassi, E. O. Sills, W. D. Sunderlin, and G. Y. Wong. 2018. Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: Implications for REDD+. Land Use Policy 72(January):510–522. Anim-Wapong, G. J., and E. B. Frimpong. 2004. Vulnerability and adaptation assesment under the netherlands climate change studies assistance programme phase 2 (NCCSAP2) . Vulnerability of agriculture to climate change-impact of climate change on cocoa production. Cocoa Research Insitute of Ghana, New Tafo Akim, Ghana. Asare, R. A. 2014. Understanding and Defining Climate-Smart Cocoa: Extension, Inputs, Yields and Farming Practices. Forest Trends and Nature Conservation Reserach Centre, Accra, Ghana. Asare, R. A., A. Kyei, and J. J. Mason. 2013. The community resource management area
42 mechanism: A strategy to manage african forest resources for REDD+. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 368(1625). Asare, R., V. Afari-Sefa, Y. Osei-Owusu, and O. Pabi. 2014. Cocoa agroforestry for increasing forest connectivity in a fragmented landscape in Ghana. Agroforestry Systems 88(6):1143–1156. Asare, R., B. Markussen, R. A. Asare, G. Anim-Kwapong, and A. Ræbild. 2018. On-farm cocoa yields increase with canopy cover of shade trees in two agro-ecological zones in Ghana. Climate and Development:1–11. Bäckstrand, K., and E. Lövbrand. 2006. Planting Trees to Mitigat Climate Change: Contested Discourses of Ecological Modernization, Green Governmentality and Civic Environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics 6(1):50–75. Blaser, W. J., J. Oppong, S. P. Hart, J. Landolt, E. Yeboah, and J. Six. 2018. Climate-smart sustainable agriculture in low-to-intermediate shade agroforests. Nature Sustainability 1(5):234–239. Boakye, J. 2015. Estimation of illegal logging by the formal timber sector in Ghana: implications for forest law compliance, enforcement and EU-Ghana voluntary partnership agreement. International Forestry Review 17(2):117–127. Bryman, A. 2016. Social Research Methods. 5th Editio. Oxford University Press. Camargo, M. C., N. J. Hogarth, P. Pacheco, I. Nhantumbo, and M. Kanninen. 2018. Greening the Dark Side of Chocolate: A Qualitative Assessment to Inform Sustainable Supply Chains. Environmental Conservation(September):1–8. Carodenuto, S. 2019. Governance of zero deforestation cocoa in West Africa: New forms of public–private interaction. Environmental Policy and Governance 29(1):55–66. Ceddia, M. G. 2019. The impact of income, land, and wealth inequality on agricultural expansion in Latin America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(7):2527–2532. Ceddia, M. G., N. O. Bardsley, S. Gomez-y-Paloma, and S. Sedlacek. 2014. Governance, agricultural intensification, and land sparing in tropical South America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(20):7242–7247. Ceddia, M. G., S. Sedlacek, N. O. Bardsley, and S. Gomez-y-Paloma. 2013. Sustainable agricultural intensification or Jevons paradox? The role of public governance in tropical South America. Global Environmental Change 23(5):1052–1063. Chandra, A., K. E. McNamara, and P. Dargusch. 2017. The relevance of political ecology perspectives for smallholder Climate-Smart Agriculture: a review. Journal of Political
43 Ecology 24(1):821–842. Chomba, S., J. Kariuki, J. F. Lund, and F. Sinclair. 2016. Roots of inequity: How the implementation of REDD+ reinforces past injustices. Land Use Policy 50:202–213. Claeys, P., and D. Delgado Pugley. 2017. Peasant and indigenous transnational social movements engaging with climate justice. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 38(3):325–340. Climate Smart Agriculture CONCERNS. 2015. Don’t be fooled ! Civil society says NO to “ Climate Smart Agriculture ” and urges decision -makers to support agroecology International organisations. COP21 Statement. Paris, France. Clough, Y., J. Barkmann, J. Juhrbandt, M. Kessler, T. C. Wanger, A. Anshary, D. Buchori, D. Cicuzza, K. Darras, D. D. Putra, S. Erasmi, R. Pitopang, C. Schmidt, C. H. Schulze, D. Seidel, I. Steffan-Dewenter, K. Stenchly, S. Vidal, M. Weist, A. C. Wielgoss, and T. Tscharntke. 2011. Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(20):8311–8316. Clough, Y., H. Faust, and T. Tscharntke. 2009. Cacao boom and bust: sustainability of agroforests and opportunities for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Letters 2(5):197–205. Cocoa & Forests Initiative. 2017. Joint Framework for Action. London, UK. Derived from: https://www.idhsustainabletrade.com/uploaded/2017/11/Ghana-CFI-Framework-Final- .pdf Accesed: 05.06.2019. Daghela Bisseleua, H. B., D. Fotio, Yede, A. D. Missoup, and S. Vidal. 2013. Shade Tree Diversity, Cocoa Pest Damage, Yield Compensating Inputs and Farmers’ Net Returns in West Africa. PLoS ONE 8(3):e56115. Dawson, N. M., M. Mason, J. A. Fisher, D. M. Mwayafu, H. Dhungana, H. Schroeder, and M. Zeitoun. 2018. Norm entrepreneurs sidestep REDD+ in pursuit of just and sustainable forest governance. Sustainability (Switzerland) 10(6):1–19. Dohmen, M. M., M. Noponen, R. Enomoto, C. Mensah, and S. Muilerman. 2018. Climate- Smart Agriculture in Cocoa. A Training Manuel for Field Officers. Rainforest Alliance, New York, USA. FAO. 2012. Identifying opportunities for climate-smart agriculture investments in Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. FAO. 2013. Climate-Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
44 Feed the Future. 2018. Feed the Future Partnership for Climate Smart Cocoa Annual Report. Fletcher, R., W. Dressler, B. Büscher, and Z. R. Anderson. 2016. Questioning REDD+ and the future of market-based conservation. Conservation Biology 30(3):673–675. Forsyth, T., and T. Sikor. 2013. Forests, development and the globalisation of justice. Geographical Journal 179(2):114–121. Foucault, M. 2003. Society must be defended: Lectures at the College de France 1976-77. Picador, New York, USA. Friedman, R., M. A. Hirons, and E. Boyd. 2018. Vulnerability of Ghanaian women cocoa farmers to climate change: a typology. Climate and Development 0(0):1–13. Giraldo, O. F., and P. M. Rosset. 2018. Agroecology as a territory in dispute: between institutionality and social movements. Journal of Peasant Studies 45(3):545–564. Gliessman, S. 2016. Transforming food systems with agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 40(3):187–189. Gliessman, S. R. 2015. Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. 3rd ed. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Global Forest Watch. 2019. Map of deforestation in south-west Ghana. Retrieved from: https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map (Accessed: 04.06.2019). Gockowski, J., V. Afari-Sefa, D. B. Sarpong, Y. B. Osei-Asare, and N. F. Agyeman. 2013. Improving the productivity and income of Ghanaian cocoa farmers while maintaining environmental services: What role for certification? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 11(4):331–346. Gockowski, J., V. Robiglio, S. Muilerman, and N. F. Agyeman. 2011. Agricultural Intensification as a Strategy for Climate Mitigation in Ghana. An evaluative study of the COCOBOD High Tech Program, rural incomes, and forest resources in the Bia (Juaboso) District of Ghana. Sustainabnle Tree Crops Program, Ibadan, Nigeria. Gockowski, J., and D. Sonwa. 2011. Cocoa intensification scenarios and their predicted impact on CO 2 emissions, biodiversity conservation, and rural livelihoods in the Guinea rain forest of West Africa. Environmental Management 48(2):307–321. Grasso, M. 2007. A normative ethical framework in climate change. Climatic Change 81(3– 4):223–246. Green, E. 2017. From Extensive to Involutionary Growth: A Dialectic Interpretation of the Boom and Busts of Cocoa Production in the Gold Coast. Journal of Agrarian Change 17(3):518–534. Di Gregorio, M., M. Brockhaus, T. Cronin, E. Muharrom, L. Santoso, S. Mardiah, and M.
45 Büdenbender. 2013. Equity and REDD+ in the media: A comparative analysis of policy discourses. Ecology and Society 18(2):39. Di Gregorio, M., C. T. Gallemore, M. Brockhaus, L. Fatorelli, and E. Muharrom. 2017. How institutions and beliefs affect environmental discourse: Evidence from an eight-country survey on REDD+. Global Environmental Change 45(May):133–150. Gupta, J. 2012. Glocal forest and REDD+ governance: Win-win or lose-lose? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4(6):620–627. Hajer, M. A. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Clarendon. Oxford. Harvey, C. A., M. Chac, C. I. Donatti, E. Garen, L. Hannah, A. Andrade, L. Bede, D. Brown, A. Calle, J. Char, C. Clement, E. Gray, M. H. Hoang, P. Minang, A. Mar, S. Shames, S. Smukler, E. Somarriba, E. Torquebiau, and J. Van Etten. 2014. Climate-Smart Landscapes : Opportunities and Challenges for Integrating Adaptation and Mitigation in Tropical Agriculture 7(April):77–90. Hirons, M., C. McDermott, R. Asare, A. Morel, E. Robinson, J. Mason, E. Boyd, Y. Malhi, and K. Norris. 2018a. Illegality and inequity in Ghana’s cocoa-forest landscape: How formalization can undermine farmers control and benefits from trees on their farms. Land Use Policy(October 2017). Hirons, M., A. Morel, C. McDermott, E. Boyd, Y. Malhi, K. Norris, J. Mason, and R. Asare. 2018b. Understanding climate resilience in Ghanaian cocoa communities – Advancing a biocultural perspective. Journal of Rural Studies 63(January):120–129. Hirons, M., E. Robinson, C. McDermott, A. Morel, R. Asare, E. Boyd, T. Gonfa, T. W. Gole, Y. Malhi, J. Mason, and K. Norris. 2018c. Understanding Poverty in Cash-crop Agro- forestry Systems: Evidence from Ghana and Ethiopia. Ecological Economics 154(July):31–41. Holt-Giménez, E., and M. A. Altieri. 2013. Agroecology, food sovereignty, and the new green revolution. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37(1):90–102. Howe, C., H. Suich, B. Vira, and G. M. Mace. 2014. Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade- offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environmental Change 28(1):263–275. IDH. 2018. Ghana Cocoa & Forests Initiative National Implementation Plan 2018-2020. Cocoa & Forests Initative, Ghana. IFOAM. 2015. Feeding the people: Agroecology for Nourishing the world and transforming the agri-food system. International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements,
46 Bonn, Germany. Ikeme, J. 2003. Equity, environmental justice and sustainability: incomplete approaches in climate change politics. Global Environmental Change 13(3):195–206. Ingold, T. 2011. Being alive: Essays on movement, knowledge and description. Routledge, London, UK. Ingram, V., F. van Rijn, Y. Waarts, and H. Gilhuis. 2018. The impacts of cocoa sustainability initiatives in West Africa. Sustainability 10(11):1–20. IPBES. 2018. The assessment report on Land Degradation and Restoration. Bonn, Germany. Jost, C., F. Kyazze, J. Naab, S. Neelormi, J. Kinyangi, R. Zougmore, P. Aggarwal, G. Bhatta, M. Chaudhury, M. L. Tapio-Bistrom, S. Nelson, and P. Kristjanson. 2016. Understanding gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in smallholder farming communities. Climate and Development 8(2):133–144. Karlsson, L., L. O. Naess, A. Nightingale, and J. Thompson. 2017. ‘Triple wins’ or ‘triple faults’? Analysing the equity implications of policy discourses on climate-smart agriculture (CSA). Journal of Peasant Studies 6150:1–25. Kassa, H., S. Dondeyne, J. Poesen, A. Frankl, and J. Nyssen. 2018. Agro-ecological implications of forest and agroforestry systems conversion to cereal-based farming systems in the White Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42(2):149–168. Kaziango, H., and W. A. Masters. 2006. Property rights, production technology and deforestation: Cocoa in Cameroon. Agricultural Economics(35):19–26. Klinsky, S., T. Roberts, S. Huq, C. Okereke, P. Newell, P. Dauvergne, K. O’Brien, H. Schroeder, P. Tschakert, J. Clapp, M. Keck, F. Biermann, D. Liverman, J. Gupta, A. Rahman, D. Messner, D. Pellow, and S. Bauer. 2017. Why equity is fundamental in climate change policy research. Global Environmental Change 44:170–173. Kroeger, A., H. Bakhtary, F. Haupt, and C. Streck. 2017. Eliminating Deforestation from the Cocoa Supply Chain. World Bank Report:61. Läderach, P., A. Martinez-Valle, G. Schroth, and N. Castro. 2013. Predicting the future climatic suitability for cocoa farming of the world’s leading producer countries, Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. Climatic Change 119(3–4):841–854. Lawrence, D., and K. Vandecar. 2015. Effects of tropical deforestation on climate and agriculture. Nature Climate Change 5(1):27–36. Leissle, K. 2018. Cocoa. Polity Press., Cambridge. Lemeilleur, S., Y. N’, N. A. Dao, and F. Ruf. 2015. The productivist rationality behind a
47 sustainable certification process: evidence from the Rainforest Alliance in the Ivorian cocoa sector. International Journal of Sustainable Development 18(4):310. Lipper, L., P. Thornton, B. M. Campbell, T. Baedeker, A. Braimoh, M. Bwalya, P. Caron, A. Cattaneo, D. Garrity, K. Henry, R. Hottle, L. Jackson, A. Jarvis, F. Kossam, W. Mann, N. McCarthy, A. Meybeck, H. Neufeldt, T. Remington, P. T. Sen, R. Sessa, R. Shula, A. Tibu, and E. F. Torquebiau. 2014. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature Climate Change 4(12):1068–1072. Loft, L., D. N. Le, T. T. Pham, A. L. Yang, J. S. Tjajadi, and G. Y. Wong. 2017. Whose Equity Matters? National to Local Equity Perceptions in Vietnam’s Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services Scheme. Ecological Economics 135:164–175. Lovell, S. T. 2012. Agroecology. The Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability: Ecosystem Management and Sustainability(May):11–16. McDermott, M., S. Mahanty, and K. Schreckenberg. 2013. Examining equity: A multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environmental Science and Policy 33:416–427. Mier y Terán, M., O. F. Giraldo, M. Aldasoro, H. Morales, B. G. Ferguson, P. Rosset, A. Khadse, and C. Campos. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scale: key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 42(6):637–665. Mithöfer, D., J. M. Roshetko, J. A. Donovan, E. Nathalie, V. Robiglio, D. Wau, D. J. Sonwa, and T. Blare. 2017. Unpacking ‘sustainable’ cocoa: do sustainability standards, development projects and policies address producer concerns in Indonesia, Cameroon and Peru? International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 13(1):444–469. NCRC. 2019. Kakum Cocoa Agroforestry Landscape Program Launch Janurary 2019 Info- material. Nature Conservation Research Centre, Kruwa, Ghana. Newsom, D., and J. C. Milder. 2018. Rainforest Alliance Impacts Report: Partnership , Learning , and Change. Rainforest Alliance, New York, USA. Noponen, M., C. Mensah, G. Schroth, and J. Hayward. 2014. A landscape approach to climate-smart agriculture in Ghana. ETFRN News(FAO 2010):58–65. Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H., and R. B. Kerr. 2015. A political ecology of high-input agriculture in northern Ghana. African Geographical Review 34(1):13–35. Odijie, M. E. 2018. Sustainability winners and losers in business-biased cocoa sustainability programmes in West Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 16(2):214–227.
48 Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage, Beverly Hills. Third Edit. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA. Pelling, M., K. O’Brien, and D. Matyas. 2015. Adaptation and transformation. Climatic Change 133(1):113–127. Pimbert, M. 2015. Agroecology as an alternative vision to conventional development and climate-smart agriculture. Development (Basingstoke) 58(2–3):286–298. Resnick, J., and D. Curtis. 2010. Representing Justice: Invention, Controversy and Rights in City-States and Democratic Courtrooms. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. Ribot, J. C., and N. L. Peluso. 2003. A Theory of Access*. Rural Sociology 68(2):153–181. Rice, R. A., and R. Greenberg. 2000. Cacao Cultivation and the Conservation of Biological Diversity. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 29(3). Rosenstock, T. S., A. Nowak, and E. Girvetz. 2018. The Climate-Smart Agriculture Papers. Investigating the Business of a Productive, Resilient and Low Emission Future. Springer Open, Cham, Switzerland. Ruf, F. O. 2011. The Myth of Complex Cocoa Agroforests: The Case of Ghana. Human Ecology 39(3):373–388. Ruf, F., and G. Schroth. 2004. Chocolate Forests and Monocultures: A Historical Review of Cocoa Growing and Its Conflicting Role in Tropical Deforestation and Forest Conservation. Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes 06:107–134. Ruf, F., G. Schroth, and K. Doffangui. 2015. Climate change, cocoa migrations and deforestation in West Africa: What does the past tell us about the future? Sustainability Science 10(1):101–111. Ruf, F., and F. Varlet. 2017. The myth of zero deforestation cocoa in Côte d ’Ivoire. ETFRN News 58:86–92. Saeed, A. R., C. McDermott, and E. Boyd. 2018. Examining equity in Ghana’s national REDD+ process. Forest Policy and Economics 90(December 2017):48–58. Schroeder, H., and C. McDermott. 2014. Beyond carbon: Enabling justice and equity in REDD+ across levels of governance. Ecology and Society 19(1):2–4. Schroth, G., and C. A. Harvey. 2007. Biodiversity conservation in cocoa production landscapes: An overview. Biodiversity and Conservation 16(8):2237–2244. Schroth, G., P. Läderach, A. I. Martinez-Valle, and C. Bunn. 2017. From site-level to regional adaptation planning for tropical commodities: cocoa in West Africa. Mitigation and
49 Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 22(6):903–927. Schroth, G., P. Läderach, A. I. Martinez-Valle, C. Bunn, and L. Jassogne. 2016. Vulnerability to climate change of cocoa in West Africa: Patterns, opportunities and limits to adaptation. Science of the Total Environment 556(March):231–241. Sen, A. 2009. The Idea of Justice. Penguin, London, UK. Steffan-Dewenter, I., M. Kessler, J. Barkmann, M. M. Bos, D. Buchori, S. Erasmi, H. Faust, G. Gerold, K. Glenk, S. R. Gradstein, E. Guhardja, M. Harteveld, D. Hertel, P. Höhn, M. Kappas, S. Köhler, C. Leuschner, M. Maertens, R. Marggraf, S. Migge-Kleian, J. Mogea, R. Pitopang, M. Schaefer, S. Schwarze, S. G. Sporn, A. Steingrebe, S. S. Tjitrosoedirdjo, S. Tjitrosoemito, A. Twele, R. Weber, L. Woltmann, M. Zeller, and T. Tscharntke. 2007. Tradeoffs between income, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning during tropical rainforest conversion and agroforestry intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(12):4973–8. Stott, P., and S. Sullivan. 2000. Political Ecology: Science, Myth and Power. Oxford University Press Inc., New York, USA. Südwind. 2016. Bittersweet Chocolate. The Truth Behind the International Chocolate industry. Wien, Austria. Taylor, M. 2018. What’s Smart About Climate-smart Agriculture? Page Food First/ Institute for Food and Development Policy. Policy Brief 22. Oakland, USA. Totin, E., A. C. Segnon, M. Schut, H. Affognon, R. B. Zougmoré, T. Rosenstock, and P. K. Thornton. 2018. Institutional perspectives of climate-smart agriculture: A systematic literature review. Sustainability (Switzerland) 10(6):1–20. Touton, and IDH. 2018. The Business Case for Engaging in Landscape Approaches: The Business case for a Landscape Approach to Sustainable Cocoa Production in Ghana. The Sustainable Trade Initiative Case Study Series. Tscharntke, T., Y. Clough, S. A. Bhagwat, D. Buchori, H. Faust, D. Hertel, D. H??lscher, J. Juhrbandt, M. Kessler, I. Perfecto, C. Scherber, G. Schroth, E. Veldkamp, and T. C. Wanger. 2011. Multifunctional shade-tree management in tropical agroforestry landscapes - A review. Journal of Applied Ecology 48(3):619–629. Tubiello, F. N., M. Salvatore, A. F. Ferrara, J. House, S. Federici, S. Rossi, R. Biancalani, R. D. Condor Golec, H. Jacobs, A. Flammini, P. Prosperi, P. Cardenas-Galindo, J. Schmidhuber, M. J. Sanz Sanchez, N. Srivastava, and P. Smith. 2015. The Contribution of Agriculture, Forestry and other Land Use activities to Global Warming, 1990-2012. Global Change Biology 21(7):2655–2660.
50 Tubiello, F. N., M. Salvatore, S. Rossi, A. Ferrara, N. Fitton, and P. Smith. 2013. The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environmental Research Letters 8(1). Vermeulen, S. J., B. Campbell, and J. S. Ingram. 2012. Climate Change and Food Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources:195–222. Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. 2009. Agroecology as a Science, a Movement and a Practice: A Review. Review,” Agronomy for Sustainable Development , no. 4 29(4). World Bank, FAO, and IFOAM. 2015. Gender in Climate- Smart Agriculture. World Bank Group, Washington DC, USA. World Cocoa Foundation. 2017. Best practice examples to address deforestation in the cocoa sector. Cocoa and Forest Initiative Launch March 2017, London, UK. Derived from: http://www.worldcocoafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/Deforestation-Fact-Sheets- All-1.pdf (Accessed: 04.06.2019).
51 9. Appendices
Appendix I Ontological and Epistemology of this study
In general, this study is shaped by a constructivist ontology. I assume that discourses and social realities are constantly constructed through social interactions on various levels. The social world is, thus, not external to us but shaped in and through these interactions (Bryman 2016). I further make us of a political ecology approach to introduce the concept of power to this study. While discourses are constantly constructed and shaped by social actors, power asymmetries exist. Understanding power asymmetries, thus, helps us to recognise that environmental discourses are not equally shaped by all social actors and that consequently the distribution of risk and opportunities is not necessarily felt equally (Pelling et al. 2015). Against this backdrop, I understand political ecology as concerned ‘with tracing the genealogy of narratives concerning ‘the environment’, with identifying power relationships supported by such narratives, and with asserting the consequences of hegemony over, and within, these narratives’ (Stott and Sullivan 2000).
52 Appendix II General interview guide
Table AII.1 The guide served as a thread for the semi-structured interviews with national-level respondents and field officers but was adapted to the context of each interview. Questions were often asked in different orders to the one presented in this table. Initially used stances are included in the interview guide. Interview questions General
1. What are your perceptions of CSC and how are you/your organisation involved in CSC?
2. Where do you see the origin and goals of CSC initiatives in Ghana?
3. How are these goals achieved in general and through your organisation?
Equity
4. In what sense are secure tenure rights a precondition for a successful CSC strategy?
Follow-up: How does CSC help to secure tenure rights for farmers? What type of tenure rights reforms are needed, if any?
5. To what extent is benefit sharing a precondition for a successful CSC strategy?
Follow-up: On what basis should benefit sharing be designed: based on merit/work? Based on rights? Based on need (i.e. poverty)? Do you find female farmers to be disadvantaged? In what way are female farmers disadvantaged?
6. Do you see it as a challenge is that interests of powerful actors are stronger weighted than those of farmers?
Follow-up: How are the voices of farmers represented in the CSC process? Who are the winers and who are losers of CSC initiatives?
Agroecology/Agroforestry
7. Should Agroecology/agroforestry play an essential role in CSC?
Follow-up: Why do you see agroforestry as essential? What are other agroecological practices?
8. Should chemical input play an essential role in CSC?
Follow-up: Why do you see agrochemicals as essential? Where do you see potential negative effects?
9. Do you think that agroecology/agroforestry has the potential to more effectively substitute chemical inputs?
53 Follow-up: If not, what are barriers?
Additional questions:
How has climate change influenced Ghanaian cocoa production?
What are your predictions for the influence of climate change on Ghanaian cocoa production in the future?
What role do forests play for Ghanaian cocoa production?
Who do you perceive as mainly responsible for deforestation in Ghana?
What are your perceptions of and experience with CREMAs and where do you see their potentials and barriers?
54 Appendix III Interview and FGD guide for farmers
Table AIII.2 The guide served as a rough thread for the semi-structured interviews with farmers as well as for FGDs. The guide was adapted according to the context of each interviewee or FDG. Interview questions General questions
1. How big and how old is your farm? 2. Which programmes/extension services (have) come to your farm/community? 3. What do they do? Has their support been useful?
Climate and forests
4. Has the climate/rain/sun changed? How? 5. What does this mean for your cocoa? 6. Does the forest help/hinder cocoa production? How?
Trees on Farms
7. Do you have any shade trees on your farm? Why/why not? 8. Have you received trees through a CSC programme? 9. Have you registered your shade trees? Why not? 10. Where do you see the advantages and disadvantages of shade trees?
Equity
11. Do you profit from shade trees? Why/why not? 12. What would you need to profit more from shade trees? 13. Have you been asked about your opinion on CSC programmes? 14. Have you participated in additional livelihood programmes? 15. Have you benefited? Why/why not? 16. Are you engaged in a CREMA? 17. Where do you see the potential/barriers of CREMAs? 18. Are CREMAs useful to you? Why/why not? 19. Do you feel that female farmers are disadvantaged? Why? 20. Do you feel that poorer farmers are disadvantaged? Why?
Agroecology
21. Do you spray (with agroechemicals) on your farm? 22. Do you employ any other techniques (e.g. organic compost, mulching, pruning)? Why/why not? 23. Do other farmers employ any other techniques?Why/why not? 24. Can these/agroecological or organic techniques substitute agrochemicals? Why/why not?
55 Appendix IV Limitations and methodological reflections of study
Methodological limitations regarding the analysis
- My finding suggest that the green governmentality discourse seemed to be weakly represented. However, this might be related to the overlap with other meta-discourses, rather than due to its absence (Bäckstrand and Lövbrand 2006) Overlaps between green governmentality and ecological modernisation were observed regarding the dominance of large actors and the weak representation of bottom-up governance. Concentrating solely on ecological modernisation and civic environmentalism in the final version of this thesis proved helpful to deal with the complexity of the case and concepts/frameworks. Discussing a third meta-discourse might have exceeded the scope and limits of this thesis. - The diversity and interrelatedness of meta-discourses was not extensively captured. The scope of the study was limited to examining how the CSC discourse reflects patterns of meta- discourses, rather than directly assessing and discussing the complex relationship between meta-discourses (Adger et al. 2001). - Even though the ecological modernisation rhetoric of global CSA has likely influenced CSC, this study neither directly assessed the interaction between global and local discourses, nor the process by which CSC in Ghana may have been influenced by CSA rhetoric/discourse. Instead, this thesis focused on how local discourses reflect stereotypical meta-discourses. Other scholars have shown how discourses on the international level strongly influence local discourses and realities (see e.g. Adger et al., 2001). - Clearly assessing the reflection of meta-discourses in CSC proved to be a challenge. I had initially used Likert-scale stances to ‘measure’ the prevalence of meta-discourses (Di Gregorio et al. 2017). However, the ambiguity of the stances made me question their statistical usefulness. During and after the fieldwork (especially during the transcription phase) I realised that interviewees interpreted stances differently, which thus made me less confidence in testing stances on a Likert-scale as a methodological approach. Some interviewees understood stances as future aspirations and visions, while other stakeholders had more pragmatic interpretations, based on the current situation. The data from the interviews and additional data, such as field notes, was therefore better suited to elicit the adoption of meta-discourses, since interviewees explained their viewpoints in more detail. The coding of the interviews allowed me to a relate and assign statements and interpretations of interviewees to meta-discourses. I excluded the Likert-scale stances but used and included the related questions in the interview guide (Appendix IV).
56 - Due to the limitations of my analysis and word count limitations, I was not always able to sufficiently emphasise on the fact that farmers are not a homogenous, but diverse group of social actors who engage differently in the CSC discourse. - I chose not to directly present and discuss the insights I gained from participatory observation at both the COP 24 and the Global Landscape Forum, since I always intended to observe these meetings to inform the initial stages and framing of my research. Even though I had conducted a thorough literature review of Ghana’s cocoa sector, insights from these events were, thus, used to inform me on the current development on CSA and CSC and served as an initial basis for the actual data collection in Ghana. I used these insights for the construction of a first version of the interview guides and to create confidence for the first interviews with national-level representatives.
Theory related reflections
- I perceived the multi-dimensional equity framework as helpful to structure the broad range of equity-related findings, especially during the coding and analysis phases. Especially since I initially had little previous knowledge of the theory of equity. The scope of this study did not, however, allow me to analyse discuss the linkages across equity dimensions.
- In retrospect, to focus on issues of equity and agroecology in CSC seemed generally appropriate in order to explain smallholder related issues. Many of the issues smallholders face relate to both equity and agroecology, therefore one concept alone might be insufficient to explain the complexity. Discussing optimal shade cover, agrochemicals, or sustainable intensification are examples of intersecting equity and agroecology related issues. However, the multitude of concepts and frameworks in itself created another layer of complexity. While the study was thought to be narrowed down through the focus on equity and agroecology, the opposite might have been the case.
Methodological limitations and reflections regarding the data collection
- Data collection at the local level was key and provided the study with many nuances and richness. Especially interviews with extension officers was helpful due to their position
57 between the local and regional level, which provided them with extensive knowledge on local contexts as well as with more general perspectives on CSC. - Unfortunately, no famers’ cooperative representatives were suggested through the snowball sampling approach. Potential cooperative interviewees were only encountered after the data collection. Interviews with a representative of a farmers’ cooperative might have, however, revealed valuable insights into the cooperative organization of farmers as part of CSC. But in Ghana, farmers do not typically organise in cooperatives as they do in neighbouring in Côte d’Ivoire. The lack of cocoa farmer cooperatives in Ghana could have been why no such interviewees emerged through snowball sampling.
58 Appendix V Ethics review – final review
Overall, the study followed the outline that I had presented in the initial ethics review. However, I had initially planned to include up to 40 participants through my data collection. However, around 60 people finally participated in the study (37 interviewees and 24 FG participants). No additional ethical issues are expected from this increase since no additional groups (e.g. regarding vulnerability) were included.
Before the data collection I was concerned that some farmers would want to be financially compensated for their participation e.g. due to their invested time or research fatigue. The flexible interview design allowed, however, to better respect farmers time. Apart from asking farmers for their consent to participate, I constantly asked farmers whether they are still happy to continue the interview. As soon as I felt that this was not the case, I wrapped up the interview. FGDs were held to a minimum time to respect farmers’ other tasks, specially since up to 10 farmers engaged in these. Mostly, however, farmers engaged fully in the discussions and I rather had to end the official part of the discussion in order for those who wanted to leave to more easily to do so. The rather sensitive and flexible approach helped me to avoid situations of research fatigue and respondents’ discontent, which I largely did not experience.
Different to initial plans, no field assistance was employed. This was mainly due to the supportive collaboration with local field and extension officers. Even though extension officers were many times not present during interviews, the strong involvement of these might have biased the selection of the farmers (e.g. towards the selection of more successful farmers). Further, my visible collaboration with governmental and private extension officers might have prevented farmers from expressing their experiences and concerns openly due to their dependence on extension services. Nevertheless, the collaborations with local partners might have, on the other hand, created a more comfortable environment for farmers.
Sharing the results of this study with farmers remains a challenge, due to most farmers being difficult to be reached. At the end of the data collection in February 2019 I was, however, invited to talk at a farmers’ radio in Juaboso-Bia, where I could share and discuss some of my results with farmers. To discuss results of this study with further target groups, I will facilitate two workshops on the political economy of cocoa value-chains with high school students in Germany between June and July 2019.
59 Appendix VI Coding structure used in the analysis of the data.
The theoretical frameworks were the foundation for the coding. In a first round, transcripts, notes and the field diary were coded both deductively, in relation to the theory, and deductively, allowing further themes to emerge (see Figure 5 below). In a second round of coding I went into the themes most relevant to the aim of my study and created sub-codes for each theme. The second round helped me to break some of the complexity into manageable pieces and to bring out nuances of the data and the case.
Figure VI.1 Overview of main coding structure regarding CSC. Note: additional codes were used, e.g. regrading climate change or forests, which are not part of this visualisation.
60 Appendix VII Main CSC related interventions in the study sites.
Table AVII.1 Overview of main CSC related interventions in the study sites of this thesis. CSC Programme Main aim Lead Site Time Main stakeholders funding Forest Investment ‘Improvement of forest and tree management Ghana Cocoa Juaboso-Bia Since World Bank Programme (FIP) practices by cocoa farmers, CREMA communities Board 2012 and forest reserve managers in order to reduce forest (Cocobod) and loss and degradation in Ghana's High Forest Zone Ghana (selected zones).’ Forestry Comission (Source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/loans- credits/2019/05/03/ghana-forest-investment- program-additional-financing)
‘Partnership for ‘Halt deforestation driven by cocoa production in Touton with a Juaboso-Bia Since Department Productivity, Ghana, Partnerships for Forests is supporting a consortium of 2017 for Protection and consortium led by Touton to achieve a deforestation- the Ghana Internationa Resilience in Cocoa free cocoa landscape in the Juabeso and Bia Forestry l Landscapes Districts of Western Ghana and develop a market for Commission, Developme (3PRCL) climate-smart cocoa beans’ the Ghana nt UK Cocoa Board (Source: www.Partnershipforforests.com) (COCOBOD), SNV, Agro Eco, NCRC Climate-smart ‘Raise awareness among cocoa farmers in Ghana on Rainforest Sui River Since Private cocoa training the effects of climate change on their cocoa Alliance, in landscape 2018 sector materials production and to give them tools (in the form of collaboration recommendations) to mitigate these (negative) with WCF effects. The topics can be used by field/extension
61 officers in addition to topics on good agricultural practices.’
(Source: Dohmen et al. 2018) Climate-Smart ‘Improve the capacities of farmers to mitigate and Olam, Juaboso-Bia Since Private Cocoa Landscape adapt to climate change while simultaneously Rainforest 2010 sector increasing productivity. The project focused on Alliance organizing individual farmers, establishing landscape management structures, diminishing pressures to further encroach on surrounding forestlands, and restoring ecosystems within cocoa agroforests and other degraded land-use systems while increasing cocoa production.’
(Source: Noponen et al. 2014) Kakum Cocoa ‘Transform Ghana’s Kakum cocoa-forest landscape NCRC Assin-South Since / Agroforestry into a more sustainable cocoa agroforestry system by 2018 Landscape protecting the forest, enhancing cocoa livelihoods Program and strengthening the socio-economic and ecological resilience to climate change across the landscape.’
(Source: NCRC 2019) Climate-Smart ‘Rehabilitation of smallholder cocoa farm sand SNV Bia-Juaboso 2016- German Cocoa and forest ecosystems for enhanced conservation and 2019 Federal agroforestry system sustainable use of forestry resources’ Ministry for rehabilitation: in the the high forest zone (Source: www.snv.org/project/full-sun-shaded- Environmen of Ghana cocoa-agroforestry.systems-scafs) t, Nature Conservatio n and Nuclear Safety
62 Appendix VIII Boom and bust cycle in the cocoa sector
Figure AVIII.2 Overview of the boom and bust cycle described by Clough et al. (2009)
63 Appendix IX Initial ethics review
For the final hand-in of this thesis, the initial ethics preview is attached in a separate pdf. document.
64