Conservation in ’s Chocolate : The Unlikely Persistence of the Traditional Cocoa Agroecosystem

NORMAN D. JOHNS component of modernization efforts was a shade-tree re- Department of Geography moval program designed to maximize cocoa production by University of Texas at Austin using low shade and fertilizer while substituting agrochemi- 4311 Caswell Avenue cals for many beneficial roles of the overhead trees. This re- Austin, Texas 78751, USA search found that many farmers rejected, or only partially accepted, the shade reduction process although it promised much higher cocoa yield and profit. Farmers employing a ABSTRACT / In southern , Brazil, the traditional cocoa wide range of shading were interviewed, and it was found agroecosystem with a dense shade canopy of native trees is that decisions to remove or maintain the shade trees were now recognized as a secondary conservation route for linked to both agroecological and risk-minimization factors. highly endangered Atlantic Rainforest species. This ‘‘choco- Farmers’ perceptions of the agroecological functions of the late forest’’ of the densely shaded farms persists despite a shade trees and individual willingness to entertain the eco- massive 20-year Brazilian government modernization pro- nomic risk associated with substituting agrochemicals for gram in which shade was seen as a chief impediment to these were important. A less-profitable, but lower-risk ap- raising cocoa production. The objective of this study was to proach of occasional fertilizer and agrochemical use with the determine how this traditional agroecosystem endured. Al- traditional shade intact was a rational and widespread though dense shade limits cocoa yield, it provides several choice. Policies designed to maintain the traditional agroecological benefits: control of pests and weeds, agroecosystem through the current economic crisis should microclimate stability, and soil fertility maintenance. A key heed the multiple functions of the overhead trees.

The Brazilian cocoa region in the south of the state conservationists. While it is one of the planet’s most of Bahia is among the last areas still possessing much of biologically diverse (Thomas and de Carvalho the character, although not the true identity, of the 1993), with many endemic species (Thomas and others formerly extensive Atlantic Rainforest (Figure 1). Al- 1998), it is also one of the most threatened ecosystems though southern Bahia contains the largest concentra- worldwide. Estimates of the current extent of the tion of actual tropical Atlantic Rainforest remnants, it is Atlantic Rainforest range from 2% to 7% of original the widespread cultivation of cocoa (Theobroma cacao) area (Mittermeier 1988, de Miranda and Mattos 1992). under a dense canopy of shade trees that more fully Because of the dire situation of the Atlantic Rainfor- imparts a forest character on the region. Furthermore, est, the shade canopy of the traditional cabrucagem a large portion of this cultivation is based on the cocoa farms has recently drawn attention as another traditional cabrucagem agroecosystem in which cocoa is route of environmental conservation. Although the planted under large trees retained from the original cabrucagem agroecosystem is highly modified com- forest (Figures 2 and 3). Today this ‘‘chocolate forest’’ pared to the original forest due to the removal of lower stands like an island amid a sea of deforested ranch and canopy trees and herbaceous components (da Vinha other agricultural lands. and Silva 1981), the well-shaded farms still incorporate The ongoing destruction of the Atlantic Rainforest a considerable diversity of trees (Figure 3). Many has been characterized as one of the greatest biological valuable timber species, which have been nearly elimi- tragedies of our time (Mori 1989). Although distinct nated regionally, are commonly used for shade on these and smaller than the renowned Amazon rain forest, the farms. These include the highly prized (jacar- Atlantic Rainforest is of greater immediate concern to anda´, nigra), brazilwood, the namesake of Brazil (pau Brasil, Caeselapinia esplinata), and others KEY WORDS: Conservation; Brazil; Atlantic Rainforest; Cocoa; such as jequitiba´(Cariniana brasiliensis) and cedro Agroecology; Risk; Agroforestry (Cedrela odorata).

Environmental Management Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 31–47 ௠ 1999 Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 32 N. D. Johns

Figure 1. Map showing former extent of Brazil’s Atlantic Rainforest and present day land use in the southern portion of the state of Bahia (sources: inset map modified from Por 1992, land use from CEI 1994).

In addition to tree conservation, primates such as The emerging environmental conservation image of the sagui (Callathrix kulhii) and the endangered golden Bahia’s cocoa zone is also aided by the geographic lion tamarin (Leontopithicus rasalia), one of the world’s extent of cultivation. An estimated 4224 sq km of rarest monkeys (Mittermeier 1988), frequent the shade original forest remain in all of southern Bahia (Figure tree canopy of some cocoa farms. The shade canopy 1), but only some 285 sq km have officially protected often serves as an important connection between frag- status (Mori 1989). Meanwhile, the area in which cocoa ments of true forest (Alves 1990). Realizing the poten- predominates is some 13,400 sq km of which approxi- tial contribution of Bahia’s cabrucagem cocoa farms to mately 6060 sq km are actually in cocoa cultivation conservation efforts for Atlantic Rainforest species, a (CENEX 1994). Approximately 98% of Brazilian cocoa consortium of North American and Brazilian environ- is produced in Bahia (Filho 1981). mental groups recently deemed that the cocoa cultiva- Therefore, because of its spatial extent and the tion zone should be considered a priority conservation incorporation of native trees, this ‘‘chocolate forest’’ of area (Conservation International and others 1994). the traditional cocoa agroecosystem is today an uninten- The conservation potential of these traditional farms tional route of conservation for at least some species of was recently highlighted by the discovery of a previously the Atlantic Rainforest. Although this new role for the unknown bird species inhabiting the trees of the cocoa cocoa zone would appear to have emerged rather shade canopy (Pacheco and others 1996). fortuitously, in actuality it has been made possible only Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 33

Figure 2. Typical view of Bahia’s cocoa cultivation using the cabrucagem agroecosystem of native Atlantic Rainforest trees for shade (photo by author). through the unlikely persistence of the traditional cocoa agroecosystem. The native overhead trees on Bahia’s cocoa farms have persevered through a massive 20-year Brazilian government modernization program in which shade was seen as a chief impediment to raising cocoa production. The objective of this study was to determine how these traditional farms were able to endure this modernization program to take on their important conservation role today.

Figure 3. Detail of a typical 50-m sq plot of the cabrucagem Modernization and the ‘‘Shade Problem’’ cocoa agroecosystem on a farm near Camaca˜, Bahia. Upper: Cocoa agriculture was widespread in Mexico and plan view of the shade canopy (cocoa omitted); lower: horizon- Central America at the time of European contact and tal view (some canopy trees omitted for clarity). Shade tree species: A, Bacumixa´(Sideroxylon vastum); B, Jitaı´(Apuleia sp.); the use of shade trees was a prominent feature of its C, Inga (Inga edulis);D&M,PauSange (Pterocarpus violacens); cultivation. In 1556 the Italian, Girolamo Benzoni, F, I, and L, Biriba (Eschweilera speciosa); G, Jatoba´(Hymenaea chronicling his travels in the New World, wrote the first stignocarpam); H, Carobuc¸u ( mimosaefolia); J, Fidalgo known description of cocoa agriculture: ‘‘Cocoa flour- (Aegiphila sellowiana); K, Gameleira Branca (Ficus doliaria); N, ishes only in a hot climate, in shaded locations; if it were Jacaranda´ Branca (Swartzia macrostachya); Q, Buranhe´m(Prado- exposed to the sun it would die . . .’’ (from La Historia sia lactescens); O and P, Jaqueira (Artocarpus integrifolia) [not del Mundo Novo as excerpted in Bondar 1938). The native to Atlantic Rainforest]. origin of the use of shade is usually attributed to early cultivators mimicking the natural subcanopy environ- ment of wild cocoa trees in the forest (Murray 1958) of and Sa˜o Tome´, then among the leading world produc- the upper Amazon and Orinoco river basins (Simpson ers, cut much of their shade canopy in an effort to raise and Ogorzaly 1986). Cocoa cultivation was later spread production. Shortly thereafter, however, most of these throughout the tropics in the New World, , Sri farms were wiped out by insect attacks (Gordon 1976). Lanka, Indonesia, and Malaysia. In the 1950s and 1960s the controversy over cocoa While the use of shade appears to have been a shade and productivity intensified with the emerging universal practice formerly, in this century the shade worldwide availability of agrochemical technologies. requirement of the cocoa tree has been questioned and Efforts to incorporate these technologies were largely the practice has been subject to wide experimentation. guided by state-sponsored research centers in Latin The production of cocoa fruit generally increases if America and Africa. A principal line of inquiry was to shade is decreased, but such a change brings on other uncover whether shade is an innate requirement of the problems (Alvim 1977). For example, in the early 1920s cocoa tree itself or whether it serves a secondary role by cocoa farmers on the African islands of Fernando Po´ maintaining appropriate soil, insect population, and 34 N. D. Johns

Figure 4. The results of CEPLAC’s cocoa shade/productivity experi- ment, showing the impressive in- creases in production with application of fertilizer and other agrochemical inputs, especially under no-shade con- ditions (adapted from Cabala-Rosand and others 1976). other conditions for the cocoa , conditions that The results of the experiment were striking (Figure could be potentially maintained with the application of 4), with spectacular increases in annual yield to an suitable chemical inputs. The same controversy regard- average of about 1700 kg of dry cocoa per hectare from ing shade and agrochemical inputs has been important the no-shade plus fertilizer fields. Significant boosts in for the two other principal shade-utilizing tropical production were also registered on the fields subject to crops: coffee (Rice 1990) and tea (Fuchs 1989). just shade removal and insecticide application, and In 1962 the Brazilian government initiated an exten- smaller increases on the fields where fertilizer and sive program to incorporate modern methods and insecticide was applied under shaded conditions. Even agrochemical technologies into the Bahian cocoa the control plots, without fertilizer and with original economy. The Executive Commission for Planning shade levels, gave yields in the range of 700–800 kg/ha. Cocoa Agriculture (Comissa˜o Executiva do Plano da This was approximately double the then-current Bahian Lavoura Cacaueira, CEPLAC), initially a financing en- average of about 450 kg/ha, attesting to the potency of tity, was transformed into the world’s largest cocoa the other treatments including the chemical control of research, extension, and credit agency with headquar- and fungus and ample weeding. ters established in the heart of the cocoa zone near Other experiments showed that the widespread be- Itabuna, Bahia (Alvim and Rosa´rio 1972). lief that cocoa trees would die if exposed to full sunlight One of CEPLAC’s first major experiments was an due to so-called leaf burns (quemas) was unfounded. investigation of the interactions of shade, fertilizer, and The burns were found to be actually caused by the fruit production for the cocoa plant. The experiment severe attack of insect pests, particularly thrips was similar to earlier trials carried out by Trinidad’s (Selenothrips rubrocinctus) and monalonia (Monalonion Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture (Murray 1955, spp.), under low-shade conditions (Alvim 1960). In 1958) and Ghana’s West African Cocoa Research Insti- Bahia, other insects pests such as Euchroma gigantea, tute (Cunningham and Arnold 1962). However, rather vaquinha (Colaspis spp.), lagarta ( decora), and than the near laboratory-like conditions of these earlier carneirinho (Lordops aurosa and Lasiopus cilipes) were experiments, CEPLAC sought to avoid any doubts as to found to be worse under low-shade conditions (de the on-farm suitability of the results by conducting the Abreu and Silva 1972, Gramacho and others 1992). Of experiment directly on 21 existing traditional farms course, these insect problems could be controlled with with mature cocoa trees 30–40 years old. The shade proper insecticides. canopy on test plots was completely removed by poison- The shade canopy in the cocoa agroecosystem clearly ing the overhead trees, then fertilizer treatment and fulfills a multitude of roles (as portrayed in Figure 5). chemical control of insects and fungal diseases started Very prominent, of course, is the great increase in (Cabala-Rosand and others 1976). productivity, at least in the near term, as the amount of Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 35

Eliminating Bahia’s ‘‘Excessive’’ Traditional Shade In view of the striking results coming from CEPLAC’s shade–productivity–fertilizer experiments (Figure 4), it was obvious that cocoa productivity on the Bahian farms was strongly linked to the density of shade used. The traditional cabrucagem agroecosystem in Bahia used a rather dense shade canopy. The accounts of Bondar (1938) and Caldeira (1954) indicate that the conven- tional manner of establishing the shade canopy was to remove about one third of the original Atlantic Rainfor- est trees, principally the larger ones. From this it may be deduced that a traditional cabrucagem canopy had a shade coverage of about 50%–60%, where shade cover- age is measured using the vertical projection of the canopy trees on the ground in a sample quadrant (Hadfield 1981). In 1964 CEPLAC carried out a survey of 61 tradi- tional cocoa farms throughout southern Bahia. The survey found an ‘‘excessive’’ level of shade constituted Figure 5. Depiction of the multifaceted role of the shade by an average of 76 shade trees per hectare with 171 canopy in the cocoa agroecosystem. Positive aspects of low- different species of trees being employed overall (Alvim shade cultivation are indicated with a solid line while dotted and Pereira 1965). Although only the number of shade lines indicate deleterious effects of low-shade cultivation (not necessarily in order of importance). trees was tabulated, it would appear that the shade coverages of these farms were in the 50%–60% range. In 1995 measurements on two typical farms with dense shade is decreased. In Bahia, a reduction in the fungal cabrucagem-type shade canopies (including that de- black pod disease was also registered under lower shade picted in Figure 3), I found shade coverages of approxi- conditions (Cabala-Rosand and others 1976). However, mately 50%–60% (Johns 1996). These farms had a these positive aspects are offset by several deleterious similar species mix to those of the 1964 CEPLAC survey effects of reduced shade, the most prominent of which and respective overhead trees counts of 68 and 76/ha. are the increases in insect and disease problems, higher Pereira and Alvim (1971) attributed the use of such weed growth, and the higher nutritive demands of the excessive shade by Bahian farmers to a ‘‘lack of knowl- cocoa plant. Weed growth is important not only because edge of the relations between solar energy and the of nutrient competition (approximately 80% of cocoa physiological behavior of the [cocoa] plant.’’ In order tree roots are in the upper 15 cm of soil) (Alvim 1977), to raise the productivity of Bahia’s traditional farms, but also due to the increased difficulty of retrieving CEPLAC recommended a drastic elimination of 50%– cocoa fruits that fall to the ground during harvesting. 70% of the overhead shade trees to leave only 25/ha Of course, most of these negative agroecological effects (Alvim 1966). This would result in an approximate of reduced shade can be countered by applying compen- shade coverage after thinning in the range of 15%– satory inputs of labor and/or an appropriate agrochemi- 25%, depending on the characteristics of the individual cal such as herbicide, fertilizer, or pesticide. trees remaining. Subsequent CEPLAC research with Choosing an optimal level of shade, therefore, de- 1:25,000 scale aerial photographs and field measure- pends not only on the natural environmental character- ments of shade tree canopy diameters identified 10% istics of a growing region (i.e., soil, climate, slope) but shade coverage as the appropriate level (Leite 1972). also on many socioeconomic and geographic variables. The recommendation to keep some residual over- The availability of labor, credit, and agrochemical tech- head trees was a cautious recognition of the potential nologies and their price compared to the cocoa market insect and disease problems associated with low-shade price are of paramount importance. As Alvim (1960) cultivation. CEPLAC acknowledged that upon thinning concluded, the ‘‘shade problem’’ of cocoa ‘‘is not so the shade canopy as recommended, the farmer must much a question of agronomy or physiology, but above also adopt a ‘‘technological package’’ of inputs: fertil- all, a question of farm economics’’ to determine if the izer, insecticides, and fungicides (Alvim 1972). Nonethe- cost of the requisite agrochemicals is offset by the less, even with the expense of the requisite agrochemi- increase in cocoa yield and earnings. cal inputs, fertilizer being by far the most costly, the 36 N. D. Johns

Figure 6. The international price of cocoa (inflation ad- justed) for the 1965–1995 period and the area of Bahian cocoa treated annually with CEPLAC- financed technological inputs.

low-shade agroecosystem was far superior economically because of the greatly increased yield and a favorable international market for cocoa. CEPLAC’s analysis found that the low-shade plus fertilizer agroecosystem would provide approximately US$617 more in annual net return per hectare at 1973 prices, 260% higher than traditional cultivation without fertilizer (Cabala-Rosand and others 1975). Even with the two- to threefold increases in the prices of fertilizers and other agricul- tural chemicals in the mid-1970s, a low-shade-plus- technology agroecosystem remained far superior eco- nomically because of the continued sky-rocketing price of cocoa on the international market (Johns 1996). Cocoa reached a record high US$4478/metric ton in 1977 and prices remained favorable until the mid- to late 1980s (Figure 6). To reap the fullest benefit of this new ‘‘golden era’’ of euphoric cocoa prices beginning in the late 1960s, it was necessary to transform the region’s traditional farms into the low-shade-plus-agrochemicals model. Thus, the numerous trees of the shade canopy, the majority of which were native Atlantic Rainforest spe- cies, became a chief impediment to modernization. The removal of excessive shade became one of the primary goals of CEPLAC’s programs, along with subsidized Figure 7. Administration of tree poison injections, the recom- support for the use of fertilizer and insecticides. CE- mended method for eliminating shade trees from the cocoa PLAC developed special equipment, essentially a large agroecosystem (photo from Alvim 1972). hypodermic needle (Figure 7), to carefully administer poison injections to the large overhead trees. In several years in the mid-1970s CEPLAC trained over a thousand that only about one fourth of a liter of Tordon, the farm workers annually in the proper dosage and applica- preferred poison, was sufficient to remove the necessary tion of fertilizer and agrochemicals including tree 51 trees per hectare from an average farm (Pereira and poison (e.g., DEPEX 1974). Poisoning tests on the most Alvim 1971). This represented a one-time material and frequently encountered species of shade trees revealed labor cost of US$1.59/ha at 1968 prices, minuscule Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 37

Figure 8. Geography of the shade reduc- tion program portrayed by CEPLAC local extension office jurisdiction. Cumulative areas for the period 1967–1986 are superim- posed on the map of cultivation circa 1965 from Filho (1971). compared to the potential increases in annual net purchased. Thus portrayed, there is only one conclu- return upon moving to the low-shade agroecosystem. sion to be drawn from the Brazilian government’s official data: wherever there was traditional cocoa culti- Bahia’s Cocoa Agroecosystem: Modernized or vation, the shade canopy was drastically thinned. Traditional? This is, however, in stark contrast to the persisting According to CEPLAC’s official statistics for the dense shade canopy on most of southern Bahia’s cocoa 1967–1986 period (e.g., DEPEX 1974), the area of farms today and the emerging role of the cabrucagem cocoa cultivation subjected to the drastic thinning of agroecosystem as a secondary route of Atlantic Rainfor- overhead shade trees was 506,060 ha, equal to more est species conservation. Although there is variability in than 115% of the 1965 area of cultivation (from shading and many farmers did remove some trees, a Monteiro 1985). The removal of 51 trees per hectare on traditional dense shade of interconnecting tree cano- average would equate to a loss of approximately 25.8 pies (Figures 2 and 3) with shade coverages four to five million shade canopy trees across the region. Figure 8 times the recommended level, is the norm across the indicates the comprehensive nature of this supposed region today. As observed by Stith (1990), ‘‘Cabruca- immense change to the cocoa agroecosystem by map- (gem) and forest appear almost alike from the air.’’ ping the area subject to tree poisoning by the CEPLAC Recent conservation-oriented efforts to delineate areas extension office jurisdiction where the tree poison was of remaining forest with remote sensing techniques 38 N. D. Johns

Figure 9. Aerial photos from 1965 (A) and 1993 (B) showing the continued use of a dense shade canopy, largely comprised of Atlantic Rainforest trees, on a cocoa farm near Itabuna, Bahia, Brazil. Brazilian agricultural statistics indicate that this farm par- ticipated in the shade reduction program which would have removed about 50%–70% of the shade trees. (Scale indicated by the 100-m soccer field. Photos from: A, archive, CEPLAC Division of Geosciences; B, CEPLAC Sector of Environmental Resources).

have been hampered by the similar canopies of forest and the cabrucagem cocoa agroecosystem (Fundac¸a˜o SOS Mata Atlaˆtica 1993). An example of the discrep- ancy between CEPLAC’s statistics and farm reality is shown in the aerial photo chronology of Figure 9. Although official Brazilian program data indicate that this farm near Itabuna participated in the shade reduc- tion program, the shade trees are as abundant in the 1993 aerial photo as they were in 1965. Farm visits clarified that this great discrepancy be- tween CEPLAC’s statistics and today’s typically dense shade can not be attributed to regrowth of the overhead trees; in most cases they never were poisoned. This is evident in the large quantities of unused tree poison still stored on many of the traditional cocoa farms (Figure 10). Many of Bahia’s cocoa farmers actively avoided the shade reduction program or participated to a very limited extent. The official government statistics Figure 10. Unused bottles of Tordon tree poison in storage reflect only the amount of tree poison that was pur- on a densely-shaded cocoa farm near Camaca˜, Bahia. chased, not what was used. This widespread rejection of the shade reduction near monopoly on agricultural credit and thus leverage program brings up important questions. First, why did to persuade farmers into following their modernization cocoa farmers purchase so much tree poison without initiatives including the purchase of the inexpensive intending to use it? The answer is that CEPLAC had a tree poison. CEPLAC extension personnel, however, Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 39

were often unable, given the number and size of typical owner lives in a city rather than on the farm, a tendency farms and the tropical conditions, to rigorously inspect throughout much of the history of cocoa cultivation in farms for complete compliance with the tree poisoning Bahia (Bondar 1938). The owners of small to medium- recommendations (Johns 1996). sized farms usually reside in nearby cities, as was true A second and more important question is why would here, while the owners of the larger farms often live in a large portion of Bahia’s cocoa farmers reject, or only Salvador, the capital of Bahia, or . partially accept, the shade tree removal program given A second important socioeconomic characteristic of its minimal cost and the great increases in cocoa yield each selected farm was that it must be owned by an and profit that were possible? It is because of such individual or several members of the same family. farmer decisions that much of the cabrucagem cocoa Several of the farms examined have been owned by the agroecosystem continues to use much denser shade same family for over a century. Control for ownership than the government recommended, greatly enhancing type was necessary since corporate ownership may today’s conservation role of the chocolate forest. As one emphasize short-term profit while individual or family CEPLAC cocoa extension agent with 30 years of experi- ownership may focus on long-term maintenance of ence in the region said, ‘‘if the shade reduction had farm productivity (Barlett 1980). In all cases, the cur- been done as prescribed, we wouldn’t have this Atlantic rent farmer (owner) learned cocoa farming predomi- Rainforest (of cabrucagem shade trees) today’’ (J. F. C. nantly through family ties and has close involvement in Campos, personal communication 1995). the affairs of the farm, although a farm manager is often in charge of daily operations. Control for family ownership was also important Shade Canopy and the Bahian Cocoa Farmer because of the passage of time since the height of the shade reduction program (1970–1983) and this study. In order to understand farmer rationale for rejection For farms 1, 9, and 10, farm ownership has passed from of the shade removal program, I made a series of farm father to son. For farm 1, however, one of five used for a visits and interviewed ten cocoa farmers between Sep- detailed assessment, the current owner was active in the tember 1994 and February 1995 and in January 1996. operation of the farm at the time when decisions These were designed to examine the farmers’ percep- regarding acceptance or rejection of the shade reduc- tions of the roles of the shade canopy and their actions tion program were made. For farms 9 and 10 the during the shade reduction program. All interviews transfer of ownership occurred very recently. were conducted in Portuguese, usually at the farmer’s Another notable caveat is that all cocoa farmers in residence. Five of these farms were then specifically the region now have a retrospective view on the shade chosen, because of their wide range in shade coverage, reduction program. Their opinions on the agroecologi- for more detailed assessments. These detailed assess- cal or economic function of the shade canopy may have ments were performed to test for a relationship be- changed in accord with their accumulated experience tween individual farmer perceptions of the interlinked since shade reduction was undertaken or rejected. For agroecological and economic functions of the shade example, a widely held opinion among farmers, research- canopy (Figure 5) and their use of a particular shade ers, and CEPLAC extension agents in the region is that coverage. the climate of recent years is markedly drier than in the The ten farms, although widely spaced (Figure 1), past, a trend which is almost universally attributed to the were chosen based on available maps of soil (CEPLAC- broad-scale loss of surrounding forest cover in the IICA 1975) and climate (Leite 1976) such that they were region. all located within the zone of very good environmental characteristics for cocoa cultivation. With these charac- teristics held more or less constant, the actual agroeco- Perceptions of the Shade Canopy’s Functions logical importance of the shade canopy, such as for The farmer interviews were structured to examine insect and disease suppression, or management of their perceptions of both the agroecological and eco- drought stress, was relatively the same for all of the nomic functions of the shade canopy trees, consistent farms. with the multifaceted role they play in the cocoa In addition to this natural environment control, agroecosystem (Figure 5). The principal functions that some selectivity was exercised on the basis of socioeco- the farmers attributed to the overhead trees in the nomic characteristics. First, the farms were generally of cocoa agroecosystem are presented in the third column a small to medium size, in the range of 50–250 ha of Table 1. The first notable feature of these responses is (Alencar 1969). This was necessary because of the that they are very consistent with the major functions of nearly universal habit of absenteeism, in which the Figure 5. Although some of the cited roles are not 40 N. D. Johns

Table 1. Summary of interviews regarding functions of shade canopy treesa Farmer perception of the shade canopy’s functions Shade and modifications Cocoa Reducing shade causes greater Farm area Principal function(s) Shade Canopy Risk no. (ha) cited Cocoa yield? Fertilizer use? Insecticide use? coverage (%)b thinned? taker?c 1 200 protect from sun yes yes yes 50 no, avoided no maintain soil moisture maintain soil fertility 2 200 maintain humidity yes nod no 10 yes, extreme yes 3 220 protect from sun yes no no 30 yes no maintain soil moisture 4 250 protect from sun yes no no 60 no, avoided no 5 129 maintain soil moisture yes yes yes 0 yes, total yes maintain soil fertility weed prevention 6 350 maintain soil fertility yes yes yes — limited yes protect from sun 7 69 stabilize microclimate yes no no 40 limited yes harbor pollination insects maintain soil moisture 8 60 diminish insect attacks yes yes yes — very limited yes 9 37 maintain soil moisture yes no yes — yes no weed prevention 10 90 maintain humidity yes yes — — — yes aFarms 1–5 are the detailed assessment farms selected because of their wide spectrum of shade coverages. Farm locations shown on Figure 1. bMeasured for farms 1–4, estimated by inspection on farm 7. cAs measured with the Von Neuman-Morgenstern (1947) method, ‘‘yes’’ indicates farmer would take on gamble at 4:1 payoff at a probability of 50%. dThis answer qualified to be only for fertile soils as on this farm. wholly distinct from one another, such as ‘‘maintain related to the actual shade coverages used. As shown in humidity’’ and ‘‘stabilize microclimate,’’ the shade trees the middle columns of Table 1, farmer responses are seen in a very functional manner. There also is indicate a universal understanding of the principal much variability in the specific roles cited and in the benefit of low-shade cultivation: higher cocoa yield. level of detail given for the shade canopy’s functions. There was considerable variability, however, in the While in some cases a single generic ‘‘protect cocoa responses regarding whether low-shade cultivation would from the sun’’ role was cited, in other cases responses entail the need to use more fertilizer and/or more were very specific, as from farmers 1 and 5. It is possible insecticide. that the frequency of the generalized ‘‘protect from the In order to test if these perceptions of the economic sun’’ response and others regarding moisture were functions of the shade trees are related to the actual increased by the severe drought of December 1994 shade coverages used, five of these farms were chosen through February 1995 when most of the interviews for a more detailed assessment. These five farms were were done. Precipitation totals for these three months targeted because they had an obvious wide range in were only 33%, 15%, and 27% of normal (CEPLAC, shading and represented the entire spectrum in terms unpublished meteorological data). During this period of participation in the shade reduction program. Shade there were several extraordinary and highly publicized coverages were measured in 50-m ϫ 50-m sample fires on cocoa farms and in nearby tropical forest quadrants that were selected by the farmer or his/her reserves (Anonymous 1995a,b). farm manager as being representative of average shade The next portion of the interviews specifically exam- conditions for the farm. Shade coverages (Table 1) ined farmer perceptions of three potential economic ranged from no shade to about 60%, with the former effects of reducing shade. Each farmer was asked being very rare and the later being fairly typical of many whether reducing the amount of shade would lead to: traditional farms observed in the region. (1) higher cocoa yield, (2) a higher need for fertilizer, On farm 1, the tree poison was purchased but never and (3) a higher need for insecticide. These three utilized. This farmer’s responses in Table 1 indicate that particular aspects were examined to test if the percep- the perceived need for more fertilizer and insecticide tion of key economic effects of reduced shade was appears to have outweighed the anticipated cocoa yield Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 41

increase and explains the retention of the dense shade being in a constant state of crisis with interludes of canopy. The responses of farmers 2 and 3 indicate that prosperity (Menezes and Carmo-Neto 1993). In this the expectation of higher cocoa yield combined with century the most important crises occurred with the little or no perceived need for additional agrochemical depression of the 1930s and continued on through inputs helped spur them to accept the shade reduction World War II and another at the end of the 1950s, the program, although to varying extents. These first three later culminating in the 1957 formation of CEPLAC. examples suggest that the agroecological functions of The 1950s crisis was due to a dual Brazilian currency the overhead trees, and farmer perception thereof, exchange rate that severely undervalued cocoa exports were important determinants of farmer actions. Among at a time when the international market was strong these farmers, if they perceived that moving to lower (Governo do Estado da Bahia 1992). shade would create a dependency on fertilizer and As discussed, low-shade cocoa cultivation promised insecticide, they retained dense shade and vice versa. significantly higher profits. However, the supposed goal However, this pattern does not hold for farmers 4 of maximizing expected profit is often ineffective in and 5. In the perception of farmer 4, there would have explaining farmer decisions because it fails to account been an increase in productivity under low-shade culti- for individual attitudes regarding risk-taking under vation and no accompanying obligation to use more conditions of uncertainty. Many studies have found fertilizer or insecticide (same as farmer 3). However, farmers to be generally risk-averse, meaning they prefer the shade reduction program was actively rejected on options of lower risk even if these promise lower profit this farm (tree poison also purchased, but not used) on average (Barry 1984). and it maintains very dense shade (shown in Figure 8). Cocoa market uncertainty could have played a major The owner of farm number 5, on the other hand, role in the farmer decision process regarding modifica- displayed a very thorough understanding of the agroeco- tions to the agroecosystem in Bahia, even though the logical and economic functions of the shade canopy. shade reduction program was implemented during an Although this farmer believed that lower shade cultiva- era of spectacular cocoa prices in the 1970s and early tion entails the need for more fertilizer and insecticide, 1980s. The actual course of action would depend on the he completely eliminated all overhead shade trees in individual farmer’s willingness to take on a perceived 1976–1977 in order to garner the increased cocoa risk associated with the modification to the agroecosys- production. Therefore, for these last two farmers their tem. Therefore, another portion of the interview pro- perceptions of the agroecological and economic utility cess explored individual farmer risk attitudes and the of the overhead trees were not correlated with the use of possible role these may have played on their decisions a certain shade coverage. regarding the shade reduction program. In summary, there was no consistent relationship The risk attitudes of the ten cocoa farmers were between the shade coverages actually used on these assessed with the Von Neuman–Morgenstern (1947) farms and the respective farmer’s perceptions of three method. A hypothetical gamble is posed to the farmer key agroecological/economic functions of the shade who then chooses between a certain assured level of canopy. Other functions of the shade canopy, such as income, A1, and a higher, but more risk-prone level of drought stress management, may have also been rel- income, A2, which has some probability P of occurring, evant. Another undeniably important consideration is where P is less than 100%. In practice, to keep confu- that essentially all of Bahian cocoa production is des- sion to a minimum, an initial gamble is posed with A1 tined for export. Therefore, another vital factor that and P ϫ A2 specified as equal (equal expected payoff). accompanies every decision in cocoa agriculture is the Farmers with any degree of risk aversion will prefer the uncertainty of the international market and future option of certainty, A1, to the uncertain option even cocoa prices. though it has an equivalent expected payoff. Next, to ascertain just how risk-averse the farmer is, the expected Role of Market Uncertainty payoff A2 is raised in subsequent iterations of the The volatility of cocoa’s international market price gamble, with P constant. More risk-averse farmers re- has become renowned, exhibiting long-term cyclical quire a higher threshold of A2 to take on the gamble. behavior attributed to the extended gestation period The principal problems cited with this method are a before new plantings come into production (Weymar lack of realism and the potential for misunderstanding 1968, IBRD 1969). Because the economy of southern of the hypothetical choices by the farmers (Robison and Bahia has long been highly dependent on cocoa mono- others 1984). To minimize these problems, I posed the culture, it has also been highly susceptible to these large gamble using a realistic amount for A1 of 1000 Brazilian price swings. In fact, the region has been described as Reals (R1000 ϭ approximately US$1075 at the then- 42 N. D. Johns

current exchange rate). This was approximately equal This farmer was unwilling to remove canopy trees to the annual income of one farm worker or approxi- although there was no perceived risk of creating a mately half the monthly income of the owner of a technological dependency. In this case, however, the medium-sized farm (inflation-adjusted figures from farmer specifically cited susceptibility to drought mois- Knight 1976). The stakes of the gamble were therefore ture stress as an important perceived risk of the lower couched as substantial, yet tangible sums. To avoid shade agroecosystem. confusion, the gamble was posed as a 50–50 win–lose choice (P ϭ 50%) and the initial value of A2 was R2000. Shade Canopy as an Economic–Agroecologic Also, the risky income, A2, was only raised once, to two Interlinkage times the initial level, for fear that the farmer would feel The results of the farmer interviews, especially those obliged to eventually take on the gamble just to end the of the targeted farms with a high variability in shade question. The farmers were not pressured to respond coverage (1–5), illuminate the widespread rejection of and were asked if they understood the terms of the the Brazilian shade reduction program. For many of gamble before answering. these farmers, a low-shade agroecosystem is perceived All ten farmers responded negatively to the initial to increase drought susceptibility and/or to increase gamble with equal expected payoff A2 ϭ R2000. At the dependency on expensive fertilizer and other agro- next level of the gamble, however, a differentiation in chemicals. Assuming that similar perceptions existed risk attitude became apparent as presented in Table 1. during the shade reduction program, shade removal Six farmers would undertake the gamble at the higher was a risky proposition, in part because of the historic risky income of A2 ϭ R4000. These farmers are indi- volatility of cocoa prices. Although moving to low-shade cated by a ‘‘yes’’ under the risk-taker column heading. cultivation appeared to have been more profitable, it Being a risk-taker indicates that this farmer, relative to would have increased exposure to market uncertainty non-risk-takers, may be willing to enter into a potentially because of the agroecological changes entailed. There- rewarding gamble involving a risk, in preference to a fore, the drastic reduction of shade density on Bahia’s safer, but lower reward alternative. traditional cocoa farms was probably carried out by only If the risk attitudes are compared with the choices to those farmers willing to gamble that the low-shade thin or not to thin the shade canopy, a fairly distinctive agroecosystem, with its reliance on technological inputs pattern emerges. The farmers who were more likely to and heightened susceptibility to drought, would pay a take risk were generally those who lowered the shade very high net return from increased cocoa yield. coverages on their cocoa fields. This pattern is espe- This research suggests that Bahian cocoa farmers cially pronounced among the five detailed assessment have an interlinked agroecological and risk-based deci- farms for which accurate measurements of the shade sion logic. Although based on a limited sampling, coverages were made. In particular, farmers 4 and 5, the farmer perception of the functional roles of the over- nonconformers in the previous test for relationship head trees was not by itself a sufficient explanatory between perceived shade functionality and shade cover- variable for the shade densities utilized. Rather, the age, fit the pattern here. findings were that farmers with a moderate to high The owner of farm number 5, for example, removed appreciation of the shade trees’ positive roles must also the overhead trees of the shade canopy despite exhibit- be willing to take a risk in order to have thinned the ing a thorough knowledge of the role of shade in the shade canopy. cocoa agroecosystem with regard to yield and possible This interlinked decision logic and its relation to the fertilizer and insecticide dependency. In other words, shade densities utilized is depicted graphically in Figure despite the perceived risks of moving to a low-shade 11. Farmers with similar perceptions of the shade agroecosystem, the farmer was willing to gamble that canopy’s positive agroecological/economic roles, but of greatly increased productivity and profits would result. differing willingness to take on the risks of the low- In fact, this farmer stated that it was with ‘‘much shade agroecosystem, are aligned vertically. Farmers nervousness’’ that he undertook the shade tree re- with similar risk attitude (willingness to take on risk), moval. but differing perceptions of the functionality of the In contrast to this low-shade example, the owner of shade canopy, are aligned horizontally. The shade farm number 4, the farm with the heaviest shade coverages of the five farms assessed in detail are superim- encountered, is in the risk-averse group. While this posed on Figure 11 such that they generally reflect the farmer did not exhibit a detailed knowledge of the farmers’ respective positions on the two axes. The agroecological or economic functions of the shade limitations inherent in the risk attitude assessment trees, the shade reduction program was actively avoided. procedure meant that farmers were necessarily lumped Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 43

cocoa fell dramatically by the early 1990s (Figure 6). Analysis of cocoa yields and farm conditions for the five farms assessed in detail suggest that the traditional cocoa agroecosystem, with lower demands for weeding labor, fertilizer, and other agrochemicals, may be better suited to endure this latest downturn in the cocoa market (Johns 1996). In summary, the maintenance of a dense shade canopy by Bahia’s cocoa farmers was an entirely rational course of action even during the euphoric prices of the 1970s and early 1980s. Previous periods of extremely poor cocoa market prices, especially one immediately prior to the arrival of the modernization programs, probably functioned as a powerful deterrent in prevent- ing farmers from straying too far from the dense shade agroecosystem. The heavy influence that prominent bad years have on farmer decisions is well documented (Ortiz 1980). If the farmers in Bahia had been guaran- teed a minimum price for cocoa or indefinitely guaran- Figure 11. Synthesis of the interconnected roles of farmer teed ceilings on agrochemical input prices, essentially risk attitude and perception of the functionality of the over- lowering the perceived market risk, many more might head trees on the choice of shade density. Representative have been tempted by profit motives into participating quadrants of the five detailed assessment farms are superim- in the shade reduction program. posed.

New Challenges and New Allies for the into ‘‘risk-taking’’ and ‘‘risk-averse’’ categories, al- Chocolate Forest though risk attitude appears to be a more continuous function (Robison and others 1984). With the latest decline of the cocoa market, Bahia’s In the discussion above, Bahian cocoa farms have cocoa region entered into another economic crisis, been portrayed in a stratified manner as either tradi- which continues today. The precipitous market price tional with dense shade or modernized with low shade. decline was brought on by abundant plantings during However, the most common approach to cocoa farming the previous period of high prices, especially in Malaysia in Bahia during the government’s modernization ef- (Goldstein 1989) and Indonesia (Menezes and Carmo- forts appears to have been an intermediate one: to Neto 1993). Additionally, this new production, as well as maintain the dense shade of traditional cultivation that from African countries, comes mostly from peasant coupled with the occasional use of agrochemical inputs, holdings at very low cost, which has tended to depress essentially pursuing a ‘‘technology dabbling’’ approach. the market price (Hardner 1996). The latest price As the cocoa shade/productivity experiments had dem- slump is the worst known in inflation-adjusted terms onstrated (Figure 4), using fertilizer with a dense shade (Johns 1996). canopy would lead to substantially increased yields, While market crises have punctuated the history of although not the highest possible. However, the technol- Bahian cocoa agriculture, another more grave threat ogy dabbling approach was an option of much lower arrived in 1989: the devastating witches’ broom fungus risk that would provide increased earnings while cocoa (Crinipellis perniciosa). This disease has historically elimi- prices were high, but could be pursued with the nated cocoa production at an economic scale wherever agroecosystem intact allowing the farmer to revert to it has arrived in other regions of Latin America (Sim- cultivation without agrochemical inputs should they mons 1976). Today in Bahia, the combined effects of become too expensive. the depressed cocoa market and the witches’ broom The sound reasoning of the technology dabbling fungus (Figure 12) are causing many farmers to aban- approach was borne out in the late 1980s as the market don cocoa production. Some farms are being converted price of cocoa began to plummet. With the collapse of to pasture by cutting the trees of the cabrucagem cocoa prices and the loss of special credit for agrochemi- agroecosystem for sale as timber (Figure 13). Although cal inputs (Mascarenhas and Oliveira 1993), the use of cutting any Atlantic Rainforest tree is formally illegal, fertilizer and other agrochemical inputs in Bahian remnant patches of original forest on large cocoa farms 44 N. D. Johns

fields with native rain forest trees to pasture is described as ‘‘revolting ’’ in a prominent weekly cocoa news column (Hartmann 1995). It has become commonplace in Bahia to forecast dire environmental consequences from the current ‘‘cocoa crisis’’ by link- ing the newfound conservation role of the cocoa agroecosystem to the economic viability of the regional economy (e.g., Menezes and Franco 1994, Santana 1994). This consideration may have helped secure the mid-1995 commitment of US$368 million (340 million Reals) by the Brazilian federal government for a special loan program, administered by CEPLAC, to combat the witches’ broom disease through 1998 (CEPLAC 1995). Figure 12. A cocoa fruit infected with the fungal witches’ CEPLAC has also moved into the ironic position of broom disease. The disease has caused increasingly severe emphasizing the positive aspects of the traditional consequences in much of Bahia’s cocoa region since its arrival cocoa agroecosystem. By the early 1990s CEPLAC began in 1989 (photo by author). to advocate the agroecological and economic utility of dense shade for insect control (Gramacho and others 1992) and as a check on fertilizer expenditures (Leite and Valle 1990). As the cocoa crisis deepened with the spread of the witches’ broom disease, CEPLAC began to emphasize the full-fledged environmental conservation role of the cabrucagem cocoa agroecosystem, as in the representation at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (CEPLAC 1991). Witches’ broom disease is cast not only as an enemy of southern Bahia’s economy, but also as a dire threat to the Atlantic Rainforest species being conserved through cocoa cultivation (e.g., Luz 1993). Thus, after approximately 20 years of maligning the excessive number of overhead trees used in Bahia’s cocoa cultivation, CEPLAC has now rallied to their defense. Figure 13. Former Atlantic rain forest shade trees from cocoa There are several implications of this research that farms near Camaca˜, Bahia being transported to a sawmill should be recognized in order to help maintain the new (photo by author). environmental conservation role of this chocolate for- est. First, current and potential efforts to assist Bahian are also meeting a similar fate due to the latest crisis cocoa farmers through the latest crisis should be ori- (Alger and Caldas 1994). ented toward bolstering appreciation for the agroeco- Thus, the emerging environmental conservation role logical and economic utility of the shade trees. This will of the traditional cabrucagem cocoa agroecosystem has be doubly important if the recent transition from arisen amid a scenario of overlapping crises. First are family-held farms to business-type holdings continues, the tandem challenges of poor market prices and severe because this may entail a loss of the long-term mainte- disease that threaten Bahian cocoa agriculture. How- nance perspective that has been important to the ever, it is the larger crisis of regional Atlantic Rainforest persistence of the traditional farms. A more rigorous destruction that has provided a new role, and some accounting of the shade canopy should be undertaken, small salvation, for the cocoa region in the 1990s. Along with conservation of the overhead trees being encour- the way, the chocolate forest has garnered several new aged and possibly even made a requirement to obtain allies, including some from unlikely quarters. agricultural credit. There also should be an emphasis The Bahian cocoa farmers themselves have found on, possibly a subsidy for, replanting native Atlantic the chocolate forest’s conservation role to provide Rainforest trees on cocoa farms as the cabrucagem additional leverage for their economic/political agenda. canopy ages and its trees die or fall. The common Whereas much of the 2200 sq km of new cocoa practice is to replant fast-growing exotic species that are established since 1965 was in the place of original now prevalent on some older, originally cabrucagem- Atlantic Rainforest, now the conversion of even cocoa type farms. Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 45

This research also suggests that retention of decision Literature Cited authority by farmers regarding the extent of modifica- Alencar, M. H. 1969. Aspectos da concentrac¸a˜o de produc¸a˜o tions to their agroecosystem was of underlying impor- de cacau e da estrutura fundı´aria na Regia˜o Cacaueira do tance. Risk bearing by individual farmers, whether the estado da Bahia. Comissa˜o Executiva do Plano da Lavoura risks were drought- or market-related, was an important Cacaueira, Itabuna, Brazil, 26 pp. element of that decision process and appears to have Alger, K., and M. Caldas. 1994. The declining cocoa economy supported the widespread retention of the dense shade and the of southern Bahia, Brazil: Conserva- canopy. Therefore, while crisis intervention measures tion attitudes of cocoa planters. The Environmentalist 14(2): may be necessary in the near term, in the long term, 107–119. policies should not eliminate or unduly minimize such Alves, M. C. 1990. Responses of selected species to disturbances caused by cacao plantations in the Atlantic risks. An overly attractive minimum price guarantee for Rainforest of southern Bahia, Brazil. Master’s thesis. Univer- cocoa, or unduly subsidized prices for agrochemical sity of Florida, Gainesville, 84 pp. inputs, could prove to be detrimental to the traditional Alvim, P. de T. 1960. El problema del sombreamiento del agroecosystem because these could reduce the per- cacao desde el punto de vista fisiolo´gico. Pages 294–303 in ceived risk of utilizing low-shade cultivation. Proceedings of the 7th Interamerican Cocoa Conference, This observed close interlinkage between the environ- 13–19 July 1958. Palmira, Colombia. mental and economic functions of the agroecosystem Alvim, P. de T. 1966. O problema da sombreamento do cacaueiro. Cacau Atualidades 3(2):2–5. and individual farmer decision logic should also be considered at the more general level of development Alvim, P. de T. 1972. Sombra e adubac¸a˜o na cultura do cacaueiro. Cacau Atualidades 9(1):2–5. studies. Agroforestry systems, with a perennial tree Alvim, P. de T. 1977. Ecological and physiological determi- component such as cocoa, are highly recommended nants of cacao yield. Pages 25–38 in Proceedings of the 5th models for sustainable development in the humid international cocoa research conference, 1–9 September tropics (Harwood 1987), although most studies of their 1975. Ibadan, Nigeria. attributes have been in settings with little or no market Alvim, P. de T., and C. P. Pereira. 1965. Sombra e espac¸amento contact (e.g., Denevan and Padoch 1987, Reid 1989, nas plantac¸o˜es de cacau no Estado da Bahia. Pages 18–19 in Gliessman 1990). While agroforestry is a desirable Relatorio anual 1964. Centro de Pesquisas do Cacau, Comissa˜o Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Cacaueira, Itabuna, development strategy from an environmental vantage Brasil. point, this research suggests that particular attention Alvim, P. de T., and M. Rosa´rio. 1972. Cacau ontem e hoje. must be given to the interaction of natural and eco- Comissa˜o Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Cacaueira, Itabuna, nomic variables upon farmer behavior in market- Brazil, 83 pp. oriented settings. Anonymous. 1995a. Inceˆndio ainda ameac¸a reserva florestal. A Tarde (Salvador, Brasil). 7 February, p. 17. Anonymous. 1995b. Foga ja´ destruiu 4 fazendas de cacau. A Acknowledgments Tarde (Salvador, Brasil). 22 February, p. 1. Barlett, P. (ed.) 1980. Agricultural decision making. Academic Financial support for this research came from Na- Press, New York. tional Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Barry, P. J. (ed.) 1984. Risk management in agriculture. Iowa Grant no. SBR-9422382 and from the Graduate School State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 285 pp. at the University of Texas at Austin. Additional support Bondar, G. 1938. A cultura de cacao na Bahia. Empreza came from the Tinker Foundation and the Foreign Graphica da Revista dos Tribunaes, Sa˜o Paulo, Brazil, 205 Language and Area Studies Fellowship program of the pp. Institute of Latin American Studies (ILAS) at the Cabala-Rosand, P., E. R. de Miranda, M. B. M. Santana, and C. J. L. de Santana. 1975. Exigeˆncias nutricionais e fertilizac¸a˜o University of Texas at Austin. The Benson Library of do cacaueiro. Boletim Te´cnico no. 30. Centro de Pesquisas ILAS facilitated reproduction of the photo in Figure 7. do Cacau, Comissa˜o Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Ca- CEPLAC personnel Erivaldo de Souza, Max de Men- caueira, Itabuna, Brazil, 59 pp. ezes, Marco Franco, Jose´ Roberto Vieira de Melo, Jose´ Cabala-Rosand, P., C. J. L. de Santana, and E. R. de Miranda. Rui Mendes, and Andre´ M. de Carvalho greatly aided 1976. Respuesta del cacaotero al abonamiento en el sur de the Bahia field research. The author extends special Bahia, Brasil. Boletim Te´cnico no. 43. Centro de Pesquisas do Cacau, Comissa˜o Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Ca- thanks to farmers Anna de Carvalho, Ardevale T. Pinto, caueira, Itabuna, Brazil, 24 pp. Gasta˜o Lavigne, Adalberto Tonnes, Jose´ Badaro´, and Caldeira, C. 1954. Fazendas de cacau na Bahia. Documento do Ma´rio de C. Pessoˆa and their employees. This manu- Vida Brasil #7. Ministeiro da Agricultura, Rio de Janeiro, script benefited greatly from reviews by William E. Brasil, 58 pp. Doolittle, Lorre Weidlich, Martina Blu¨m, and Ian CEI. 1994. Uso atual das terras: centro sul, sul e extremo sul da Nuberg. Bahia. Se´rie Especiais CEI 9. Centro de Estatı´sticas e 46 N. D. Johns

Informac¸o˜es, Governo do Estado da Bahia, Secretaria do Agroecology: Researching the ecological basis for sustain- Planajemento, Cieˆncia e Tecnologia, Salvador, Brazil (with able agriculture. Springer-Verlag, New York. 1:500,000 maps), 42 pp. Goldstein, C. 1989. More for less: Malaysia boosts cocoa output CENEX. 1994. Situac¸a˜o da Vassoura de Bruxa na Regia˜o as prices fall. Far Eastern Economic Review 145(32):45–46. Cacaueira de acordode niveis de infecc¸a˜o—1994, unpub- Gordon, J. 1976. Pests and diseases. Pages 30–43 in J. Simmons lished data (computer printout). Centro de Educac¸a˜o e (ed.), Cocoa production: Economic and botanical perspec- Extensa˜o, Comissa˜o Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Ca- tives. Praeger Publishers, New York. caueira, Itabuna, Brazil. Governo do Estado da Bahia 1992. 4-Configurac¸a˜o da Atual CEPLAC. 1991. Cacau como Mata Atlaˆntica vai a` ECO-92. Estrutura Regional. Pages 57–110 in Regia˜o sul da Bahia: Agenda da Semana 4(174):1. panorama geoeconoˆmico. Secretaria do Planajemento, Cieˆn- CEPLAC. 1995. Manual de recomendac¸o˜es para o controle da cia e Tecnologia-Fundac¸a˜o Centro de Projetos e Estudos, Vassoura-de-Bruxa. Comissa˜o Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Salvador, Brazil. Cacaueira, Itabuna, Brazil, 15 pp. Gramacho, I. de C. P., A. E. de S. Magno, E. P. Mandarino, and CEPLAC-IICA. 1975. Solos e aptida˜o dos solos da regia˜o A. Matos. 1992. Cultivo e benificiamento do cacau na Bahia. cacaueira (1:750,000 map). Comissa˜o Executiva do Plano da Comissa˜o Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Cacaueira, Itabuna, Lavoura Cacaueira and Instituto Interamericano de Cieˆn- Brazil, 124 pp. cias Agrı´colas, Ilhe´us, Brazil. Hadfield, W. 1981. Canopy architecture of some Ecuadorian Conservation International, Fundac¸a˜o Biodiversitas, and Socie- cocoa populations with special reference to light penetra- dade Nordestina de Ecologia. 1994. Prioridades para conser- tion. Pages 109–120 in Proceedings of the 7th international vac¸a˜o da biodiversidade da Mata Atlaˆntica do nordeste cocoa research conference, 4–12 November 1979. Douala, (1:2,500,000 map). Conservation International, Washing- Cameroon. ton DC. Hardner, J. 1996. Tendeˆncia de alta no prec¸o do cacau pode Cunningham, R. K., and P. W. Arnold. 1962. The shade and na˜o garantir o cultivo no sul da Bahia Pages 6–9 in fertilizer requirements of cocoa (Theobroma cocoa) in Ghana. Alternativas econoˆmicas para conservac¸a˜o e desenvolvim- Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 13:213–221. ento na regia˜o de Una, Bahia, Resumo de pesquisa 1994– da Vinha, S. G., and L. A. M. Silva. 1981. Arvores aproveitadas 1995. Instituto de Estudos So´cio-Ambientais do Sul da como sombreadoras de cacaueiros no sul da Bahia e norte Bahia, Ilhe´us, Brazil. do Espı´rito Santo. Comissa˜o Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Hartmann, T. 1995. Notas da regia˜o. A Tarde, Rural (Salvador, Cacaueira, Itabuna, Brazil, 93 pp. Brasil). July 20, p. 4. de Abreu, J. M., and P. Silva. 1972. Pragas potenciais do Harwood, R. H. 1987. Agroforestry and mixed farming sys- cacaueiro na Bahia e no Espıˆrito Santo. Cacau Atualidades tems. Pages 271–302 in A. E. Lugo and others (eds.), 9(3):4–9. Ecological development in the humid tropics: guidelines for de Miranda, E. E. and C. Mattos. 1992. Brazilian rain forest planners. Winrock International Institute for Agricultural colonization and . Agriculture, Ecosystems and Development, Morrilton, Arkansas. Environment 40:275–296. IBRD. 1969. The problem of stabilization of prices of primary Denevan, W. M., and C. Padoch, C. (eds.). 1987. Swidden- products (part 1). International Bank for Reconstruction fallow agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon. The New York and Development, Washington DC, 167 pp. Botanical Garden, New York. Johns, N. D. 1996. Brazil’s chocolate forest: environmental and DEPEX. 1974. Evoluc¸a˜o da programa. Comissa˜o Executiva do economic roles of conservation in Bahia’s cocoa agroecosys- Plano da Lavoura Cacaueira, Itabuna, Brazil, 50 pp. tem. PhD dissertation. University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 247 pp. DEPEX. 1985–1988 inclusive. Desempenho da programac¸a˜o, relatorio anual. Comissa˜o Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Knight, P. T. 1976. Economics of cocoa production in Brazil. Cacaueira, Itabuna, Brazil, variously paginated. Pages 235–271 in J. Simmons (ed.), Cocoa production: Economic and botanical perspectives. Praeger Publishers, Filho, A. P. V. 1971. Renovac¸a˜o de cacauais. Cacau Atualidades New York. 8(2):16–26. Leite, J. de O. 1972. Medida de densidade de sombreamento Filho, J. C. 1981. Atuac¸a˜o de extensa˜o rural na grande regia˜o em cacausais com base em fotografias ae´reas. Pages 109–120 cacaueiro do Brasil. Pages 671–675 in Proceedings of the 7th in Proceedings of the 4th International Cocoa Research international cocoa research conference, 4–12 November Conference, 18–25 September, St. Augustine, Trinidad. 1979. Douala, Cameroon. Leite, J. de O. 1976. Dinaˆmica do uso da terra. Diagno´stico Fuchs, H. J. 1989. Tea environments and yield in Sri Lanka. socioeconoˆmico da regia˜o cacaueira, Volume 3. Comissa˜o Margaf Scientific, Weikersheim, Germany. Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Cacaueira and Instituto Fundac¸ao SOS Mata Atlaˆntica 1993. Espı´rito Santo perdeu Interamericano de Cieˆncias Agrı´colas, Ilheus, Brazil, 280 4,56% de Mata Atlaˆntica entre 1985 e 1990. Boletim S.O.S. pp. Mata Atlaˆntica 1:8. Leite, J. de O., and R. R. Valle. 1990. Nutrient cycling in the Gliessman, S. R. 1990. Integrating trees into agriculture: the cacao ecosystem: rain and throughfall as nutrient sources home garden agroecosystem as an example of agroforestry for the soil and the cacao tree. Agriculture, Ecosystems and in the tropics. Pages 160–168 in S. R. Gliessman (ed.), Environment 32:143–154. Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 47

Luz, E. D. M. N. 1993. O CEPEC na luta contra a Vassoura-de- aboricidas no raleamento de sombra em cacauais. Revista Bruxa. Boletim Informativo do CEPEC 8(26):4. Theobroma 1(4):21–28. Mascarenhas, G. C. C., and E. P. de Oliveira. 1993. A crise da Por, F. D. 1992. Sooretama: The Atlantic rain forest of Brazil. pesquisa. Boletim Informativo do CEPEC 8(27):1. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, Netherlands, 130 Menezes, J. A. de S., and D. Carmo-Neto. 1993. A modern- pp. izac¸a˜o do agribusiness cacau. Fundac¸a˜o Cargill, , Reid, W. V. C. 1989. Sustainable development: Lessons from Brazil, 223 pp. success. Environment 31(4):7–9, 29–35. Menezes, M. de, and M. A. G. Franco. 1994. Degradac¸a˜o Rice, R. A. 1990. Transforming agriculture: the case of coffee so´cio-ambiental: Como enfrenta´-la. Boletim Informativo do leaf rust and coffee renovation in southern Nicaragua. PhD CEPEC 9(30):6–7. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, 304 pp. Mittermeier, R. A. 1988. Primate diversity and the tropical Robison, L. J., P. J. Barry, J. B. Kliebenstein, and G. F. Patrick. forest: case studies from Brazil and Madagascar and the 1984. Risk attitudes: Concepts and measurement ap- importance of megadiversity countries. Pages 145–156 in E. proaches. Pages 11–30 in P. J. Barry (ed.), Risk management O. Wilson (ed.), Biodiversity. National Academy of Sciences, in agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. Washington DC. Santana, C. C. C. 1994. O impacto na Vassoura-da-Bruxa da Monteiro, A. 1985. Avaliac¸a˜o econoˆmica das atividades desen- Mata Atlaˆntica. A Tarde, Rural (Salvador, Brazil). October 6, volvidas pela Comissa˜o Executiva Do Plano Da Lavoura p. 9. Cacaueira no perı´odo de 1957 a 1984. Centro do Pesquisas Simmons, J. 1976. Summary and conclusions. Pages 373–393 do Cacau, Boletim Te´cnico no. 134. Comissa˜o Executiva do in J. Simmons (ed.), Cocoa production: Economic and Plano da Lavoura Cacaueira, Itabuna, Bahia, Brasil, 60 pp. botanical perspectives. Praeger Publishers, New York. Mori, S. A. 1989. Eastern, extra-Amazonian Brazil. Pages Simpson, B. B., and M. C. Ogorzaly. 1986. Economic Botany: 427–454 in D. G. Campbell and H. D. Hammond (eds.), in Our World. McGraw-Hill, New York, 640 pp. Floristic inventory of tropical countries. New York Botanical Stith, B. M. 1990. Satellites, landscapes, and GIS: A case study Garden, New York. in the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Master’s thesis. University of Murray, D. B. 1955. A shade and fertilizer experiment with Florida, Gainesville, 46 pp. cacao III. Pages 30–36 in A report on cacao research, 1954. Thomas, W. W., and A. M. de Carvalho. 1993. Estudo fitossocio- Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, St. Augustine, logico de Serra Grande, Uruc¸uca, Bahia, Brasil (abstract). Trinidad. Page 224 in Resumos, Vol. 1, XLIV Congresso Nacional de Murray, D. B. 1958. The Role of Shade in the Cultivation of Botn´ica, 24–30 January. University Federal de Maranha˜o, Cacao. Journal of the Agricultural Society of Trinidad & Tobago Sa˜o Luı´s, Brasil. 57:193–207. Thomas, W. W., A. M. de Carvalho, A. M. Morim, J. Garrison, Ortiz, S. 1980. Response to uncertainty. Pages 177–202 in P. and A. L. Arbele´z. 1998. Plant endemism in two forests in Barlett (ed.), Agricultural decision making. Academic Press, southern Bahia, Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: (in New York. press). Pacheco, J. F., B. M. Whitney, and L. Gonzaga. 1996. A new Von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern. 1947. Theory of games and species of furnariid (Aves: Furnariidae) from the and economic behavior, 2nd ed. Princeton University Press, cocoa-growing region of southeastern Bahia, Brazil. Wilson Princeton, New Jersey, 641 pp. Bulletin 108(3):397–433. Weymar, H. F. 1968. The dynamics of the world cocoa market. Pereira, R. J. de C., and P. de T. Alvim. 1971. Empreˆgo de MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 253 pp.