Originally, the cocoa tree was an understory forest tree; but, currently it is cultivated in various farming systems, ranging from primary to secondary forest under the shade of other trees through to a monoculture system with full sun cocoa production. In some areas in Indonesia, it’s very rare to find a complete monoculture system with full sun cocoa production. In Sulawesi for example, the SRTA survey found cocoa trees to be intercropped with at least one or two other types of trees, either fruit trees or shade trees with less density. While in Papua, more trees were intercropped with cocoa trees, and in many cases indigenous Papuan farmers did subsistence horticulture farming in the same cocoa plots.
Each farming system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Shaded cocoa, which is often associated with preserving biodiversity, low agricultural input, and fewer weeds, is productive for many decades. While full sun cocoa production is
98
able to provide better yields and increase economic benefit for farmers in the short term, it is associated with high fertilizing and chemical inputs. Thus, in the long term, it stresses the trees, making them more susceptible to pests and diseases (Franzen & Borgerhoff Mulder, 2007; Obiri, Bright, McDonald, Anglaaere, & Cobbina, 2007; Ruf & Schroth, 2004; Shapiro & Rosenquist, 2004).
The optimum rotation age of the cocoa tree (ie. requires replanting) varies in accordance with the system applied. A financial analysis of shaded cocoa in Ghana suggests that for the traditional variety of cocoa, produced using traditional farming practices (agroforestry system), the economic rotation age is 44 years. while the economic rotation age for unshaded hybrid cocoa is only 18 years, and 29 years for hybrid cocoa grown under shade (Obiri et al., 2007, p. 148).
In long periods of low prices, cocoa growers find it difficult to maintain production. While smallholders are usually able to maintain their cocoa farms, maintenance and harvesting activities tend to be afforded low priority. Many large estate plantations have responded to low prices by converting their farms into alternative profitable commodities (Fold, 2001, p. 412), such as is the case of cocoa plantations that had been converted into oil palm in Malaysia. On the other side, smallholder farmers are able to maintain production, as they do not need to recruit external labour. Family labour can cope with small-sized farms such as those in West Africa (3-5 hectares) (TCC, 2011), and Indonesia (0.5-5 hectares)4. In comparison, large plantations, such as those mainly found in Brazil, range between 10 and 100 hectares (Haque, 2004, p. 3).
Over the last decades, smallholder cocoa farms have grown rapidly across Indonesia. Based on the data released by the Directorate General of Estate Crops (2011), in 1980, smallholders farmers contributed only around 10 percent of total cocoa output; but, within three decades, the share increased to 92 percent of total Indonesia cocoa production. In terms of total area, the smallholders planted cocoa
4 The survey was the Survey Rumah Tangga ACIAR (SRTA)- An ACIAR household survey
Collaboratively conducted by the University of Sydney and BPTP and funded by ACIAR, my main role at this research is to analyse research data gathered from the field survey.
99
over an area of 13 thousand hectares in 1980: this figure grew to 1.4 million hectares over the next three decades (Barani, 2010). Latest data released by the Indonesian Investment Coordinating Board in 2015 shows that the total cocoa production areas in Indonesia has achieved 1.6 million across 29 provinces, and Sulawesi Island itself contributes approximately 60 per cent of the total Indonesian production. West Papua as the potential expansion areas only represents 1.4 per cent of the national production areas (Figure 3-6).
Figure 3–6 Major cocoa producing areas in Indonesia
Despite the fact that Indonesian smallholders’ cocoa production grew remarkably over the last thirty years, cocoa farm productivity is in decline (Figure 3-7). The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), based on data supplied by the Government of Indonesia, suggests a yield drop of around 50% between 2006 and 2013 (See figure 3-7).
100
Figure 3–7 Indonesian cocoa productivity in the period 2000-2013
I will now take a closer look at the island of Sulawesi, the major producing island, and in Papua, which has enormous potential for future cocoa expansion. The SRTA survey in 2009 showed the productivity of cocoa farms in the main producing districts in Sulawesi and West Papua tended to be below the reported national average. For example, productivity in the major producing districts, e.g., Polman in West Sulawesi, North Luwu in South Sulawesi and North Kolaka in South East Sulawesi, was 290 kg, 351 kg and 640 kg respectively (Jeff Neilson, Palinrungi, Muhammad, & Fauziah, 2011). In Manokwari, West Papua, considered a potentially new area for cocoa expansion, the SRTA survey found that the average productivity was slightly below the national average, at 761 kg per ha per year. Based on the observation from the field, the productivity decline was caused by two main factors, the aging trees and high infestation of pets and diseases.
3.3.1.2 Aging trees
The decline in cocoa farm productivity is hardly surprising given that the majority of cocoa trees are aging. They were mostly planted in the 1980s; so, when this research was conducted, the average age of a cocoa tree was between 20-30 years. Thus, they are entering a period of decline stage in the cocoa life cycle.
The productive stage, as explained by Ruf and Yoddang (2001), is followed by the gradual decline of ‘forest rent’. As the majority of cocoa farms were initially forest areas, they contain rich soils, and low pest and disease infestation. As the cocoa tree grows, the soil ingredients gradually decrease and require more fertilizer to
- 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Kg/h a Year Source: FAOSTAT, 2014
101
cover the need for production. At the same time, the numbers of pests and diseases grow, infesting the cocoa farms.
This research found that the majority of the cocoa trees planted in the main cocoa- producing district in Sulawesi have entered the declining stage. For example, regarding the aging trees, approximately 30 per cent in Polman, West Sulawesi, 41 per cent in North Luwu districts, South Sulawesi, and 69 per cent in North Kolaka South East Sulawesi, are above 15 years old; in other words, they require high maintenance as they are in the declining productivity stage.
3.3.1.2 Pests and diseases
Pest and disease infestations are among the major causes of productivity and quality decline. The SRTA survey shows that there are four pests and diseases that generally infect cocoa farms in the major cocoa-producing districts in Sulawesi: CPB, VSD, Stem cancer and black pods. All of these pests and disease cause major problems for cocoa production.
CPB infestation has been a major concern for cocoa stakeholders in Indonesia. In the mid-1990s, Akiyama dan Nishio (1997) saw CPB as a major threat to the future Indonesian cocoa industry. In the early 1990s, CPB was identified in central Sulawesi, Maluku and Kalimantan; by 2000, the pest has spread throughout all of the cocoa-producing areas in Indonesia. The SRTA survey found that in three major sites i.e., Polman in West Sulawesi, North Luwu in South Sulawesi, and North Kolaka in South East Sulawesi, almost 50 per cent of farmers in each district saw that CPB as the major threat to their farming activities.
Yield losses caused by CPB infestations in 2005, as reported by researchers from the Indonesian Coffee and Cocoa Research Indonesia (Wairatta, 2007), are shown in Table 3-3, which suggests they were significant.
102 Table 3-3 Pest and diseases yield losses due to CPB
Locations Infestation (%) Yield loss (%)
Berambai,East Kalimantan 95.2 61.3
NTT 87.74 50.9
West Sumatera 94.1 58
Ladongi, South East Sulawesi 95.03 69.56
Kolaka, South East Sulawesi 95.87 56.24
Jembrana,Bali 77.29 48.43
Asahan, North Sumatera 67.35 29.4
Source: Wairatta, 2007
CPB decreases the yield of cocoa by taking the nutrition of the beans as their feed. The cocoa beans’ nutrition is in the pulp and placenta that surrounds the beans inside the cocoa pods. When the growth of beans is not fully developed, they become small and flat and ripen prematurely (Abdoellah, Sulistyowati, & Wiryadiputra, 2006). Consequently, only small part of the beans can be sold; the rests remain flat and are difficult to separate, and fall into the waste category. It came as a surprise when the World Bank (2005) estimated that due to CPB infestation, production losses in 2005 totalled approximately 240,000 tons of dry bean valued at $250 million USD.
In sum, cocoa farming systems in Indonesia range from low density to high density intercropping, with a general tendency towards higher-input, more cocoa intense systems. In comparison with the larger plantations, smallholders are more resilient, particularly in maintaining cocoa farms during lower prices. This is primarily due to the advantages of family labour. However, the aging trees, rampant pest and disease infestations have impacted productivity, which has become a real threat for smallholder cocoa production in Indonesia.