COCOA CRISP: Climate change will require cocoa farmers in western Africa to adapt, according to a new study.
Image: SuperManu/Wikimedia Commons
Cocoa -- one of West Africa's most important cash crops and one of the Western world's guiltiest pleasures -- will be greatly affected by climate change, a new study says.
More than half of the world's chocolate is sourced from Ghana and Ivory Coast, or Côte d'Ivoire, where the cocoa-growing topography will be very different by 2050, according to the study by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).
"There will be areas that remain suitable for cocoa, but only when the farmers adapt their agronomic management to the new conditions the area will experience. There will also be areas where suitability of cocoa increases," states the study. "Climate change brings not only bad news but also a lot of potential opportunities. The winners will be those who are prepared for change and know how to adapt."
Farmers can begin to see declines in cocoa production by 2030, says the report. The suitable regions, located within 300 kilometers from the coast, will shrink considerably. Production is likely to concentrate in the cooler Eastern and Ashanti highland regions in Ghana, as well as the 18 Montagnes region in Ivory Coast.
Most importantly, the decline in cocoa production will uncover the fragility of farmers' reliance on a single crop to make a living.
Threatening farmers' 'ATM machines'
"Many of these farmers use their cocoa trees like ATM machines," said Peter Laderach, the report's lead author. "They pick some pods and sell them to quickly raise cash for school fees or medical expenses. The trees play an absolutely critical role in rural life."
Diversification into more heat-resistant crops is key, states the study. The authors recommend oranges, oil palm and cashew as possible alternatives. The report also recommends better shading for cocoa plants, access to new varieties of seeds and better prevention of brush fires.
The study is the first of three from the center, which are funded in part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
As an ultimate result of lower supply, cocoa farming is likely to shift to a higher-quality commodity, said Rodney North, spokesman for Equal Exchange, a provider of fair trade chocolate.
"You want to be growing the high-quality stuff," said North. "As supplies dwindle, it will be more important to have a quality strategy rather than a volume strategy."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentIt's effects like this which is why global warming is seen as a threat to global and regional security. It will create dislocations, civil unrest, and political upheavals. This is why the Pentagon is already factoring climate change into its projections regarding American security needs over the near- and long-term.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should worry less about the fact that temperatures of the Earth fluctuate over time and more about simply adjusting to the coming changes. The ability to adapt to changing circumstances has been critical throughout human history and it is folly that mankind has any control over the Earth or nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo bad it's about 10x more expensive to adapt to climate change than it is to stop it from happening in the first place. Also, since the estimates of the impacts from climate change range from painful to catastrophic, which temperature range and weather pattern do you adapt to? A lot of people criticize climate models as being uncertain, and although they're partially right, that uncertainty is NOT an excuse for inaction. Either we clean up our act and lower the odds of many countries in the Global South going belly-up, or we take the lazy and risky path of continuing to use the atmosphere as our open sewer at our own peril.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe you should not make absurd claims like this. The cost of stopping a natural effect like climate change is going to be a lot more than adapting, assuming it even exists. Plus the cost of the damage from your sequestering techniques or forcing everyone to revert back to subsistence living will raise the cost of stopping climate change from a monetary cost to likely cost in lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaking the unproven assumption there is in fact climate change of the magnitude to cause significant changes as described in the article, it makes no mention of where new areas suitable for Cocoa production could occur. I am unsure what is worse about you liberals, the fact you have jumped into this nonsense without any sort of reasonable proof or logic behind it OR the fact you people insist the only outcome is world wide destruction and NO area on earth will be suitable for life. So Canada and Russia become the new breadbaskets and New Yorkers have to move, these are not good but hardly epic problems on the order of a planetary extinction level event. The Sahara used to be a lush tropical paradise and Pompeii used to exist and both were destroyed by nature and any attempt to prevent it would have been costly and useless. And sault spare me the strawman comments and your attempts to make it seem like the information you drink from your kool-aid is the only valid information and anything else should be hidden or buried. These are facts, the world always had climate change, areas become unlivable and usable at different times, the world will continue to do this and we humans will need to adapt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis could be the issue that does in the deniers. Imagine what will happen when the male deniers' wives find out about this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not too worried. You warmist fanatics are the ones who recently declared aliens from another planet were going to wipe out all humans because we produce too much CO2, clearly not caring about nature and are obviously too dangerous to let exist in the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am pretty confident my wife will get her Chocolate, since none of the other global warmist prophecy has come true, this one and the alien one are all just as unlikely.
Those who are so quick to throw down ad hominem attacks and political hyperbole probably don't have any evidence to stand on in the first place. Look, CO2 traps heat and humans have caused it's concentration to increase 40% since the start of the industrial revolution. If you deny these facts, there's no point in talking to you. If you do, then we can have a conversation about climate sensitivity. Multiple lines of evidence, from paleoclimate data in glacier cores / tree rings / sediments, to past and present temperature trends and the comprehensive models that are able to successfully hindcast past climate states ALL point to the Earth's climate sensitivity as being around 3C for a doubling of CO2. Now, unless you can name some unknown and presently unexplained negative feedback in the climate system that will save us from the drastic changes that 3C will cause, I'll place my bet on clean energy and efficiency to hedge against the risk of catastrophic climate change. Since coal power removes 2 dollars from our economy in the form of pollution damages for every 1 dollar it supplies in electricity, it looks like we'll save TONS of money cleaning up our act:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/09/29/332378/economists-coal-is-incredibly-costly/
This isn't a game. You and those like you are signing the death warrants of the entire human species. You've been deceived by nihilists who don't care if human civilization collapses around them, or if they have to lie to the world to keep their influence and power while it does so. Eventually everyone else - those who actually believe in Science - will decide it's not possible to talk sense into the rest of you. I expect that you'll be the second ones with your backs against the walls when the revolution comes - Right after the people who've brainwashed you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, I love the coal power removes 2 dollars from the economy for every dollar spent because of pollution. Talk about a completely invented number.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is one. Try the PETM Thermal Maximum. I know I know, you warmists try to make it seem like today is similar but lets point out some reality. Before the PETM CO2 was at 1000 ppm a whole lot more than the measly 390 ppm of today. You libs think the jump from 1000 to 1500 ppm, is somehow similar to today' shocking rise from 300 to 390 is in any way equal to the PETM. What catastrophe was happening then? No polar ice caps for those 100k years. Oh and that is when mammals, specifically primates started evolving into humans.
Now the liberal SA article recently on the PETM, completely leaves out the fact that the PETM began at 1000 ppm, jumped to 1500 and dropped back down. Eventually it went really low. Clearly, there was no evil human industrialization back then. So the liberals speculate maybe volcanoes caused it by melting methane ice or something (of course the liberals today claim volcanoes have nothing at all do to with any sort of pollution or climate change events but hypocrisy is ever the standard for these people). Of course, the author of that article then claimed methane becomes CO2 and other compounds after being in the atmosphere, so instead of blaming methane, Co2 is as always the poison of earth.
So there you go sault. At least one incident in the past of the CO2 levels being significantly higher than anything you warmists are predicting and guess what not only did life survive, we humans likely would not be here if that PETM incident did not happen.
40% rise to a whopping .039% of the atmosphere. Your nonsense would make more sense if you said methane was coming from somewhere and that was the cause of the warming. So yeah, I don't but your line of nonsense. I do not have to accept your cherry picked and assumed data about one molecule and its supposed effects. Not when plenty of other molecules do far more than CO2. Yes Cherry picked, you see sault, 40% of what? You people cant even determine what the average should be any more than the average global temperature. The PETM is just one of many instances where CO2 and the Temp were significantly more than today. So it is still on you to prove your case without doubt. Besides, even if you are right, we are still better off adapting because the future 20 billion people will produce CO2, no matter what you try to do.
Wow you really are sucking liberal kool-aid. So where do you have evidence every corporation has mandates where their goal is simply destruction of the planet? You sounds as stupid as religious fanatics. You realize the evil rich execs you call nihilists actually need the planet to survive with its people? Who would they sell their stuff too? In fact, if they are on a quest for world domination, then who would they dominate if they kill off everyone with their dastardly plan? Well lets really add in some logic. If they destroy the planet and kill all life, would not the nihilists kill themselves as well?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow if you want to talk about evil corruption by power hungry jackasses who really don't care who they kill or how much damage they do, we call those morons politicians. Just take a look around the world at the most damaged parts of the world, pollution beyond insane and you will find a government behind it. Dead people? last time I checked it was various governments and religions that get the idea to genocide, gas people, have soviet progroms to starve the poor because they would die anyway. How many rivers in the world are undrinkable? How many acres of land are so poisoned nothing can live on it? Was it corporations? No, it was government. Spare me the liberal crap about the evil corporations making the politicians do it, it is on the politician to not be affected by corporations. Besides, most times it was government asking or demanding this stuff happen.
So maybe you should direct your rebellious attention to the real nihilists out for money and power, even if they have to kill everyone to do it. Those people are in government, not in corporations.
The only brainwashing going on is what you warmists have been drinking. What is funny about you people is everything you talk about comes from the same source of idiot scientists and their gerry-rigged computer models. You don't do your own research, review of information or even apply simple logic to the possible problem, its various outcomes and mitigation options. You see, if I am wrong the worse that happens is we have learned to deal with the problem. If you are wrong, not only will we have wasted a few dozen years, we will not have any method to adapt or mitigate the results of global warming, assuming it happens at all. Find that missing heat yet?
Maybe if you stopped listening to Al Gore, Bill Maher and the rest of the liberal talking puppets, get your own subscription to Nature or something, then maybe you can get around the brainwashing you are suffering from.
Okay, we need to get serious about this climate change thing if chocolate supplies are likely to be affected.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously though, it's good to see Sault back stirring up as much antipathy as possible and killing the cause of climate change activists everywhere. Sault, you should read some economic work on how much it actually does cost to fix climate change now vs. later (you know, by economists rather than scientists). Include indexation in there and waiting's a great option.
Garbage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Wow, I love the coal power removes 2 dollars from the economy for every dollar spent because of pollution. Talk about a completely invented number."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, I shouldn't have expected you to even READ the article so here's the abstract:
http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649
So, uh... unless you submit an article to the American Economic Review refuting the REAL numbers the authors came up with, you'll just have to live with the fact that coal power is a PARACITE on our civilization.
"You libs think the jump from 1000 to 1500 ppm, is somehow similar to today' shocking rise from 300 to 390 is in any way equal to the PETM. What catastrophe was happening then? No polar ice caps for those 100k years. Oh and that is when mammals, specifically primates started evolving into humans."
Aside from more ad hominems that show you have no real argument, having an ice-free world would raise sea level OVER 300m. Something like 1 or 2 BILLION people live below 300m elevation, so if you think evacuating all those people and abandoning the world's coastal cities won't be a problem, you are JUST PLAIN DELUSIONAL! Also, primates didn't start evolving into humans until 8 Myr ago at the earliest, so another one of your highly mistaken ideas bites the dust:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae
That atmospheric CO2 changes similar in magnitude to what we are doing to the atmosphere today have happened in the past, like the PETM, AND considering what those changes wrought on this planet, there is much to be concerned about. The CO2 concentration changes you mention are similar in magnitude to the 40% increase we've caused already, so the PETM is a good analogy to what kind of world we might be headed towards. That we show no sign of stopping to load the atmosphere with CO2 so far because of deniers like you, and considering that we’re adding CO2 100 times faster than in the PETM, the picture gets more troubling with each passing day.
The 40% increase is small compared to the total volume of gas in the atmosphere, but when 99% of that gas is transparent to infrared radiation, a 40% change in the atmosphere's most prominent, long-lived, and primary forcing greenhouse gas (not a feedback like water vapor) is kind of a BIG DEAL.
Seriously, your ideas are so wrong and easy to disprove, you should let the scientifically literate people around here handle this problem and you can go back to making your tinfoil hats.
It's good to see another denier adding ZERO facts or any informed insights to this discussion. I figured you guys would at least TRY to hide your ignorance by now. So here's just a little tidbit of economic analysis into climate change impacts:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttps://cfwebprod.sandia.gov/cfdocs/CCIM/docs/Climate_Risk_Assessment.pdf
I doubt you're more informed on this issue than a team of Sandia NL scientists, but if you show me some peer-reviewed studies that can refute them, I'll gladly look it over. Good luck finding any, though...
As for indexation, I don't think Inflation is going to save us from climate change. When ecosystems and governments collapse, when the world's breadbaskets are deserts, and when 90% of the world's population starts going hungry, you'll realize that you can't eat money.
Yes, your contribution to this discussion is as worthless as garbage. Good to see that we at least agree on something.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo point in getting your blood pressure up arguing with climate change deniers. Nothing you can say and no evidence you can present will change their minds. It's like arguing with creationists or people who believe in ESP.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVelstras - very well said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe AGW brigade are dragging every scare story out of the bag these days. Now it's chocolate's turn ..... they must be aiming at the women's votes ... LOL
The idea that human beings can somehow reverse a climate system that has been swinging and fluctuating for hundreds of millions of years is an appalling joke.
As regards chocolate production, Tiffany Stecker and ClimateWire appear to be so clueless that they fail to realise that even if climate does go the way they guess, chocolate production will simply move to countries where the climate is not suitable now but will be perfect in 2050. One wonders what kind of 'thinking', if any, goes on behind these stories.
So you seem to think that CO2 plays NO role in how the climate operates... At least get a little informed on the issue before trying to participate. You guys never address the fact that humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in just the last 150 years and what do you think is going to happen with all that excess heat CO2 traps?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for chocolate production, what data, peer-reviewed study or modeling did you use to come to the conclusion that the cocoa growers will simply move elsewhere? Do you know EXACTLY where the farmers would move to? I'm pretty sure the cocoa farmers would like to know about your prediction of the precise GPS coordinates of their new cocoa fields so they can sell their existing property and get in early on the new growing areas. You could make a killing with your comprehensive climate forecasting for the cocoa growers! However, since cocoa provides a large percentage of these countries' GDP, HOPEFULLY those new cocoa growing regions you have found through your impeccable investigative techniques will still fall within their borders. Otherwise, they might be in a bit of trouble.
sault - what a sill reply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWine growing has spread to countries that could not grow wine before, as the climate changes naturally. The same with other crops. Cocoa growing will now spread to other countries if their climate changes as you say it will. Those famers growing coffee now will have to find another crop to grow. That's the way Humans have been living for tens of thousands of years. Get a grip.
Howard - what a sillY rereply
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the past, climate would change over centuries. Now, we are seeing the climate change over mere decades. On top of all this, modern society is much less flexible and mobile than tens of thousands of years ago. When you live in a hut, it's very easy to pick up and move if the sea level rises or your backyard turns to desert. Now however, we have Trillion$ in infrastructure along our coasts and there's not a lot of empty land for people to migrate into anymore. Things are just different now and if you haven't figured it out by now, why are you even opining on climate change issues in the first place.
To top it all off, the climate isn't changing naturally anymore. Record high temperatures outpace record low temperatures more than 2 to 1 while 10 of the hottest 12 years on record occurred between 2001 and 2010 (the top three are 2010, 2005, 1998...). The troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling. The poles are warming faster than the tropics. 95% of glaciers and ice pack are shrinking and the arctic is on pace to be ice-free in the summers by 2020. Atmospheric CO2 shows increasing proportions of fossil carbon. Downward infrared coming from the atmosphere is increasing while outbound infrared is decreasing. These are OBSERVED, UNDENIABLE FACTS that ALL implicate humans in changing the climate. If you're not even going to be scientifically literate, why even bother reading SCIENTIFIC American?
Your statements are just not backed up by any reliable and reproduced Science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In the past, climate would change over centuries."
Yet a lot of recent research shows that in many cases Climate has changed within less than 25 years.
[http://edition.cnn.com/EARTH/9804/24/climate.swing/index.html]
"Now however, we have Trillion$ in infrastructure along our coasts and there's not a lot of empty land for people to migrate into anymore. "
There is no need for migration for Cocoa production to move to other countries as Wine cultivation has.
"Record high temperatures outpace record low temperatures more than 2 to 1 while 10 of the hottest 12 years on record occurred between 2001 and 2010 (the top three are 2010, 2005, 1998...)"
Yet these statements only relate to recorded history, which is only a few hundred years, if that.
All this nonsense talk about 'record' temperatures is meaningless on a planet hundreds of millions of years old.
"Downward infrared coming from the atmosphere is increasing while outbound infrared is decreasing."
Yet again our records of these measurements in only a few decades old. We have absolutely no idea what these were last century, a millennia ago, a million tears ago ... etc etc.
"If you're not even going to be scientifically literate, why even bother reading SCIENTIFIC American?"
It seems I am far more literate that your good self.....
The coffee growers in South America are already moving plantations to warmer lands as repeated years of cold have forced them from their traditional growing areas. Observe the continually increasing cost of your morning joe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBrazil is having a bumper year this year and are predicting a 'huge' crop. It's not the cold, but the rain that has been a problem for two seasons. Climate does that from time to time, it fluctuates. Big deal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho's a grumpy boy? You sound almost <gasp> religious in your zeal to portray human-produced carbon as the source of all climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo let's take this slowly:
1. It's important that we believe a government agency that is doing very nicely thank you very much out of anthropogenic climate change
2. Not being a fan of web links posted by people I don't know, I went to Sandia's website first. Unfortunately, it fell over when I attempted to run a search so I've used your link instead. The first part I read is effectively "We take no responsibility for the accuracy of this report". Moving onto the abstract, it says "we'll use the results of the IPCCC Fourth Assessment Report..." (of course, there are plenty of questions about that report, and - well - GIGO). Okay, time to look at the economic information. Hmm - are all of these economists solely employed on climate change models? Might be just a little conflict of interest there. I also see that there are some hefty caveats on their work. At least the authors accept that when dealing with large numbers of estimated variables there is a high degree of intrinsic uncertainty
3. You're very keen to say that anyone who isn't a climate scientist should sit down and shut up (previous thread, i'm paraphrasing). But you're fine with treading your precious paws all over someone else's area of expertise as though you were qualified there as well. Please explain
4. Unfortunately, climate scientists have decided to turn their specialty into a religion. This brings with it condemnation of the blasphemer, listening only to the words of the prophets, and ability to turn a blind eye to any evidence that gainsays the believer's arguments. Until that changes, there will be a lot of heretics. Ability to see more than black and white is always useful, especially to someone who claims to apply scientific rigour
5. Grow up. You seem to feel fine waltzing through fora hurling personal insults left and right to all and sundry. This does not aid your cause, and while generally people have been quite polite in response eventually you will find that they will respond with the same rudeness you choose to apply.
@Sault - You've been at this too long...you're getting punchy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said "As for chocolate production, what data, peer-reviewed study or modeling did you use to come to the conclusion that the cocoa growers will simply move elsewhere? Do you know EXACTLY where the farmers would move to?"
Can you REALLY not tell the difference between cocoa PRODUCTION and cocoa FARMERS? The man's point was that we need to adapt. Cocoa farmers will have to grow other things, other farmers in other areas will have to grow cocoa. How exactly is that more expensive than telling all the factories that process cocoa that they have to stop using cheap energy and start using (currently) far more expensive clean energy?
Before you start your rant at me, let me remind you that I am NOT a "denier". I am sure the global climate is warming. I am sure that man made CO2 emissions play a significant role in that warming.
However, I am equally sure that alarmists greatly oversimplify the cost of "fixing" the problem, and more sure that you generalize too much. NOBODY EVER talks about HOW industry is supposed to operate "greenly", how much it will cost to accomplish that, how much it will cost you and I as consumers when that cost gets passed on, how many jobs will be lost due to less demand for suddenly more expensive products.
OK, so I should do something on a personal level to help, but again, what? Wind power? Need 5 acres, I have less than a quarter acre. Solar? I live in Indiana, solar costs several times as much per KWH than the electricity I buy from the power company.
Now that I've done MY rant, let me follow up by saying that something MUST be done. We've already wasted too much time. That, as I've noted, brings us to the hard part: What can we do that won't cripple us economically? I'm all for action on this issue, as long as that action doesn't leave me homeless, penniless and/or dead before my time.
So, not to be ALL doom and gloom, here are some positive suggestions:
1. LED lighting
2. hybrid or electric cars
These are things that reduce carbon emissions and are even cost effective here in Indiana. If local, state and national governments all commit to change over in the next 10 years, the increased production should dramatically lower costs of these goods over the same time period.
One more good suggestion: stop calling "deniers" stupid, and start offering solutions which are cost effective. If you rely on insults and horror stories, you'll get cooperation when Miami is underwater and chocolate costs $200 an ounce.
At the risk of sounding morbid, may I also point out that the billions who will die as the result of inundation of coastal areas WILL result in a substantial reduction of CO2 emission? If the flooding also causes a collapse of the global economy, what effect would THAT have on CO2 emissions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee? A silver lining to every cloud!