Conservation in Brazil’s Chocolate Forest: TheUnlikely Persistence of the Traditional CocoaAgroecosystemNORMAN D. JOHNSDepartment of GeographyUniversity of Texas at Austin4311 Caswell AvenueAustin, Texas 78751, USA

ABSTRACT / In southern Bahia, Brazil, the traditional cocoaagroecosystem with a dense shade canopy of native trees isnow recognized as a secondary conservation route forhighly endangered Atlantic Rainforest species. This ‘‘choco-late forest’’ of the densely shaded farms persists despite amassive 20-year Brazilian government modernization pro-gram in which shade was seen as a chief impediment toraising cocoa production. The objective of this study was todetermine how this traditional agroecosystem endured. Al-though dense shade limits cocoa yield, it provides severalagroecological benefits: control of insect pests and weeds,microclimate stability, and soil fertility maintenance. A key

component of modernization efforts was a shade-tree re-moval program designed to maximize cocoa production byusing low shade and fertilizer while substituting agrochemi-cals for many beneficial roles of the overhead trees. This re-search found that many farmers rejected, or only partiallyaccepted, the shade reduction process although it promisedmuch higher cocoa yield and profit. Farmers employing awide range of shading were interviewed, and it was foundthat decisions to remove or maintain the shade trees werelinked to both agroecological and risk-minimization factors.Farmers’ perceptions of the agroecological functions of theshade trees and individual willingness to entertain the eco-nomic risk associated with substituting agrochemicals forthese were important. A less-profitable, but lower-risk ap-proach of occasional fertilizer and agrochemical use with thetraditional shade intact was a rational and widespreadchoice. Policies designed to maintain the traditionalagroecosystem through the current economic crisis shouldheed the multiple functions of the overhead trees.

The Brazilian cocoa region in the south of the stateof Bahia is among the last areas still possessing much ofthe character, although not the true identity, of theformerly extensive Atlantic Rainforest (Figure 1). Al-though southern Bahia contains the largest concentra-tion of actual tropical Atlantic Rainforest remnants, it isthe widespread cultivation of cocoa (Theobroma cacao)under a dense canopy of shade trees that more fullyimparts a forest character on the region. Furthermore,a large portion of this cultivation is based on thetraditional cabrucagem agroecosystem in which cocoa isplanted under large trees retained from the originalforest (Figures 2 and 3). Today this ‘‘chocolate forest’’stands like an island amid a sea of deforested ranch andother agricultural lands.

The ongoing destruction of the Atlantic Rainforesthas been characterized as one of the greatest biologicaltragedies of our time (Mori 1989). Although distinctand smaller than the renowned Amazon rain forest, theAtlantic Rainforest is of greater immediate concern to

conservationists. While it is one of the planet’s mostbiologically diverse forests (Thomas and de Carvalho1993), with many endemic species (Thomas and others1998), it is also one of the most threatened ecosystemsworldwide. Estimates of the current extent of theAtlantic Rainforest range from 2% to 7% of originalarea (Mittermeier 1988, de Miranda and Mattos 1992).

Because of the dire situation of the Atlantic Rainfor-est, the shade canopy of the traditional cabrucagemcocoa farms has recently drawn attention as anotherroute of environmental conservation. Although thecabrucagem agroecosystem is highly modified com-pared to the original forest due to the removal of lowercanopy trees and herbaceous components (da Vinhaand Silva 1981), the well-shaded farms still incorporatea considerable diversity of trees (Figure 3). Manyvaluable timber species, which have been nearly elimi-nated regionally, are commonly used for shade on thesefarms. These include the highly prized rosewood (jacar-anda, Dalbergia nigra), brazilwood, the namesake ofBrazil (pau Brasil, Caeselapinia esplinata), and otherssuch as jequitiba (Cariniana brasiliensis) and cedro(Cedrela odorata).

KEY WORDS: Conservation; Brazil; Atlantic Rainforest; Cocoa;Agroecology; Risk; Agroforestry

Environmental Management Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 31–47 r 1999 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

In addition to tree conservation, primates such asthe sagui (Callathrix kulhii) and the endangered goldenlion tamarin (Leontopithicus rasalia), one of the world’srarest monkeys (Mittermeier 1988), frequent the shadetree canopy of some cocoa farms. The shade canopyoften serves as an important connection between frag-ments of true forest (Alves 1990). Realizing the poten-tial contribution of Bahia’s cabrucagem cocoa farms toconservation efforts for Atlantic Rainforest species, aconsortium of North American and Brazilian environ-mental groups recently deemed that the cocoa cultiva-tion zone should be considered a priority conservationarea (Conservation International and others 1994).The conservation potential of these traditional farmswas recently highlighted by the discovery of a previouslyunknown bird species inhabiting the trees of the cocoashade canopy (Pacheco and others 1996).

The emerging environmental conservation image ofBahia’s cocoa zone is also aided by the geographicextent of cultivation. An estimated 4224 sq km oforiginal forest remain in all of southern Bahia (Figure1), but only some 285 sq km have officially protectedstatus (Mori 1989). Meanwhile, the area in which cocoapredominates is some 13,400 sq km of which approxi-mately 6060 sq km are actually in cocoa cultivation(CENEX 1994). Approximately 98% of Brazilian cocoais produced in Bahia (Filho 1981).

Therefore, because of its spatial extent and theincorporation of native trees, this ‘‘chocolate forest’’ ofthe traditional cocoa agroecosystem is today an uninten-tional route of conservation for at least some species ofthe Atlantic Rainforest. Although this new role for thecocoa zone would appear to have emerged ratherfortuitously, in actuality it has been made possible only

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

N. D. Johns32

through the unlikely persistence of the traditionalcocoa agroecosystem. The native overhead trees onBahia’s cocoa farms have persevered through a massive20-year Brazilian government modernization programin which shade was seen as a chief impediment toraising cocoa production. The objective of this studywas to determine how these traditional farms were ableto endure this modernization program to take on theirimportant conservation role today.

Modernization and the ‘‘Shade Problem’’

Cocoa agriculture was widespread in Mexico andCentral America at the time of European contact andthe use of shade trees was a prominent feature of itscultivation. In 1556 the Italian, Girolamo Benzoni,chronicling his travels in the New World, wrote the firstknown description of cocoa agriculture: ‘‘Cocoa flour-ishes only in a hot climate, in shaded locations; if it wereexposed to the sun it would die . . .’’ (from La Historiadel Mundo Novo as excerpted in Bondar 1938). Theorigin of the use of shade is usually attributed to earlycultivators mimicking the natural subcanopy environ-ment of wild cocoa trees in the forest (Murray 1958) ofthe upper Amazon and Orinoco river basins (Simpsonand Ogorzaly 1986). Cocoa cultivation was later spreadthroughout the tropics in the New World, Africa, SriLanka, Indonesia, and Malaysia.

While the use of shade appears to have been auniversal practice formerly, in this century the shaderequirement of the cocoa tree has been questioned andthe practice has been subject to wide experimentation.The production of cocoa fruit generally increases ifshade is decreased, but such a change brings on otherproblems (Alvim 1977). For example, in the early 1920scocoa farmers on the African islands of Fernando Po

and Sao Tome, then among the leading world produc-ers, cut much of their shade canopy in an effort to raiseproduction. Shortly thereafter, however, most of thesefarms were wiped out by insect attacks (Gordon 1976).

In the 1950s and 1960s the controversy over cocoashade and productivity intensified with the emergingworldwide availability of agrochemical technologies.Efforts to incorporate these technologies were largelyguided by state-sponsored research centers in LatinAmerica and Africa. A principal line of inquiry was touncover whether shade is an innate requirement of thecocoa tree itself or whether it serves a secondary role bymaintaining appropriate soil, insect population, and

Figure 2. Typical view of Bahia’s cocoa cultivation using thecabrucagem agroecosystem of native Atlantic Rainforest treesfor shade (photo by author).

Figure 3. Detail of a typical 50-m sq plot of the cabrucagemcocoa agroecosystem on a farm near Camaca, Bahia. Upper:plan view of the shade canopy (cocoa omitted); lower: horizon-tal view (some canopy trees omitted for clarity). Shade treespecies: A, Bacumixa (Sideroxylon vastum); B, Jitaı (Apuleia sp.);C, Inga (Inga edulis); D & M, Pau Sange (Pterocarpus violacens);F, I, and L, Biriba (Eschweilera speciosa); G, Jatoba (Hymenaeastignocarpam); H, Carobucu (Jacaranda mimosaefolia); J, Fidalgo(Aegiphila sellowiana); K, Gameleira Branca (Ficus doliaria); N,Jacaranda Branca (Swartzia macrostachya); Q, Buranhem (Prado-sia lactescens); O and P, Jaqueira (Artocarpus integrifolia) [notnative to Atlantic Rainforest].

Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 33

other conditions for the cocoa plant, conditions thatcould be potentially maintained with the application ofsuitable chemical inputs. The same controversy regard-ing shade and agrochemical inputs has been importantfor the two other principal shade-utilizing tropicalcrops: coffee (Rice 1990) and tea (Fuchs 1989).

In 1962 the Brazilian government initiated an exten-sive program to incorporate modern methods andagrochemical technologies into the Bahian cocoaeconomy. The Executive Commission for PlanningCocoa Agriculture (Comissao Executiva do Plano daLavoura Cacaueira, CEPLAC), initially a financing en-tity, was transformed into the world’s largest cocoaresearch, extension, and credit agency with headquar-ters established in the heart of the cocoa zone nearItabuna, Bahia (Alvim and Rosario 1972).

One of CEPLAC’s first major experiments was aninvestigation of the interactions of shade, fertilizer, andfruit production for the cocoa plant. The experimentwas similar to earlier trials carried out by Trinidad’sImperial College of Tropical Agriculture (Murray 1955,1958) and Ghana’s West African Cocoa Research Insti-tute (Cunningham and Arnold 1962). However, ratherthan the near laboratory-like conditions of these earlierexperiments, CEPLAC sought to avoid any doubts as tothe on-farm suitability of the results by conducting theexperiment directly on 21 existing traditional farmswith mature cocoa trees 30–40 years old. The shadecanopy on test plots was completely removed by poison-ing the overhead trees, then fertilizer treatment andchemical control of insects and fungal diseases started(Cabala-Rosand and others 1976).

The results of the experiment were striking (Figure4), with spectacular increases in annual yield to anaverage of about 1700 kg of dry cocoa per hectare fromthe no-shade plus fertilizer fields. Significant boosts inproduction were also registered on the fields subject tojust shade removal and insecticide application, andsmaller increases on the fields where fertilizer andinsecticide was applied under shaded conditions. Eventhe control plots, without fertilizer and with originalshade levels, gave yields in the range of 700–800 kg/ha.This was approximately double the then-current Bahianaverage of about 450 kg/ha, attesting to the potency ofthe other treatments including the chemical control ofinsects and fungus and ample weeding.

Other experiments showed that the widespread be-lief that cocoa trees would die if exposed to full sunlightdue to so-called leaf burns (quemas) was unfounded.The burns were found to be actually caused by thesevere attack of insect pests, particularly thrips(Selenothrips rubrocinctus) and monalonia (Monalonionspp.), under low-shade conditions (Alvim 1960). InBahia, other insects pests such as Euchroma gigantea,vaquinha (Colaspis spp.), lagarta (Stenoma decora), andcarneirinho (Lordops aurosa and Lasiopus cilipes) werefound to be worse under low-shade conditions (deAbreu and Silva 1972, Gramacho and others 1992). Ofcourse, these insect problems could be controlled withproper insecticides.

The shade canopy in the cocoa agroecosystem clearlyfulfills a multitude of roles (as portrayed in Figure 5).Very prominent, of course, is the great increase inproductivity, at least in the near term, as the amount of

Figure 4. The results of CEPLAC’scocoa shade/productivity experi-ment, showing the impressive in-creases in production with applicationof fertilizer and other agrochemicalinputs, especially under no-shade con-ditions (adapted from Cabala-Rosandand others 1976).

N. D. Johns34

shade is decreased. In Bahia, a reduction in the fungalblack pod disease was also registered under lower shadeconditions (Cabala-Rosand and others 1976). However,these positive aspects are offset by several deleteriouseffects of reduced shade, the most prominent of whichare the increases in insect and disease problems, higherweed growth, and the higher nutritive demands of thecocoa plant. Weed growth is important not only becauseof nutrient competition (approximately 80% of cocoatree roots are in the upper 15 cm of soil) (Alvim 1977),but also due to the increased difficulty of retrievingcocoa fruits that fall to the ground during harvesting.Of course, most of these negative agroecological effectsof reduced shade can be countered by applying compen-satory inputs of labor and/or an appropriate agrochemi-cal such as herbicide, fertilizer, or pesticide.

Choosing an optimal level of shade, therefore, de-pends not only on the natural environmental character-istics of a growing region (i.e., soil, climate, slope) butalso on many socioeconomic and geographic variables.The availability of labor, credit, and agrochemical tech-nologies and their price compared to the cocoa marketprice are of paramount importance. As Alvim (1960)concluded, the ‘‘shade problem’’ of cocoa ‘‘is not somuch a question of agronomy or physiology, but aboveall, a question of farm economics’’ to determine if thecost of the requisite agrochemicals is offset by theincrease in cocoa yield and earnings.

Eliminating Bahia’s ‘‘Excessive’’ Traditional Shade

In view of the striking results coming from CEPLAC’sshade–productivity–fertilizer experiments (Figure 4), itwas obvious that cocoa productivity on the Bahian farmswas strongly linked to the density of shade used. Thetraditional cabrucagem agroecosystem in Bahia used arather dense shade canopy. The accounts of Bondar(1938) and Caldeira (1954) indicate that the conven-tional manner of establishing the shade canopy was toremove about one third of the original Atlantic Rainfor-est trees, principally the larger ones. From this it may bededuced that a traditional cabrucagem canopy had ashade coverage of about 50%–60%, where shade cover-age is measured using the vertical projection of thecanopy 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. Thesurvey found an ‘‘excessive’’ level of shade constitutedby an average of 76 shade trees per hectare with 171different species of trees being employed overall (Alvimand Pereira 1965). Although only the number of shadetrees was tabulated, it would appear that the shadecoverages of these farms were in the 50%–60% range.In 1995 measurements on two typical farms with densecabrucagem-type shade canopies (including that de-picted in Figure 3), I found shade coverages of approxi-mately 50%–60% (Johns 1996). These farms had asimilar species mix to those of the 1964 CEPLAC surveyand respective overhead trees counts of 68 and 76/ha.

Pereira and Alvim (1971) attributed the use of suchexcessive shade by Bahian farmers to a ‘‘lack of knowl-edge of the relations between solar energy and thephysiological behavior of the [cocoa] plant.’’ In orderto raise the productivity of Bahia’s traditional farms,CEPLAC recommended a drastic elimination of 50%–70% of the overhead shade trees to leave only 25/ha(Alvim 1966). This would result in an approximateshade coverage after thinning in the range of 15%–25%, depending on the characteristics of the individualtrees remaining. Subsequent CEPLAC research with1:25,000 scale aerial photographs and field measure-ments of shade tree canopy diameters identified 10%shade coverage as the appropriate level (Leite 1972).

The recommendation to keep some residual over-head trees was a cautious recognition of the potentialinsect and disease problems associated with low-shadecultivation. CEPLAC acknowledged that upon thinningthe shade canopy as recommended, the farmer mustalso adopt a ‘‘technological package’’ of inputs: fertil-izer, insecticides, and fungicides (Alvim 1972). Nonethe-less, even with the expense of the requisite agrochemi-cal inputs, fertilizer being by far the most costly, the

Figure 5. Depiction of the multifaceted role of the shadecanopy in the cocoa agroecosystem. Positive aspects of low-shade cultivation are indicated with a solid line while dottedlines indicate deleterious effects of low-shade cultivation (notnecessarily in order of importance).

Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 35

low-shade agroecosystem was far superior economicallybecause of the greatly increased yield and a favorableinternational market for cocoa. CEPLAC’s analysis foundthat the low-shade plus fertilizer agroecosystem wouldprovide approximately US$617 more in annual netreturn per hectare at 1973 prices, 260% higher thantraditional cultivation without fertilizer (Cabala-Rosandand others 1975). Even with the two- to threefoldincreases 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 priceof cocoa on the international market (Johns 1996).Cocoa reached a record high US$4478/metric ton in1977 and prices remained favorable until the mid- tolate 1980s (Figure 6).

To reap the fullest benefit of this new ‘‘golden era’’of euphoric cocoa prices beginning in the late 1960s, itwas necessary to transform the region’s traditionalfarms into the low-shade-plus-agrochemicals model.Thus, the numerous trees of the shade canopy, themajority of which were native Atlantic Rainforest spe-cies, became a chief impediment to modernization. Theremoval of excessive shade became one of the primarygoals of CEPLAC’s programs, along with subsidizedsupport for the use of fertilizer and insecticides. CE-PLAC developed special equipment, essentially a largehypodermic needle (Figure 7), to carefully administerpoison injections to the large overhead trees. In severalyears in the mid-1970s CEPLAC trained over a thousandfarm workers annually in the proper dosage and applica-tion of fertilizer and agrochemicals including treepoison (e.g., DEPEX 1974). Poisoning tests on the mostfrequently encountered species of shade trees revealed

that only about one fourth of a liter of Tordon, thepreferred poison, was sufficient to remove the necessary51 trees per hectare from an average farm (Pereira andAlvim 1971). This represented a one-time material andlabor cost of US$1.59/ha at 1968 prices, minuscule

Figure 6. The internationalprice of cocoa (inflation ad-justed) for the 1965–1995 periodand the area of Bahian cocoatreated annually with CEPLAC-financed technological inputs.

Figure 7. Administration of tree poison injections, the recom-mended method for eliminating shade trees from the cocoaagroecosystem (photo from Alvim 1972).

N. D. Johns36

compared to the potential increases in annual netreturn upon moving to the low-shade agroecosystem.

Bahia’s Cocoa Agroecosystem: Modernized orTraditional?

According to CEPLAC’s official statistics for the1967–1986 period (e.g., DEPEX 1974), the area ofcocoa cultivation subjected to the drastic thinning ofoverhead shade trees was 506,060 ha, equal to morethan 115% of the 1965 area of cultivation (fromMonteiro 1985). The removal of 51 trees per hectare onaverage would equate to a loss of approximately 25.8million shade canopy trees across the region. Figure 8indicates the comprehensive nature of this supposedimmense change to the cocoa agroecosystem by map-ping the area subject to tree poisoning by the CEPLACextension office jurisdiction where the tree poison was

purchased. Thus portrayed, there is only one conclu-sion to be drawn from the Brazilian government’sofficial data: wherever there was traditional cocoa culti-vation, the shade canopy was drastically thinned.

This is, however, in stark contrast to the persistingdense shade canopy on most of southern Bahia’s cocoafarms today and the emerging role of the cabrucagemagroecosystem as a secondary route of Atlantic Rainfor-est species conservation. Although there is variability inshading and many farmers did remove some trees, atraditional dense shade of interconnecting tree cano-pies (Figures 2 and 3) with shade coverages four to fivetimes the recommended level, is the norm across theregion today. As observed by Stith (1990), ‘‘Cabruca-(gem) and forest appear almost alike from the air.’’Recent conservation-oriented efforts to delineate areasof remaining forest with remote sensing techniques

Figure 8. Geography of the shade reduc-tion program portrayed by CEPLAC localextension office jurisdiction. Cumulativeareas for the period 1967–1986 are superim-posed on the map of cultivation circa 1965from Filho (1971).

Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 37

have been hampered by the similar canopies of forestand the cabrucagem cocoa agroecosystem (FundacaoSOS Mata Atlatica 1993). An example of the discrep-ancy between CEPLAC’s statistics and farm reality isshown in the aerial photo chronology of Figure 9.Although official Brazilian program data indicate thatthis farm near Itabuna participated in the shade reduc-tion program, the shade trees are as abundant in the1993 aerial photo as they were in 1965.

Farm visits clarified that this great discrepancy be-tween CEPLAC’s statistics and today’s typically denseshade can not be attributed to regrowth of the overheadtrees; in most cases they never were poisoned. This isevident in the large quantities of unused tree poisonstill stored on many of the traditional cocoa farms(Figure 10). Many of Bahia’s cocoa farmers activelyavoided the shade reduction program or participated toa very limited extent. The official government statisticsreflect only the amount of tree poison that was pur-chased, not what was used.

This widespread rejection of the shade reductionprogram brings up important questions. First, why didcocoa farmers purchase so much tree poison withoutintending to use it? The answer is that CEPLAC had a

near monopoly on agricultural credit and thus leverageto persuade farmers into following their modernizationinitiatives including the purchase of the inexpensivetree poison. CEPLAC extension personnel, however,

Figure 9. Aerial photos from 1965 (A) and 1993 (B) showing the continued use of a dense shade canopy, largely comprised ofAtlantic 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 the100-m soccer field. Photos from: A, archive, CEPLAC Division of Geosciences; B, CEPLAC Sector of Environmental Resources).

Figure 10. Unused bottles of Tordon tree poison in storageon a densely-shaded cocoa farm near Camaca, Bahia.

N. D. Johns38

were often unable, given the number and size of typicalfarms and the tropical conditions, to rigorously inspectfarms for complete compliance with the tree poisoningrecommendations (Johns 1996).

A second and more important question is why woulda large portion of Bahia’s cocoa farmers reject, or onlypartially accept, the shade tree removal program givenits minimal cost and the great increases in cocoa yieldand profit that were possible? It is because of suchfarmer decisions that much of the cabrucagem cocoaagroecosystem continues to use much denser shadethan the government recommended, greatly enhancingtoday’s conservation role of the chocolate forest. As oneCEPLAC cocoa extension agent with 30 years of experi-ence in the region said, ‘‘if the shade reduction hadbeen done as prescribed, we wouldn’t have this AtlanticRainforest (of cabrucagem shade trees) today’’ (J. F. C.Campos, personal communication 1995).

Shade Canopy and the Bahian Cocoa Farmer

In order to understand farmer rationale for rejectionof the shade removal program, I made a series of farmvisits and interviewed ten cocoa farmers between Sep-tember 1994 and February 1995 and in January 1996.These were designed to examine the farmers’ percep-tions of the roles of the shade canopy and their actionsduring the shade reduction program. All interviewswere conducted in Portuguese, usually at the farmer’sresidence. Five of these farms were then specificallychosen, because of their wide range in shade coverage,for more detailed assessments. These detailed assess-ments were performed to test for a relationship be-tween individual farmer perceptions of the interlinkedagroecological and economic functions of the shadecanopy (Figure 5) and their use of a particular shadecoverage.

The ten farms, although widely spaced (Figure 1),were chosen based on available maps of soil (CEPLAC-IICA 1975) and climate (Leite 1976) such that they wereall located within the zone of very good environmentalcharacteristics for cocoa cultivation. With these charac-teristics held more or less constant, the actual agroeco-logical importance of the shade canopy, such as forinsect and disease suppression, or management ofdrought stress, was relatively the same for all of thefarms.

In addition to this natural environment control,some selectivity was exercised on the basis of socioeco-nomic characteristics. First, the farms were generally ofa small to medium size, in the range of 50–250 ha(Alencar 1969). This was necessary because of thenearly universal habit of absenteeism, in which the

owner lives in a city rather than on the farm, a tendencythroughout much of the history of cocoa cultivation inBahia (Bondar 1938). The owners of small to medium-sized farms usually reside in nearby cities, as was truehere, while the owners of the larger farms often live inSalvador, the capital of Bahia, or Rio de Janeiro.

A second important socioeconomic characteristic ofeach selected farm was that it must be owned by anindividual or several members of the same family.Several of the farms examined have been owned by thesame family for over a century. Control for ownershiptype was necessary since corporate ownership mayemphasize short-term profit while individual or familyownership may focus on long-term maintenance offarm productivity (Barlett 1980). In all cases, the cur-rent farmer (owner) learned cocoa farming predomi-nantly through family ties and has close involvement inthe affairs of the farm, although a farm manager is oftenin charge of daily operations.

Control for family ownership was also importantbecause of the passage of time since the height of theshade reduction program (1970–1983) and this study.For farms 1, 9, and 10, farm ownership has passed fromfather to son. For farm 1, however, one of five used for adetailed assessment, the current owner was active in theoperation of the farm at the time when decisionsregarding acceptance or rejection of the shade reduc-tion program were made. For farms 9 and 10 thetransfer of ownership occurred very recently.

Another notable caveat is that all cocoa farmers inthe region now have a retrospective view on the shadereduction program. Their opinions on the agroecologi-cal or economic function of the shade canopy may havechanged in accord with their accumulated experiencesince shade reduction was undertaken or rejected. Forexample, a widely held opinion among farmers, research-ers, and CEPLAC extension agents in the region is thatthe climate of recent years is markedly drier than in thepast, a trend which is almost universally attributed to thebroad-scale loss of surrounding forest cover in theregion.

Perceptions of the Shade Canopy’s Functions

The farmer interviews were structured to examinetheir perceptions of both the agroecological and eco-nomic functions of the shade canopy trees, consistentwith the multifaceted role they play in the cocoaagroecosystem (Figure 5). The principal functions thatthe farmers attributed to the overhead trees in thecocoa agroecosystem are presented in the third columnof Table 1. The first notable feature of these responses isthat they are very consistent with the major functions ofFigure 5. Although some of the cited roles are not

Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 39

wholly distinct from one another, such as ‘‘maintainhumidity’’ and ‘‘stabilize microclimate,’’ the shade treesare seen in a very functional manner. There also ismuch variability in the specific roles cited and in thelevel of detail given for the shade canopy’s functions.While in some cases a single generic ‘‘protect cocoafrom the sun’’ role was cited, in other cases responseswere very specific, as from farmers 1 and 5. It is possiblethat the frequency of the generalized ‘‘protect from thesun’’ response and others regarding moisture wereincreased by the severe drought of December 1994through February 1995 when most of the interviewswere done. Precipitation totals for these three monthswere only 33%, 15%, and 27% of normal (CEPLAC,unpublished meteorological data). During this periodthere were several extraordinary and highly publicizedfires on cocoa farms and in nearby tropical forestreserves (Anonymous 1995a,b).

The next portion of the interviews specifically exam-ined farmer perceptions of three potential economiceffects of reducing shade. Each farmer was askedwhether reducing the amount of shade would lead to:(1) higher cocoa yield, (2) a higher need for fertilizer,and (3) a higher need for insecticide. These threeparticular aspects were examined to test if the percep-tion of key economic effects of reduced shade was

related to the actual shade coverages used. As shown inthe middle columns of Table 1, farmer responsesindicate a universal understanding of the principalbenefit of low-shade cultivation: higher cocoa yield.There was considerable variability, however, in theresponses regarding whether low-shade cultivation wouldentail the need to use more fertilizer and/or moreinsecticide.

In order to test if these perceptions of the economicfunctions of the shade trees are related to the actualshade coverages used, five of these farms were chosenfor a more detailed assessment. These five farms weretargeted because they had an obvious wide range inshading and represented the entire spectrum in termsof participation in the shade reduction program. Shadecoverages were measured in 50-m 3 50-m samplequadrants that were selected by the farmer or his/herfarm manager as being representative of average shadeconditions for the farm. Shade coverages (Table 1)ranged from no shade to about 60%, with the formerbeing very rare and the later being fairly typical of manytraditional farms observed in the region.

On farm 1, the tree poison was purchased but neverutilized. This farmer’s responses in Table 1 indicate thatthe perceived need for more fertilizer and insecticideappears to have outweighed the anticipated cocoa yield

Table 1. Summary of interviews regarding functions of shade canopy treesa

Farmno.

Cocoaarea(ha)

Farmer perception of the shade canopy’s functions Shade and modifications

Principal function(s)cited

Reducing shade causes greaterShade

coverage (%)bCanopy

thinned?Risk

taker?cCocoa yield? Fertilizer use? Insecticide use?

1 200 protect from sunmaintain soil moisturemaintain soil fertility

yes yes yes 50 no, avoided no

2 200 maintain humidity yes nod no 10 yes, extreme yes3 220 protect from sun

maintain soil moistureyes no no 30 yes no

4 250 protect from sun yes no no 60 no, avoided no5 129 maintain soil moisture

maintain soil fertilityweed prevention

yes yes yes 0 yes, total yes

6 350 maintain soil fertilityprotect from sun

yes yes yes — limited yes

7 69 stabilize microclimateharbor pollination insectsmaintain soil moisture

yes no no 40 limited yes

8 60 diminish insect attacks yes yes yes — very limited yes9 37 maintain soil moisture

weed preventionyes no yes — yes no

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.

N. D. Johns40

increase and explains the retention of the dense shadecanopy. The responses of farmers 2 and 3 indicate thatthe expectation of higher cocoa yield combined withlittle or no perceived need for additional agrochemicalinputs helped spur them to accept the shade reductionprogram, although to varying extents. These first threeexamples suggest that the agroecological functions ofthe overhead trees, and farmer perception thereof,were important determinants of farmer actions. Amongthese farmers, if they perceived that moving to lowershade would create a dependency on fertilizer andinsecticide, they retained dense shade and vice versa.

However, this pattern does not hold for farmers 4and 5. In the perception of farmer 4, there would havebeen an increase in productivity under low-shade culti-vation and no accompanying obligation to use morefertilizer or insecticide (same as farmer 3). However,the shade reduction program was actively rejected onthis farm (tree poison also purchased, but not used)and it maintains very dense shade (shown in Figure 8).The owner of farm number 5, on the other hand,displayed a very thorough understanding of the agroeco-logical and economic functions of the shade canopy.Although this farmer believed that lower shade cultiva-tion entails the need for more fertilizer and insecticide,he completely eliminated all overhead shade trees in1976–1977 in order to garner the increased cocoaproduction. Therefore, for these last two farmers theirperceptions of the agroecological and economic utilityof the overhead trees were not correlated with the use ofa certain shade coverage.

In summary, there was no consistent relationshipbetween the shade coverages actually used on thesefarms and the respective farmer’s perceptions of threekey agroecological/economic functions of the shadecanopy. Other functions of the shade canopy, such asdrought stress management, may have also been rel-evant. Another undeniably important consideration isthat essentially all of Bahian cocoa production is des-tined for export. Therefore, another vital factor thataccompanies every decision in cocoa agriculture is theuncertainty of the international market and futurecocoa prices.

Role of Market Uncertainty

The volatility of cocoa’s international market pricehas become renowned, exhibiting long-term cyclicalbehavior attributed to the extended gestation periodbefore new plantings come into production (Weymar1968, IBRD 1969). Because the economy of southernBahia has long been highly dependent on cocoa mono-culture, it has also been highly susceptible to these largeprice swings. In fact, the region has been described as

being in a constant state of crisis with interludes ofprosperity (Menezes and Carmo-Neto 1993). In thiscentury the most important crises occurred with thedepression of the 1930s and continued on throughWorld War II and another at the end of the 1950s, thelater culminating in the 1957 formation of CEPLAC.The 1950s crisis was due to a dual Brazilian currencyexchange rate that severely undervalued cocoa exportsat a time when the international market was strong(Governo do Estado da Bahia 1992).

As discussed, low-shade cocoa cultivation promisedsignificantly higher profits. However, the supposed goalof maximizing expected profit is often ineffective inexplaining farmer decisions because it fails to accountfor individual attitudes regarding risk-taking underconditions of uncertainty. Many studies have foundfarmers to be generally risk-averse, meaning they preferoptions of lower risk even if these promise lower profiton average (Barry 1984).

Cocoa market uncertainty could have played a majorrole in the farmer decision process regarding modifica-tions to the agroecosystem in Bahia, even though theshade reduction program was implemented during anera of spectacular cocoa prices in the 1970s and early1980s. The actual course of action would depend on theindividual farmer’s willingness to take on a perceivedrisk associated with the modification to the agroecosys-tem. Therefore, another portion of the interview pro-cess explored individual farmer risk attitudes and thepossible role these may have played on their decisionsregarding the shade reduction program.

The risk attitudes of the ten cocoa farmers wereassessed with the Von Neuman–Morgenstern (1947)method. A hypothetical gamble is posed to the farmerwho then chooses between a certain assured level ofincome, A1, and a higher, but more risk-prone level ofincome, A2, which has some probability P of occurring,where P is less than 100%. In practice, to keep confu-sion to a minimum, an initial gamble is posed with A1

and P 3 A2 specified as equal (equal expected payoff).Farmers with any degree of risk aversion will prefer theoption of certainty, A1, to the uncertain option eventhough it has an equivalent expected payoff. Next, toascertain just how risk-averse the farmer is, the expectedpayoff A2 is raised in subsequent iterations of thegamble, with P constant. More risk-averse farmers re-quire a higher threshold of A2 to take on the gamble.

The principal problems cited with this method are alack of realism and the potential for misunderstandingof the hypothetical choices by the farmers (Robison andothers 1984). To minimize these problems, I posed thegamble using a realistic amount for A1 of 1000 BrazilianReals (R1000 5 approximately US$1075 at the then-

Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 41

current exchange rate). This was approximately equalto the annual income of one farm worker or approxi-mately half the monthly income of the owner of amedium-sized farm (inflation-adjusted figures fromKnight 1976). The stakes of the gamble were thereforecouched as substantial, yet tangible sums. To avoidconfusion, the gamble was posed as a 50–50 win–losechoice (P 5 50%) and the initial value of A2 was R2000.Also, the risky income, A2, was only raised once, to twotimes the initial level, for fear that the farmer would feelobliged to eventually take on the gamble just to end thequestion. The farmers were not pressured to respondand were asked if they understood the terms of thegamble before answering.

All ten farmers responded negatively to the initialgamble with equal expected payoff A2 5 R2000. At thenext level of the gamble, however, a differentiation inrisk attitude became apparent as presented in Table 1.Six farmers would undertake the gamble at the higherrisky income of A2 5 R4000. These farmers are indi-cated by a ‘‘yes’’ under the risk-taker column heading.Being a risk-taker indicates that this farmer, relative tonon-risk-takers, may be willing to enter into a potentiallyrewarding gamble involving a risk, in preference to asafer, but lower reward alternative.

If the risk attitudes are compared with the choices tothin or not to thin the shade canopy, a fairly distinctivepattern emerges. The farmers who were more likely totake risk were generally those who lowered the shadecoverages on their cocoa fields. This pattern is espe-cially pronounced among the five detailed assessmentfarms for which accurate measurements of the shadecoverages were made. In particular, farmers 4 and 5, thenonconformers in the previous test for relationshipbetween perceived shade functionality and shade cover-age, fit the pattern here.

The owner of farm number 5, for example, removedthe overhead trees of the shade canopy despite exhibit-ing a thorough knowledge of the role of shade in thecocoa agroecosystem with regard to yield and possiblefertilizer and insecticide dependency. In other words,despite the perceived risks of moving to a low-shadeagroecosystem, the farmer was willing to gamble thatgreatly increased productivity and profits would result.In fact, this farmer stated that it was with ‘‘muchnervousness’’ that he undertook the shade tree re-moval.

In contrast to this low-shade example, the owner offarm number 4, the farm with the heaviest shadeencountered, is in the risk-averse group. While thisfarmer did not exhibit a detailed knowledge of theagroecological or economic functions of the shadetrees, the shade reduction program was actively avoided.

This farmer was unwilling to remove canopy treesalthough there was no perceived risk of creating atechnological dependency. In this case, however, thefarmer specifically cited susceptibility to drought mois-ture stress as an important perceived risk of the lowershade agroecosystem.

Shade Canopy as an Economic–AgroecologicInterlinkage

The results of the farmer interviews, especially thoseof the targeted farms with a high variability in shadecoverage (1–5), illuminate the widespread rejection ofthe Brazilian shade reduction program. For many ofthese farmers, a low-shade agroecosystem is perceivedto increase drought susceptibility and/or to increasedependency on expensive fertilizer and other agro-chemicals. Assuming that similar perceptions existedduring the shade reduction program, shade removalwas a risky proposition, in part because of the historicvolatility of cocoa prices. Although moving to low-shadecultivation appeared to have been more profitable, itwould have increased exposure to market uncertaintybecause of the agroecological changes entailed. There-fore, the drastic reduction of shade density on Bahia’straditional cocoa farms was probably carried out by onlythose farmers willing to gamble that the low-shadeagroecosystem, with its reliance on technological inputsand heightened susceptibility to drought, would pay avery high net return from increased cocoa yield.

This research suggests that Bahian cocoa farmershave an interlinked agroecological and risk-based deci-sion logic. Although based on a limited sampling,farmer perception of the functional roles of the over-head trees was not by itself a sufficient explanatoryvariable for the shade densities utilized. Rather, thefindings were that farmers with a moderate to highappreciation of the shade trees’ positive roles must alsobe willing to take a risk in order to have thinned theshade canopy.

This interlinked decision logic and its relation to theshade densities utilized is depicted graphically in Figure11. Farmers with similar perceptions of the shadecanopy’s positive agroecological/economic roles, but ofdiffering willingness to take on the risks of the low-shade agroecosystem, are aligned vertically. Farmerswith similar risk attitude (willingness to take on risk),but differing perceptions of the functionality of theshade canopy, are aligned horizontally. The shadecoverages of the five farms assessed in detail are superim-posed on Figure 11 such that they generally reflect thefarmers’ respective positions on the two axes. Thelimitations inherent in the risk attitude assessmentprocedure meant that farmers were necessarily lumped

N. D. Johns42

into ‘‘risk-taking’’ and ‘‘risk-averse’’ categories, al-though risk attitude appears to be a more continuousfunction (Robison and others 1984).

In the discussion above, Bahian cocoa farms havebeen portrayed in a stratified manner as either tradi-tional with dense shade or modernized with low shade.However, the most common approach to cocoa farmingin Bahia during the government’s modernization ef-forts appears to have been an intermediate one: tomaintain the dense shade of traditional cultivationcoupled with the occasional use of agrochemical inputs,essentially pursuing a ‘‘technology dabbling’’ approach.As the cocoa shade/productivity experiments had dem-onstrated (Figure 4), using fertilizer with a dense shadecanopy would lead to substantially increased yields,although not the highest possible. However, the technol-ogy dabbling approach was an option of much lowerrisk that would provide increased earnings while cocoaprices were high, but could be pursued with theagroecosystem intact allowing the farmer to revert tocultivation without agrochemical inputs should theybecome too expensive.

The sound reasoning of the technology dabblingapproach was borne out in the late 1980s as the marketprice of cocoa began to plummet. With the collapse ofcocoa prices and the loss of special credit for agrochemi-cal inputs (Mascarenhas and Oliveira 1993), the use offertilizer and other agrochemical inputs in Bahian

cocoa fell dramatically by the early 1990s (Figure 6).Analysis of cocoa yields and farm conditions for the fivefarms assessed in detail suggest that the traditionalcocoa agroecosystem, with lower demands for weedinglabor, fertilizer, and other agrochemicals, may be bettersuited to endure this latest downturn in the cocoamarket (Johns 1996).

In summary, the maintenance of a dense shadecanopy by Bahia’s cocoa farmers was an entirely rationalcourse of action even during the euphoric prices of the1970s and early 1980s. Previous periods of extremelypoor cocoa market prices, especially one immediatelyprior to the arrival of the modernization programs,probably functioned as a powerful deterrent in prevent-ing farmers from straying too far from the dense shadeagroecosystem. The heavy influence that prominentbad 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-teed ceilings on agrochemical input prices, essentiallylowering the perceived market risk, many more mighthave been tempted by profit motives into participatingin the shade reduction program.

New Challenges and New Allies for theChocolate Forest

With the latest decline of the cocoa market, Bahia’scocoa region entered into another economic crisis,which continues today. The precipitous market pricedecline was brought on by abundant plantings duringthe previous period of high prices, especially in Malaysia(Goldstein 1989) and Indonesia (Menezes and Carmo-Neto 1993). Additionally, this new production, as well asthat from African countries, comes mostly from peasantholdings at very low cost, which has tended to depressthe market price (Hardner 1996). The latest priceslump is the worst known in inflation-adjusted terms(Johns 1996).

While market crises have punctuated the history ofBahian cocoa agriculture, another more grave threatarrived in 1989: the devastating witches’ broom fungus(Crinipellis perniciosa). This disease has historically elimi-nated cocoa production at an economic scale whereverit has arrived in other regions of Latin America (Sim-mons 1976). Today in Bahia, the combined effects ofthe depressed cocoa market and the witches’ broomfungus (Figure 12) are causing many farmers to aban-don cocoa production. Some farms are being convertedto pasture by cutting the trees of the cabrucagemagroecosystem for sale as timber (Figure 13). Althoughcutting any Atlantic Rainforest tree is formally illegal,remnant patches of original forest on large cocoa farms

Figure 11. Synthesis of the interconnected roles of farmerrisk attitude and perception of the functionality of the over-head trees on the choice of shade density. Representativequadrants of the five detailed assessment farms are superim-posed.

Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 43

are also meeting a similar fate due to the latest crisis(Alger and Caldas 1994).

Thus, the emerging environmental conservation roleof the traditional cabrucagem cocoa agroecosystem hasarisen amid a scenario of overlapping crises. First arethe tandem challenges of poor market prices and severedisease that threaten Bahian cocoa agriculture. How-ever, it is the larger crisis of regional Atlantic Rainforestdestruction that has provided a new role, and somesmall salvation, for the cocoa region in the 1990s. Alongthe way, the chocolate forest has garnered several newallies, including some from unlikely quarters.

The Bahian cocoa farmers themselves have foundthe chocolate forest’s conservation role to provideadditional leverage for their economic/political agenda.Whereas much of the 2200 sq km of new cocoaestablished since 1965 was in the place of originalAtlantic Rainforest, now the conversion of even cocoa

fields with native rain forest trees to pasture is describedas ‘‘revolting deforestation’’ in a prominent weeklycocoa news column (Hartmann 1995). It has becomecommonplace in Bahia to forecast dire environmentalconsequences from the current ‘‘cocoa crisis’’ by link-ing the newfound conservation role of the cocoaagroecosystem to the economic viability of the regionaleconomy (e.g., Menezes and Franco 1994, Santana1994). This consideration may have helped secure themid-1995 commitment of US$368 million (340 millionReals) by the Brazilian federal government for a specialloan program, administered by CEPLAC, to combat thewitches’ broom disease through 1998 (CEPLAC 1995).

CEPLAC has also moved into the ironic position ofemphasizing the positive aspects of the traditionalcocoa agroecosystem. By the early 1990s CEPLAC beganto advocate the agroecological and economic utility ofdense shade for insect control (Gramacho and others1992) and as a check on fertilizer expenditures (Leiteand Valle 1990). As the cocoa crisis deepened with thespread of the witches’ broom disease, CEPLAC began toemphasize the full-fledged environmental conservationrole of the cabrucagem cocoa agroecosystem, as in therepresentation at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio deJaneiro (CEPLAC 1991). Witches’ broom disease is castnot only as an enemy of southern Bahia’s economy, butalso as a dire threat to the Atlantic Rainforest speciesbeing conserved through cocoa cultivation (e.g., Luz1993). Thus, after approximately 20 years of maligningthe excessive number of overhead trees used in Bahia’scocoa cultivation, CEPLAC has now rallied to theirdefense.

There are several implications of this research thatshould be recognized in order to help maintain the newenvironmental conservation role of this chocolate for-est. First, current and potential efforts to assist Bahiancocoa farmers through the latest crisis should be ori-ented toward bolstering appreciation for the agroeco-logical and economic utility of the shade trees. This willbe doubly important if the recent transition fromfamily-held farms to business-type holdings continues,because this may entail a loss of the long-term mainte-nance perspective that has been important to thepersistence of the traditional farms. A more rigorousaccounting of the shade canopy should be undertaken,with conservation of the overhead trees being encour-aged and possibly even made a requirement to obtainagricultural credit. There also should be an emphasison, possibly a subsidy for, replanting native AtlanticRainforest trees on cocoa farms as the cabrucagemcanopy ages and its trees die or fall. The commonpractice is to replant fast-growing exotic species that arenow prevalent on some older, originally cabrucagem-type farms.

Figure 12. A cocoa fruit infected with the fungal witches’broom disease. The disease has caused increasingly severeconsequences in much of Bahia’s cocoa region since its arrivalin 1989 (photo by author).

Figure 13. Former Atlantic rain forest shade trees from cocoafarms near Camaca, Bahia being transported to a sawmill(photo by author).

N. D. Johns44

This research also suggests that retention of decisionauthority by farmers regarding the extent of modifica-tions to their agroecosystem was of underlying impor-tance. Risk bearing by individual farmers, whether therisks were drought- or market-related, was an importantelement of that decision process and appears to havesupported the widespread retention of the dense shadecanopy. Therefore, while crisis intervention measuresmay be necessary in the near term, in the long term,policies should not eliminate or unduly minimize suchrisks. An overly attractive minimum price guarantee forcocoa, or unduly subsidized prices for agrochemicalinputs, could prove to be detrimental to the traditionalagroecosystem because these could reduce the per-ceived risk of utilizing low-shade cultivation.

This observed close interlinkage between the environ-mental and economic functions of the agroecosystemand individual farmer decision logic should also beconsidered at the more general level of developmentstudies. Agroforestry systems, with a perennial treecomponent such as cocoa, are highly recommendedmodels for sustainable development in the humidtropics (Harwood 1987), although most studies of theirattributes have been in settings with little or no marketcontact (e.g., Denevan and Padoch 1987, Reid 1989,Gliessman 1990). While agroforestry is a desirabledevelopment strategy from an environmental vantagepoint, this research suggests that particular attentionmust be given to the interaction of natural and eco-nomic variables upon farmer behavior in market-oriented settings.

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this research came from Na-tional Science Foundation Dissertation ImprovementGrant no. SBR-9422382 and from the Graduate Schoolat the University of Texas at Austin. Additional supportcame from the Tinker Foundation and the ForeignLanguage and Area Studies Fellowship program of theInstitute of Latin American Studies (ILAS) at theUniversity of Texas at Austin. The Benson Library ofILAS facilitated reproduction of the photo in Figure 7.CEPLAC personnel Erivaldo de Souza, Max de Men-ezes, Marco Franco, Jose Roberto Vieira de Melo, JoseRui Mendes, and Andre M. de Carvalho greatly aidedthe Bahia field research. The author extends specialthanks to farmers Anna de Carvalho, Ardevale T. Pinto,Gastao Lavigne, Adalberto Tonnes, Jose Badaro, andMario de C. Pessoa and their employees. This manu-script benefited greatly from reviews by William E.Doolittle, Lorre Weidlich, Martina Blum, and IanNuberg.

Literature Cited

Alencar, M. H. 1969. Aspectos da concentracao de producaode cacau e da estrutura fundıaria na Regiao Cacaueira doestado da Bahia. Comissao Executiva do Plano da LavouraCacaueira, Itabuna, Brazil, 26 pp.

Alger, K., and M. Caldas. 1994. The declining cocoa economyand the Atlantic forest of southern Bahia, Brazil: Conserva-tion attitudes of cocoa planters. The Environmentalist 14(2):107–119.

Alves, M. C. 1990. Responses of selected animal species todisturbances caused by cacao plantations in the AtlanticRainforest of southern Bahia, Brazil. Master’s thesis. Univer-sity of Florida, Gainesville, 84 pp.

Alvim, P. de T. 1960. El problema del sombreamiento delcacao desde el punto de vista fisiologico. Pages 294–303 inProceedings of the 7th Interamerican Cocoa Conference,13–19 July 1958. Palmira, Colombia.

Alvim, P. de T. 1966. O problema da sombreamento docacaueiro. Cacau Atualidades 3(2):2–5.

Alvim, P. de T. 1972. Sombra e adubacao na cultura docacaueiro. Cacau Atualidades 9(1):2–5.

Alvim, P. de T. 1977. Ecological and physiological determi-nants of cacao yield. Pages 25–38 in Proceedings of the 5thinternational cocoa research conference, 1–9 September1975. Ibadan, Nigeria.

Alvim, P. de T., and C. P. Pereira. 1965. Sombra e espacamentonas plantacoes de cacau no Estado da Bahia. Pages 18–19 inRelatorio anual 1964. Centro de Pesquisas do Cacau,Comissao Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Cacaueira, Itabuna,Brasil.

Alvim, P. de T., and M. Rosario. 1972. Cacau ontem e hoje.Comissao Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Cacaueira, Itabuna,Brazil, 83 pp.

Anonymous. 1995a. Incendio ainda ameaca reserva florestal.A Tarde (Salvador, Brasil). 7 February, p. 17.

Anonymous. 1995b. Foga ja destruiu 4 fazendas de cacau. ATarde (Salvador, Brasil). 22 February, p. 1.

Barlett, P. (ed.) 1980. Agricultural decision making. AcademicPress, New York.

Barry, P. J. (ed.) 1984. Risk management in agriculture. IowaState University Press, Ames, Iowa, 285 pp.

Bondar, G. 1938. A cultura de cacao na Bahia. EmprezaGraphica da Revista dos Tribunaes, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 205pp.

Cabala-Rosand, P., E. R. de Miranda, M. B. M. Santana, and C.J. L. de Santana. 1975. Exigencias nutricionais e fertilizacaodo cacaueiro. Boletim Tecnico no. 30. Centro de Pesquisasdo Cacau, Comissao Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Ca-caueira, Itabuna, Brazil, 59 pp.

Cabala-Rosand, P., C. J. L. de Santana, and E. R. de Miranda.1976. Respuesta del cacaotero al abonamiento en el sur deBahia, Brasil. Boletim Tecnico no. 43. Centro de Pesquisasdo Cacau, Comissao Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Ca-caueira, Itabuna, Brazil, 24 pp.

Caldeira, C. 1954. Fazendas de cacau na Bahia. Documento doVida Brasil #7. Ministeiro da Agricultura, Rio de Janeiro,Brasil, 58 pp.

CEI. 1994. Uso atual das terras: centro sul, sul e extremo sul daBahia. Serie Especiais CEI 9. Centro de Estatısticas e

Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 45

Informacoes, Governo do Estado da Bahia, Secretaria doPlanajemento, Ciencia e Tecnologia, Salvador, Brazil (with1:500,000 maps), 42 pp.

CENEX. 1994. Situacao da Vassoura de Bruxa na RegiaoCacaueira de acordode niveis de infeccao—1994, unpub-lished data (computer printout). Centro de Educacao eExtensao, Comissao Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Ca-caueira, Itabuna, Brazil.

CEPLAC. 1991. Cacau como Mata Atlantica vai a ECO-92.Agenda da Semana 4(174):1.

CEPLAC. 1995. Manual de recomendacoes para o controle daVassoura-de-Bruxa. Comissao Executiva do Plano da LavouraCacaueira, Itabuna, Brazil, 15 pp.

CEPLAC-IICA. 1975. Solos e aptidao dos solos da regiaocacaueira (1:750,000 map). Comissao Executiva do Plano daLavoura Cacaueira and Instituto Interamericano de Cien-cias Agrıcolas, Ilheus, Brazil.

Conservation International, Fundacao Biodiversitas, and Socie-dade Nordestina de Ecologia. 1994. Prioridades para conser-vacao da biodiversidade da Mata Atlantica do nordeste(1:2,500,000 map). Conservation International, Washing-ton DC.

Cunningham, R. K., and P. W. Arnold. 1962. The shade andfertilizer requirements of cocoa (Theobroma cocoa) in Ghana.Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 13:213–221.

da Vinha, S. G., and L. A. M. Silva. 1981. Arvores aproveitadascomo sombreadoras de cacaueiros no sul da Bahia e nortedo Espırito Santo. Comissao Executiva do Plano da LavouraCacaueira, Itabuna, Brazil, 93 pp.

de Abreu, J. M., and P. Silva. 1972. Pragas potenciais docacaueiro na Bahia e no Espırito Santo. Cacau Atualidades9(3):4–9.

de Miranda, E. E. and C. Mattos. 1992. Brazilian rain forestcolonization and biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment 40:275–296.

Denevan, W. M., and C. Padoch, C. (eds.). 1987. Swidden-fallow agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon. The New YorkBotanical Garden, New York.

DEPEX. 1974. Evolucao da programa. Comissao Executiva doPlano da Lavoura Cacaueira, Itabuna, Brazil, 50 pp.

DEPEX. 1985–1988 inclusive. Desempenho da programacao,relatorio anual. Comissao Executiva do Plano da LavouraCacaueira, Itabuna, Brazil, variously paginated.

Filho, A. P. V. 1971. Renovacao de cacauais. Cacau Atualidades8(2):16–26.

Filho, J. C. 1981. Atuacao de extensao rural na grande regiaocacaueiro do Brasil. Pages 671–675 in Proceedings of the 7thinternational cocoa research conference, 4–12 November1979. Douala, Cameroon.

Fuchs, H. J. 1989. Tea environments and yield in Sri Lanka.Margaf Scientific, Weikersheim, Germany.

Fundacao SOS Mata Atlantica 1993. Espırito Santo perdeu4,56% de Mata Atlantica entre 1985 e 1990. Boletim S.O.S.Mata Atlantica 1:8.

Gliessman, S. R. 1990. Integrating trees into agriculture: thehome garden agroecosystem as an example of agroforestryin the tropics. Pages 160–168 in S. R. Gliessman (ed.),

Agroecology: Researching the ecological basis for sustain-able agriculture. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Goldstein, C. 1989. More for less: Malaysia boosts cocoa outputas prices fall. Far Eastern Economic Review 145(32):45–46.

Gordon, J. 1976. Pests and diseases. Pages 30–43 in J. Simmons(ed.), Cocoa production: Economic and botanical perspec-tives. Praeger Publishers, New York.

Governo do Estado da Bahia 1992. 4-Configuracao da AtualEstrutura Regional. Pages 57–110 in Regiao sul da Bahia:panorama geoeconomico. Secretaria do Planajemento, Cien-cia e Tecnologia-Fundacao Centro de Projetos e Estudos,Salvador, Brazil.

Gramacho, I. de C. P., A. E. de S. Magno, E. P. Mandarino, andA. Matos. 1992. Cultivo e benificiamento do cacau na Bahia.Comissao Executiva do Plano da Lavoura Cacaueira, Itabuna,Brazil, 124 pp.

Hadfield, W. 1981. Canopy architecture of some Ecuadoriancocoa populations with special reference to light penetra-tion. Pages 109–120 in Proceedings of the 7th internationalcocoa research conference, 4–12 November 1979. Douala,Cameroon.

Hardner, J. 1996. Tendencia de alta no preco do cacau podenao garantir o cultivo no sul da Bahia Pages 6–9 inAlternativas economicas para conservacao e desenvolvim-ento na regiao de Una, Bahia, Resumo de pesquisa 1994–1995. Instituto de Estudos Socio-Ambientais do Sul daBahia, Ilheus, Brazil.

Hartmann, T. 1995. Notas da regiao. A Tarde, Rural (Salvador,Brasil). July 20, p. 4.

Harwood, R. H. 1987. Agroforestry and mixed farming sys-tems. Pages 271–302 in A. E. Lugo and others (eds.),Ecological development in the humid tropics: guidelines forplanners. Winrock International Institute for AgriculturalDevelopment, Morrilton, Arkansas.

IBRD. 1969. The problem of stabilization of prices of primaryproducts (part 1). International Bank for Reconstructionand Development, Washington DC, 167 pp.

Johns, N. D. 1996. Brazil’s chocolate forest: environmental andeconomic roles of conservation in Bahia’s cocoa agroecosys-tem. PhD dissertation. University of Texas, Austin, Texas,247 pp.

Knight, P. T. 1976. Economics of cocoa production in Brazil.Pages 235–271 in J. Simmons (ed.), Cocoa production:Economic and botanical perspectives. Praeger Publishers,New York.

Leite, J. de O. 1972. Medida de densidade de sombreamentoem cacausais com base em fotografias aereas. Pages 109–120in Proceedings of the 4th International Cocoa ResearchConference, 18–25 September, St. Augustine, Trinidad.

Leite, J. de O. 1976. Dinamica do uso da terra. Diagnosticosocioeconomico da regiao cacaueira, Volume 3. ComissaoExecutiva do Plano da Lavoura Cacaueira and InstitutoInteramericano de Ciencias Agrıcolas, Ilheus, Brazil, 280pp.

Leite, J. de O., and R. R. Valle. 1990. Nutrient cycling in thecacao ecosystem: rain and throughfall as nutrient sourcesfor the soil and the cacao tree. Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment 32:143–154.

N. D. Johns46

Luz, E. D. M. N. 1993. O CEPEC na luta contra a Vassoura-de-Bruxa. Boletim Informativo do CEPEC 8(26):4.

Mascarenhas, G. C. C., and E. P. de Oliveira. 1993. A crise dapesquisa. Boletim Informativo do CEPEC 8(27):1.

Menezes, J. A. de S., and D. Carmo-Neto. 1993. A modern-izacao do agribusiness cacau. Fundacao Cargill, Campinas,Brazil, 223 pp.

Menezes, M. de, and M. A. G. Franco. 1994. Degradacaosocio-ambiental: Como enfrenta-la. Boletim Informativo doCEPEC 9(30):6–7.

Mittermeier, R. A. 1988. Primate diversity and the tropicalforest: case studies from Brazil and Madagascar and theimportance of megadiversity countries. Pages 145–156 in E.O. Wilson (ed.), Biodiversity. National Academy of Sciences,Washington DC.

Monteiro, A. 1985. Avaliacao economica das atividades desen-volvidas pela Comissao Executiva Do Plano Da LavouraCacaueira no perıodo de 1957 a 1984. Centro do Pesquisasdo Cacau, Boletim Tecnico no. 134. Comissao Executiva doPlano da Lavoura Cacaueira, Itabuna, Bahia, Brasil, 60 pp.

Mori, S. A. 1989. Eastern, extra-Amazonian Brazil. Pages427–454 in D. G. Campbell and H. D. Hammond (eds.),Floristic inventory of tropical countries. New York BotanicalGarden, New York.

Murray, D. B. 1955. A shade and fertilizer experiment withcacao III. Pages 30–36 in A report on cacao research, 1954.Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, St. Augustine,Trinidad.

Murray, D. B. 1958. The Role of Shade in the Cultivation ofCacao. Journal of the Agricultural Society of Trinidad & Tobago57:193–207.

Ortiz, S. 1980. Response to uncertainty. Pages 177–202 in P.Barlett (ed.), Agricultural decision making. Academic Press,New York.

Pacheco, J. F., B. M. Whitney, and L. Gonzaga. 1996. A newgenus and species of furnariid (Aves: Furnariidae) from thecocoa-growing region of southeastern Bahia, Brazil. WilsonBulletin 108(3):397–433.

Pereira, R. J. de C., and P. de T. Alvim. 1971. Emprego de

aboricidas no raleamento de sombra em cacauais. RevistaTheobroma 1(4):21–28.

Por, F. D. 1992. Sooretama: The Atlantic rain forest of Brazil.SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, Netherlands, 130pp.

Reid, W. V. C. 1989. Sustainable development: Lessons fromsuccess. Environment 31(4):7–9, 29–35.

Rice, R. A. 1990. Transforming agriculture: the case of coffeeleaf rust and coffee renovation in southern Nicaragua. PhDdissertation. University of California, Berkeley, 304 pp.

Robison, L. J., P. J. Barry, J. B. Kliebenstein, and G. F. Patrick.1984. Risk attitudes: Concepts and measurement ap-proaches. Pages 11–30 in P. J. Barry (ed.), Risk managementin agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Santana, C. C. C. 1994. O impacto na Vassoura-da-Bruxa daMata Atlantica. A Tarde, Rural (Salvador, Brazil). October 6,p. 9.

Simmons, J. 1976. Summary and conclusions. Pages 373–393in J. Simmons (ed.), Cocoa production: Economic andbotanical perspectives. Praeger Publishers, New York.

Simpson, B. B., and M. C. Ogorzaly. 1986. Economic Botany:Plants in Our World. McGraw-Hill, New York, 640 pp.

Stith, B. M. 1990. Satellites, landscapes, and GIS: A case studyin the Atlantic forest of Brazil. Master’s thesis. University ofFlorida, Gainesville, 46 pp.

Thomas, W. W., and A. M. de Carvalho. 1993. Estudo fitossocio-logico de Serra Grande, Urucuca, Bahia, Brasil (abstract).Page 224 in Resumos, Vol. 1, XLIV Congresso Nacional deBotnica, 24–30 January. University Federal de Maranhao,Sao Luıs, Brasil.

Thomas, W. W., A. M. de Carvalho, A. M. Morim, J. Garrison,and A. L. Arbelez. 1998. Plant endemism in two forests insouthern Bahia, Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: (inpress).

Von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern. 1947. Theory of gamesand economic behavior, 2nd ed. Princeton University Press,Princeton, New Jersey, 641 pp.

Weymar, H. F. 1968. The dynamics of the world cocoa market.MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 253 pp.

Conservation in Brazil’s Cocoa Agroecosystem 47