IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v165y2023ics0305750x23000190.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder perspectives on cocoa’s living income differential and sustainability trade-offs in Ghana

Author

Listed:
  • Adams, Marshall Alhassan
  • Carodenuto, Sophia

Abstract

Policy responses to balance the trade-offs between nature conservation and socioeconomic development have recently come to the fore in Ghana – the world’s second largest producer of cocoa. In 2019, the Government of Ghana introduced the Living Income Differential (LID), which requires buyers to pay an additional US$400 per ton of cocoa on top of the floor price. With low farmer incomes identified as a critical driver of multiple sustainability issues in Ghana’s cocoa sector, this differential is meant to be directly transferred to cocoa farmers in response to the persistent challenge of poverty in cocoa farming communities. Using the Q methodology, we engaged over 50 stakeholders from various levels (international policy experts, cocoa sector stakeholders in Ghana, and cocoa farmers) to understand how the LID is perceived, including its potential to transform the rural poverty complex embedded in Ghana’s cocoa supply chain. While the LID is lauded for increasing producer price across the board, our findings indicate that the lack of regard for farmer diversity (i.e., tenure rights, sharecroppers, and caretakers), farm size, and land management strategies (agroforestry versus clearing forest to establish farms) risks undermining the ability of this pricing mechanism to reduce farmer poverty. Further, the LID is siloed from on-going sustainability governance efforts in the sector, such as zero deforestation cocoa. If the LID is delivered to farmers across the board without any quid pro quo for how cocoa is produced, the policy’s unintended consequences may include increasing deforestation in the short term, while lowering the world market price of cocoa in the long term as cocoa supply increases. We conclude with policy implications on why different perspectives matter in managing sustainability trade-offs in deforestation frontiers.

Suggested Citation

  • Adams, Marshall Alhassan & Carodenuto, Sophia, 2023. "Stakeholder perspectives on cocoa’s living income differential and sustainability trade-offs in Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:165:y:2023:i:c:s0305750x23000190
    DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106201
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X23000190
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106201?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Asaaga, Festus A. & Hirons, Mark A. & Malhi, Yadvinder, 2020. "Questioning the link between tenure security and sustainable land management in cocoa landscapes in Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    2. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    3. ZHANG, Jia & HE, Yucheng, 2016. "Market Concentration Rate and Market Performance of China’s Swine Industry," Asian Agricultural Research, USA-China Science and Culture Media Corporation, vol. 8(06), pages 1-7, June.
    4. Abbadi, Shereen. & Senadza, Bernardin. & Lieuw-Kie-Song, Maikel. & Abebe, Haile., 2019. "Assessing the employment effects of processing cocoa in Ghana," ILO Working Papers 995043788702676, International Labour Organization.
    5. Biggs, E. M. & Boruff, B. & Bruce, E. & Duncan, J. M. A. & Haworth, B. J. & Duce, S. & Horsley, J. & Curnow, Jayne & Neef, A. & McNeill, K. & Pauli, N. & Van Ogtrop, F. & Imanari, Y., 2014. "Environmental livelihood security in Southeast Asia and Oceania: a water-energy-food-livelihoods nexus approach for spatially assessing change. White paper," IWMI Reports 201005, International Water Management Institute.
    6. Isyaku, Usman, 2021. "What motivates communities to participate in forest conservation? A study of REDD+ pilot sites in Cross River, Nigeria," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    7. Ruben, Ruerd & Fort, Ricardo, 2012. "The Impact of Fair Trade Certification for Coffee Farmers in Peru," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 570-582.
    8. Hirons, M. & Robinson, E. & McDermott, C. & Morel, A. & Asare, R. & Boyd, E. & Gonfa, T. & Gole, T.W. & Malhi, Y. & Mason, J. & Norris, K., 2018. "Understanding Poverty in Cash-crop Agro-forestry Systems: Evidence from Ghana and Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 31-41.
    9. Nordhagen, Stella & Pascual, Unai & Drucker, Adam G., 2021. "Gendered differences in crop diversity choices: A case study from Papua New Guinea," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    10. Y. R. Waarts & V. Janssen & R. Aryeetey & D. Onduru & D. Heriyanto & S. Tin Aprillya & A. N’Guessan & L. Courbois & D. Bakker & V. J. Ingram, 2021. "Multiple pathways towards achieving a living income for different types of smallholder tree-crop commodity farmers," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(6), pages 1467-1496, December.
    11. Kanbur, Ravi & Shaffer, Paul, 2007. "Epistemology, Normative Theory and Poverty Analysis: Implications for Q-Squared in Practice," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 183-196, February.
    12. Tröster, Bernhard & Staritz, Cornelia & Grumiller, Jan & Maile, Felix, 2019. "Commodity dependence, global commodity chains, price volatility and financialisation: Price-setting and stabilisation in the cocoa sectors in Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana," Working Papers 62, Austrian Foundation for Development Research (ÖFSE).
    13. Loučanová, Erika & Paluš, Hubert & Báliková, Klára & Dzian, Michal & Slašťanova, Nikola & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2020. "Stakeholder's perceptions of the innovation trends in the Slovak forestry and forest based sectors," MPRA Paper 109679, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Maria Nijnik & Albert Nijnik & Emmy Bergsma & Robin Matthews, 2014. "Heterogeneity of experts’ opinion regarding opportunities and challenges of tackling deforestation in the tropics: a Q methodology application," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 621-640, August.
    15. Biggs, E. M. & Boruff, B. & Bruce, E. & Duncan, J. M. A. & Haworth, B. J. & Duce, S. & Horsley, J. & Curnow, Jayne. & Neef, A. & McNeill, K. & Pauli, N. & Van Ogtrop, F. & Imanari, Y., 2014. "Environmental livelihood security in Southeast Asia and Oceania: a water-energy-food-livelihoods nexus approach for spatially assessing change," IWMI Research Reports H046758, International Water Management Institute.
    16. Nijnik, Maria & Nijnik, Anatoliy & Sarkki, Simo & Muñoz-Rojas, Jose & Miller, David & Kopiy, Serhiy, 2018. "Is forest related decision-making in European treeline areas socially innovative? A Q-methodology enquiry into the perspectives of international experts," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 210-219.
    17. Phelps, Jacob & Zabala, Aiora & Daeli, Willy & Carmenta, Rachel, 2021. "Experts and resource users split over solutions to peatland fires," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    18. Busquet, Milande & Bosma, Niels & Hummels, Harry, 2021. "A multidimensional perspective on child labor in the value chain: The case of the cocoa value chain in West Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    19. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    20. Jeffrey E Black & Kathrin Kopke & Cathal O’Mahony, 2019. "Towards a Circular Economy: Using Stakeholder Subjectivity to Identify Priorities, Consensus, and Conflict in the Irish EPS/XPS Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-20, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bensch, Gunther & Kaestner, Kathrin & Vance, Colin, 2023. "Pass-through of cocoa prices along the supply chain: What's left for farmers in Côte D'Ivoire?," Ruhr Economic Papers 1035, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    2. Elena Zepharovich & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Land-Use Conflict in the Gran Chaco: Finding Common Ground through Use of the Q Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    3. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    4. Rebecca Jo Stormes Newman & Claudia Capitani & Colin Courtney-Mustaphi & Jessica Paula Rose Thorn & Rebecca Kariuki & Charis Enns & Robert Marchant, 2020. "Integrating Insights from Social-Ecological Interactions into Sustainable Land Use Change Scenarios for Small Islands in the Western Indian Ocean," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, February.
    5. León-Vielma, J.E. & Ramos-Real, F.J. & Hernández Hernández, J.F. & Rodríguez-Brito, María Gracia, 2023. "An integrative strategy for Venezuela's electricity sector (VES), from an analysis of stakeholder perspectives," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    6. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin, 2019. "Using Q methodology to investigate the views of local experts on the sustainability of community-based forestry in Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Zabala, Aiora & Pascual, Unai & García-Barrios, Luis, 2017. "Payments for Pioneers? Revisiting the Role of External Rewards for Sustainable Innovation under Heterogeneous Motivations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 234-245.
    9. Chang, Ruidong & Cao, Yuan & Lu, Yujie & Shabunko, Veronika, 2019. "Should BIPV technologies be empowered by innovation policy mix to facilitate energy transitions? - Revealing stakeholders' different perspectives using Q methodology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 307-318.
    10. Buchel, Sophie & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 169-177.
    11. Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.
    12. Muhammad Asif, 2020. "Role of Energy Conservation and Management in the 4D Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-3, November.
    13. Jin-Myong Lee & Hyo-Jung Kim & Jong-Youn Rha, 2017. "Shopping for Society? Consumers’ Value Conflicts in Socially Responsible Consumption Affected by Retail Regulation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-15, October.
    14. Elvis Modikela Nkoana & Aviel Verbruggen & Jean Hugé, 2018. "Climate Change Adaptation Tools at the Community Level: An Integrated Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    15. Grimsrud, Kristine & Graesse, Maximo & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2020. "Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    16. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    17. McNicholas, Grace & Cotton, Matthew, 2019. "Stakeholder perceptions of marine plastic waste management in the United Kingdom," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 77-87.
    18. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    19. Christine Corlet Walker & Angela Druckman & Claudio Cattaneo, 2020. "Understanding the (non-)Use of Societal Wellbeing Indicators in National Policy Development: What Can We Learn from Civil Servants? A UK Case Study," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 911-953, August.
    20. Jeffrey E Black & Kathrin Kopke & Cathal O’Mahony, 2019. "Towards a Circular Economy: Using Stakeholder Subjectivity to Identify Priorities, Consensus, and Conflict in the Irish EPS/XPS Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-20, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:165:y:2023:i:c:s0305750x23000190. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.