COCOA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OF BELIZE

Pan American Development Foundation

1889 F Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 USA
(202) 458-3969 Cable: FUPAD Telex: 64128

o. Volunteers In Technical Assistance

V 1815 N. Lynn St., Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22209 USA

(703) 276-1800 Cable: VITAINC Telex: 440192 VITAUI

Accelerated Cocoa Production Project:

Final Report

Prepared by Dr. J.Corven, Project Director

Ltftl The Cocoa Development Project was funded by the United States
11II Agency for International Development (USAID/Belize) and
uiqflfl implemented by PADF & VITA with support from the US Peace Corps.
 Table of Contents

--------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary .................................. ......... I

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Background ............................................. 1

B. Objectives ............................................. 1

C. Sites ................................................... 2

D. Cooperating Agencies .................................. 2

E. Beneficiaries .......................................... 3

II. PROJECT STATUS BY OBJECTIVES

A. Establlish 600 Acres of Improved Cocoa............... 4

B. Train 60 Farmers in Improved Cocoa Pi'oduction ....... 11

C. Train 6 Government Extension Officers (E/Os) in

Improved Cocoa Practices and Extension Methods ...... 13

D. Adapt, Document, Institutionalize, and Replicate the

Methodology Developed for General Application ....... 19

E. Establish Community Information and Outreach ........ 28

F. Support Women Participation in Economic Activities .. 29

G. Develop Basic Social Infrastructure Including Health,

Water, Housing, and Transportation .................. 31

H. Provide Institutional Support for Self-reliance ..... 33

III. Lessons Learned .......................................... 36

--------------------------------------------------------------
 Executive Summary

The Accelerated Cocoa Production Project began implementation

in October 1984 with OPG funding from USAID/Belize and the

Government of Belize. Pan American Development Foundation (PADF)

and Volunteers In Technical Assistance (VITA) jointly implemented

the project with key support from Hummingbird Hershey Limited (HHL)

and the U.S. Peace Corps.

The objective of the project was to establish the capability

for improved small-scale cocoa production in Belize. Project

strategy included establishing cocoa farmers at two sites, Ringtail

Villag- and Valley of Peace, developing a technical package of cocoa

extensdr-i, and training Ministry of Agriculture extension officers

-r imp], ,ed cocoa production technology. Community development

arpe-t, .iere integrated to support agricultural efforts which

incuided an innovative long-term cocoa loan program established with

Development Finance Corporation (DFC) as well as agronomics.

At project completion there are fourteen farmers with nearly

100 acres of intensively managed cocoa along with many other crops

established at Ringtail. Valley of Peace had an equal number of

farmers but less than fifteen acres of cocoa. Additionally, twenty­

five farmers established 50 acres of new cocoa in Stann Creek and

400+ acres were established in Toledo district during project life.

Technical training was provided in three phases: first, five

5-day short courses at HHL, second, a series of three 2-day field

workshops in Toledo, Stann Creek, and Cayo districts, and finally, a

comprehensive 9-day course at HHL. A total of 14 MCA extension

officers received over 800 hours of combined classroom and field

study in all aspects of cocoa technology. More than 120 individual

farmers participated in all three training phases along with 36

representatives of local NGOs and farmer organizations.

International trainees came from Grenada, St. Vincent, Barbados, and

Honduras.

In addition to the training program, the technical package

included three major publications. The 133-page Cocoa Guidebook An',

Training Guide is a manual for extension officers and trainers. It

is moderately technical and suitable for persons with a basic

understanding of agricultural principles. Chapters cover high and

low input management systems, site assessment, soils and nutrition,

nursery practices, shade, pest management, pruning, rehabilitation,

post-harvest processing, and eonomics. The training section

provides ready-to-use lesson plans for workshops and field

demonstrations for extensionists.

Growing Cocoa In Belize is a 26-page basic field reference for

small-scale commercial cocoa growers. It covers the same materials

as the Guidebook but is much briefcr. Illustrations, charts,

tables, and farm record forms complement the text. Both Growing

Cocoa and the Guidebook are available throughout Belize from the

Ministry of Agriculture and the Toledo Cocoa Growers Association.

 The third publication is the Cocoa Farm Economic Report And

Development Models that provides a detailed analysis of cocoa

establishment and management costs and returns under high and low

input systems. Tables includes specific labor requirements, cash

flow projections. and two development models.

Community development was a major aspect of the work at

Ringtail Village including community information resources, economic

activities for women, social infrastructure (e.g., housing, roads,

water, and community center), and institutional support for self­

reliance. In conjunction with numerous contributions from HHL a

village association and credit union were established, elected

officers trained, and relevant inter-organizational linkages made.

Housing and community center funds and technical assistance were

obtained from Cooperative Housing Foundation (CHF) and HHL.

Combined with existing resources for schooling, transportation, and

health care, these accomplishments made Ringtail, under its own

leadership, a dynamic, self-reliant agricultural community.

Upon request by the farmers of Toledo and in cooperation with

the MOA, the project also assisted in the formation and initial

funding of the Toledo Cocoa Growers Association (TCGA). This has

grown so that by the end of 1987 it had over 100 dues paying

members, participated in project and HHL training, opened a small

input supply store, a- was benefiting from a series of Belize

Institute of Management (BIM) courses in management and marketing

sponsored by the cocoa project.

The cocoa project concluded field work in October 1987 confident

that cocoa development in Belize can now continue with support from

the Ministry of Agriculture and Development Finance Corporation.

The capability for improved cocoa production, centered at

Hummingbird Hershey Limited, also exists within the Ministry of

Agriculture, Toledo Cocoa Growers Association, several local NGOs,

and most critically, within the diverse farming groups of Cayo,

Stann Creek, and Toledo districts.

II

 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Background

The Accelerated Cocoa Production Project (referred to as the

Cocoa Project in this document) was officially approved by

USAID/Belize on July 31, 1984 with field implementation beginning

October 10, 1984. Funding was provided through OPG No. 505-0023

($615,000) to the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF) a

supplemental grant of $65,000 from the Balance of Payments Loan No.

505-K-001. PADF and Volunteers In Technical Assistance (VITA), both

private nonprofit organizations, implemented the project with

support from Hummingbird Hershey Limited (HHL) and the U.S. Peace

Corps.

Overall project administration was the responsibility of PADF.

Field staff included the PADF Chief of Party, the VITA Community

Development Adviser provided under PADF subgrant to VITA, and five

Peace Corps Volunteers (PCVs). Reports included monthly financial

and narrative field reports, quarterly financial reports, semi­

annual evaluation reports, and annual project retreat reports.

Yearly workplans were produced following the annual retreats.

B. Objectives

The overall objective of the Cocoa Project was to accelerate

the rate at which small farmers in Belize establish cocoa with

improved practices. Specific objectives during the life of the

project were the following:

1. Establish 600 acres of improved cocoa.

2. Train 60 farmers in improved cocoa practices.

3. Train 6 Government Extension Officers (E/Os) in

improved cocoa practices and extension methods.

4. Assist additional training of another 20 Extension

Officers in improved cocoa practices.

5. Adapt, document, institutionalize, and replicate the

methodology developed for general use in Belize.

Complementary to the above agricultural objectives were the

following objectives for community development beneficial to cocoa

producers:

1. Establish community information and outreach

capability.

2. Support women participation in economic activities.

I
 3. Develop basic social infrastructure including

health, water, housing, education, and

transportation.

4. Provide institutional support for self-reliance.

C. Sites

Project activities in cocoa establishment and extension were

concentrated at the two sites of Ringtail Village (RV), located at

mile 41 of the Hummingbird Highway, and Valley of Peace (VOP),

located about 9 miles north of Belmopan in Cayo District. Training

of farmers and extension officers was conducted initially at the HHL

farm and later at Ringtail Village. During the technical package

testing and replication phase, workshops were held in Cayo, Stann

Creek and Toledo Districts for extension officers, local farmers,

and NGO representatives.

D. Cooperating Agencies:

1) Ministry of Agriculture was the key governmental

participant coordinating activities with the

extension department and other governmental ministries.

2) Hummingbird Hershey Ltd., the Hershey demonstration farm

in Belize, for technical information, the training &

demonstration site, and marketing.

3) U.S. Peace Corps provided a total of five PCVs over

the life of the project. Four worked as agricultural

extension officers (Cayo-3, Toledo-i) and one coordinated

the credit and housing program.

4) Development Finance Corporation (DFC) received a

subgrant for and managed the VOP cocoa loan fund and

provided CDB funds for the cocoa loans at Ringtail Village.

5) Cooperative Housing Foundation (CHF) provided loan

funds and technical assistance for the housing and grant

funds for the community center building at RV.

6) Toledo Cocoa Growers Association (TCGA) provides financing,

supplies, and technical assistance in Toledo District.

7) Help for Progress provided cocoa loans and technical

assistance to farmers in Stann Creek District.

8) Ministry of Natural Resources, Dept. of Lands and

Survey was responsible for surveying the Ringtail site

and is completing land title transfers to farmers.

9) Cocoa Advisory Board (CAB) serves a coordinating and

advisory role for the Ministry of Agriculture. Membership

is from the MOA, HHL, DFC, USAID, Cocoa Project, and a

private cocoa farmer.

E. Beneficiaries

1) Ringtail Village farmers are all employees of HHL

who have applied for a lease fiat on their land from the

Government of Belize.

2) Valley of Peace farmers are Salvadoran refugees and

Belizians who hold a lease fiat for their land from the

Government of Belize.

3) Ministry of Agriculture extension officers from Cayo,

Stann Creek, and Toledo districts received technical

training and extension support.

4) Toledo farmers are mostly Mayan with mixed

subsistence farms on "reservation" lands. Members of the

TCGA are cocoa farmers from throughout the district.

5) Maya Mopan and San Roman farmers are Mayan with mixed

subsistence farms on leased government lands in the

Stann Creek District.

6) Non-governmental organization (NGO) representatives

(Help for Progress, Toledo Cocoa Growers Association,

CARE, Big Falls Cooperative, and BEST) received technical

training and extension support.

 II. PROJECT STATUS BY OBJECTIVES

A. Establish 600 Acres of Improved Cocoa.

la. Ringtail Villaqe Land Acquisition

Background and constraints: HHL employees who conceived the

original idea of developing their own small cocoa farms did not have

land on which to plant tree crops and were accustomed only to annual

leases for milpa crops. Steps to assure land were expected to be

difficult: (1)Location of suitable land was difficult because it

required a knowledge of how to assess land for cocoa plus time and

resources to actually conduct field assessments. (2) Securing

identified land involved satisfying Department of Lands and Survey

leasing requirements and paying for a legal survey. Both issues

were viewed as nearly impossible for inexperienced individuals to

accomplish because of the terrain and conditions.

Project plan: The original project design called for the

acquisition of 1,000 acres of agriculturally suitable land along the

Hummingbird Highway near HHL for 30 new farmers (employees of HHL)

and the identification of another 30 farmers already located on

farmland in VOP to begin cocoa farms. HHL staff identified an area

at mile 41 adjacent to the Blue Hole National Park which met the

criteria of being accessible and near HHL. This was land privately

owned that could be titled to the Government of Belize in lieu of

back property taxes and then leased to project participants with the

option to buy following development.

The Ministries of Agriculture and Natural Resources,

USAID/Belize, and PADF accepted the site and surveying was begun.

It was expected that 40 25-acre parcels would be surveyed and that

at least 30 would be suitable for cocoa. Community property for a

center, roads, athletic fields, etc. were planned for the remaining

land.

Results: Following initiation of the government land survey and an

assessment by project and HHL staff, it became apparent that less

than 50% of the site would be suitable for cocoa production due to

inadequate topsoil depth and rocky conditions. Fourteen farm plots

of 22 to 26 acres each were surveyed and assigned to participants by

lottery in March 1985. Remaining surveyed parcels of less than 10

acres of suitable land each will be community property that ;an be

annexed to residents' farms by application to the Dept. of Lands and

Surveys. A revised perimeter of Ringtail (about 500 acres) was

registered after the final survey in 1987 with the government

excluding unusable land from Ringtail which will be retained by the

original owner.

Progress on the legal acquisition of the RV land has been

extremely slow and transfer of the title to government had not been

completed as of October 31, 1987. Announcement of GOB intent to

acquire had been officially published one of the two required times

in the Gazette paper. The Dept. of Lands has provided a certificate

of intent to each RV participant which served as an interim title

acceptable to DFC for loan security.

 An extensive search for additional suitable land was conducted

by project and HHL staff resulting in three sites (all owned by the

same private landholder as the RV site) being recommended to the

Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) through the CAB. Although these sites

satisfied all the agronomic criteria and were recommended by the

Ministry of Agriculture for the project, the Ministry of Natural

Resources declined to proceed with acquisition.

Conclusions: Fourteen farmers at Ringtail Village have official

documents anticipating firm land titles. Although the delay in

getting actual titles from the GOB has been cause for concern, the

RV farmers feel confident that the process will eventually be

completed and they all have established cocoa with mixed crops and

nine houses were begun. The plans to expand to the original thirty

were frustrated by the unwillingness of the Ministry of Natural

Resources to acquire the necessary suitable lands in recommended

alternative sites.

The original problem with the RV land suitability was a result

of an unsatisfactory site assessment before the project work began.

Based on this and similar experiences elsewhere in Belize (with

cocoa and other crops), increased emphasis was placed on the

importance of a comprehensive land assessment in training programs

and a methodology was included in extension materials. There

remains, however, a need to develop recommendations for alternative

cropping systems for those marginal areas in which ;,any cocoa

farmers are located.

lb. Ringtail Agricultural Development

Background and constraints: The RV site was all secondary forest

re-growth following lumbering operations before 1974. It required

clearing or underbrushing for agricultural development. There were

no roads or survey lines present. Participants were selected from

HHL applicants who indicated an interest and capability in

developing their own commercial cocoa farms.

Proje- t Plan: Development plans called for establishing about 10

acres of cocoa over a period of 3-4 years. Financing with a 12 year

DFC loan would fund costs of establishment and the first years of

maintenance. Mixed subsistence crops, other cash crops, and a

permanent residence on site were planned for each participant.

Results: Each farmer identified the areas he would use for various

purposes (cocoa, housing, milpa, citrus, etc.) and began land

preparations in March 1985. Most participants began with 2 or 3

acres of cocoa in the first season and added equal amounts annually.

HHL coordinated procurement of hybrid seeds from Costa Rica and the

Dominican Republic. Cocoa nursery space and access to potting soil

was provided by HHL adjacent to its own nursery, about 4 miles from

HHL. RV nurseries were maintained in 1985 on an informal

cooperative basis until underbrushing was completed and plants

transferred to participantb' farms for transplanting. The 1986 and

1987 nurseries were located on RV farms using natural and artificial

shade, thus saving the transportation costs and damages of carrying

them from HHL to RV.

 Cocoa was established using selected existing shade trees (e.g:

allspice, native legumes, and hardwoods) as natural shade. Cocoa was

planted at 10' x 10' spacing for an average of 435 trees per acre.

The land was initially underbrushed and shade adjusted to 75%.

After transplanting, shade was reduced to about 50%. A regular

management program including fertilization and pest control was

recommended. Intercrops and windbreaks were later established using

plantain, banana, coconut, soursap, avocado, golden plum. etc.

Agricultural problems were minimal and successfully resolved by the

participants. For example, an outbreak of cocoa stem borers in

March 1986 that caused significant damage to recently transplanted

cocoa was controlled with insecticide application recommended by

project extensionists. More importantly, it was determined that

most borer damage could be prevented with earlier transplanting and

timely systemic insecticide application. Farmers adopted the

improved recommendations for the following year and this information

was incorporated into the extension materials.

Milpas were cleared by traditional slash and burn methods and

planted with a crop of corn followed by beans. Secondary crops

included cassava, plantain, papaya, pineapple, and yams. Following

harvest, citrus was established in these fields as the permanent

tree crop. Household gardens typically contain tomatoes, peppers,

squash, okra, watermelon, herbs, and flowers. Additional trial

crops introduced included annatto, vanilla, and cardamom. All

residents had poultry and one apiary was established in 1987.

The project purchased large quantities (100,000 annually) of

plastic nursery bags in order to get low wholesale prices from a

Guatemalan manufacturer. Duty free importation was legally

allowed but the process was not clearly established until after

working with the Customs Department for two years. The bags were

then resold, at cost, to cocoa farmers in Ringtail, Valley of

Peace, Toledo, and Stann Creek. Arrangements were made for this

to continue after the project with the Toledo Cocoa Growers

Association and Stann Creek cocoa farmers.

Most of the establishment and early maintenance labor was done

manually using machetes, axes, and chain saws. Some local

"contractors" were hired for time consuming jobs such as

filling

bags, underbrushing, and transplanting.

Soil nutrient quality at RV generally is excellent bat rocky

areas occur on all farms. Cocoa was planted in the prime areas in

terms of soil depth and grew very well producing initial flowers and

fruits within 24 months in several cases. The extended dry season

of 1986-87 illustrated the need for adequate shade and nutrition

management but recovery in the rainy season was very good.

Severe losses occurred in May 1987 from uncontrolled fires

set to clear new milpa fields in the vicinity. The loss of young

cocoa was nearly complete in areas burned (total losses were over

6,000 cocoa trees) with serious damage done to the natural shade

trees and intercrops as well. Replanting began with the 1987

rainy season (June) using seedlings donated by HHL.

Conclusions: All fourteen RV farmers have established

cocoa along with varying amounts of intercrops and milpa crops.

Except for the 1987 fires, agricultural progress has been

excellent with participants adopting improved practices with

great enthusiasm. Harvests in 1986 and 1987 included corn,

beans, vegetables, plantain, papaya, cocoyam, and cassava.

Families who established early residence on their farms

clearly had an advantage and made the best progress. They had

much better contact with farm activities on a day -Co day basis

and benefited from regular work being shared by all family

members. A breakdown of the division of labor is as follows:

Men: Underbrushing, shade adjustment, digging planting
holes, weed control, insect control.
Women: Nursery establishment, transplanting cocoa, pruning.

Children: Carrying seedlings to planting holes, fertilizing.

Family: Nursery care, intercrops, gardens.

Participants limited to farming in the evenings after work

at HHL and weekends were often hard pressed to accomplish all

tasks which include cocoa establishment, milpas for subsistence

crops, house construction, and community work on the roads and

community center building. The use of minimal equipment such as

backpack sprayers and chain saws along with hired labor for

.elected jobs proved essential to realize satisfactory progress.

2a. Valley of Peace Land

Background and constraints: The settlement in VOP was established

previous to the cocoa project by the United Nations High Commission

for Refugees (UNHCR) and the GOB. Each of about 100 Belizian and

Salvadoran families were provided leases on 25-50 acre parcels for

farms plus a house plot in the community area. The leases were

acceptable as security for DFC loans. VOP has been administered as

a government-managed project through the Refugee Office. Plans to

reduce government responsibility as the area becomes a community

have been developed.

The Ministry of Agriculture selected VOP as a second site for

the cocoa project to help develop income generating opportunities in

agriculture. However, because VOP was administered by the Ministry

of Home Affairs until early 1985, inter-ministerial difficulties

with MOA made progress impossible until 1986.

Access to VOP and to individual farms was very difficult

through 1985 since the main road crossed the Belize River by hand

powered ferry and internal access roads were not completed until

1986. A new road to VOP completed in 1986 also depended on a ferry

to cross the Belize River, so that access continues to be very

unreliable during the rainy season (June-December).

Project Plan: The project called for the establishment of 30 cocoa

farms on the already surveyed lands. Interested farmers were to be

recruited, land assessments completed, and field extension to begin

with the spring 1985 planting season.

Results: The difficulties between the Ministries of Home Affairs and

Agriculture, coupled with a extended delay in obtaining DFC required

land papers for security on the cocoa loans, postponed project

activity for one year. Site assessments were completed previous to

the 1986 planting season, leading to PFC loans approvals for

fourteen farmers in the first season.

 During the 1986 and 1987 assessments, particular attention was

given to soil depth and proximity to future slash and burn areas.

Recommendations for perimeter firebreaks were given and several

farmers located their cocoa fields away from neighboring areas that

were to be burned. Some farms were rejected as unsuitable due to

shallow soils or poor drainage characteristics. Despite an

informal community agreement to inform neighbors before burning, the

1987 dry season was so unusually severe (6 versus the normal S

months) that numerous burns spread out of control across firebreaks

and roads destroying various crops such as cocoa, citrus, pineapple,

coconut, etc. Farmers are justifiably reluctant to incur further

expenses for their established cocoa given the proximity of slash

and burn areas, and new cocoa is not advised. A request from VOP

farmers for the designation of a separate fire-free tree crop zone

for cocoa and coffee received no response from the responsible

officials in the Office of Immigration and Nationality (Ministry of

Foreign Affairs).

Conclusions: All VOP project participants have official land papers

and continue mixed farming activities including cash crops such as

corn, beans, and vegetables. Access to VOP and farm sites is

reasonably reliable now that the new roads have been completed,

although the Belize River ferry will continue to limit traffic

during the rainy season.

Technically, it must be noted that the shallow soils with heavy

clay subsoils are not highly suitable for repeated annual crops and

significant deterioration can be expected if current agricultural

practices continue. Alternative farming systems including

appropriate permanent crops and livestock must be introduced if the

VOP economy is to improve and stabilize. Further development of

cocoa is not recommended, however, until suitable fire-free land is

designated.

2b. Valley of Peace Agricultural Development

Background and Constraints: Farmers in VOP were developing

traditional subsistence crops (corn, beans, fruits, and vegetables)

using slash and burn land clearing and rapidly removing all forest

cover in the area. There was a need for better land use and for

viable cash crops to support the families in VOP.

Efforts to increase cash crops were made in two main areas.

Annual field crops such as corn and beans -were sold in modest

quantities but on-farm income was very limited and unreliable for

most. Increased production of vegetables (tomatoes, green peppers,

and cucumbers) was successful but experienced serious difficulties

with transportation and marketing. VOP farmers needed a crop that

was agronomically suitable for the area, nonperishable and easy to

transport, and had a reliable market.

Project Plan: Project design called for the establishment of up to

10 acres of cocoa on 30 farms. Project staff planned to coordinate

extension work through the MOA and to work with one or more of the

farmer groups beginning activities.

 The original plan was to provide short-term cash crop loans

through a subgrant of US $25,000 to DFC to help cocoa farmers

through the establishment period. In 1985 the United Nations High

Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) approved a similar loan fund to DFC

for VOP. To avoid duplication, the project's fund was modified to

provide long-term cocoa loans under terms similar to the Ringtail

loans.

Results: A small demonstration/training nursery of about 400 plants

was established for the 1985 planting season. Seven interested

farmers cared for the nursery cooperatively and eventually were

given equal shares of the seedlings to transplant to their own land.

During the 1985 season participants' land was assessed and prepared.

Additional farmers were identified for the 1986 season.

Farmers who received their lease papers were able to apply for

the DFC cocoa loans to begin cocoa in 1986. Fourteen loans were

approved for 2 acres each at Bz $800/acre to be disbursed over the

four year establishment period. Loans were initially limited %c 2

acres per farmer to assure sufficient funds for the originally

projected number (30) of farmers.

Thirteen farmers purchased cocoa seeds and established

nurseries in early 1986. Two individuals encountered personal

difficulties and sold out, one abandoned farming in favor of lumber

milling, and ten farmers established 1-3 acres of cocoa each under

natural shade similar to Ringtail. A system of procurement was set

up with input suppliers and DFC so farmers could readily obtain

fertilizers, pesticides, and equipment using purchase orders charged

to their loan accounts.

In 1987 seventeen farmers (7 new participants) were prepared to

establish an additional 25 acres of cocoa pending DFC loan

approvals. Only three loans were approved due to difficulties the

others had with repaying their UNHCR short-term loans. Two farmers

purchased seeds and maintained nurser - to expand their cocoa

acreage. Small quantities of shade tree (leucaena, madre cacao,

fruits, etc.) planting materials were provided by the project and

established where needed.

During the May 1987 fires, four farmers lost all their

established cocoa (8 acres) and shade, most of which was in

excellent condition. Although general field practices had been very

good by VOP farmers, including establishments of firebreaks, the

fire losses completely discouraged them from purchasing more inputs

(fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) and even labor investments became

minimal. The prospect of future fires destroying remaining cocoa

continues to discourage farmers from continuing with cocoa and other

tree crops.

The DFC loan program was modified to accommodate the losses and

future prospects for VOP cocoa development. Farmers who lost their

cocoa to fire had interest obligations permanently suspended and

payments on the principle indefinitely suspended until they are able

to resume repayments, perhaps through other cash crop development.

Loans for these farmers discontinued so that funds committed to

individuals but not drawn down as of May 1987 could be returned to

the cocoa loan fund. Finally, the restriction limited the cocoa

loan fund to VOP was removed to allow it to be used in areas where

cocoa development will be more beneficial.

 Project plans to assist in the development of a small cocoa

growers association were discontinued following the fires due to

lack of interest. Future efforts with tree crops will need to

consider this since VOP lacks a suitable agricultural organization.

Governmental extension service for VOP was negligible.

During

most of the project there was no officer assigned to the zone all

the way from VOP to Ringtail Village. The only known two visits to

VOP were made when project staff invited and transported the

extension officer to a workshop and for the agricultural census in

late 1987.

A minor effort was made by the project in 1986-7 to introduce

sesame as a short-term cash crop for cocoa farmers to use as an

interim income source. The Caribbean Agricultural Research and

Development Institute (CARDI) in Belmopan was encouraging sesame

trials and -ffered technical assistance and seed to get VOP farmers

sta*Ated. A secure market was arranged with Operaciones

Internacionales (0.1.) of Guatemala who offered to provided field

assistance and post-harvest processing (cleaning and bagging).

CARDI-recommended varieties were not available when planting time

arrived (November) but similar varieties of multipurpose (oil and

confectionery) sesame were obtained at no charge from 0.1.

The

growing season was exceptionally dry, insect damage (ants) was

severe, and the results were very discouraging. Field trials in

other districts had similar experiences and indicate that additional

research is needed to develop practical recommendations for small

farmers.

In summary, a total of twenty-one farmers applied for DFC cocoa

loans to establish an initial 42 acres of cocoa.

Only thirteen were

approved with ten actually establishing 21 acres of cocoa. Fires

destroyed 8 acres aihd another 4 have been abandoned leaving 9 acres

(3,900 trees) established.

Conclusions: The selection of VOP as

a project site was justifiably

based on developmental needs but did not give sufficient

consideration to agronomic suitability for cocoa

(shallow, clay

soils), infrastructural constraints (poor road, no bridges) , and

political issues (local social tensions and national policies led to

delays in government support). Since the cocoa project was limited

in community development resources and unable to effectively address

either infrastructural or political aspects, hindsight suggests that

the VOP was probably an inappropriate site in which to work at this

time.

Despite the failure to establish viable cocoa production in

VOP, the project did provide significant assistance in general

agricultural extension and community development. As the only group

regularly present and working in VOP, the project acted as a liaison

with the Department of Lands, DFC, Refugee Office, Cooperative

Housing Foundation, rNinistry of Community Development, Ministry of

Health, and the Belize Marketing Board (BMB).

10

B. Traiii 60 Farmers in Improved Cocoa Practices.

Background and constraints: Cocoa production in Belize has been

limited to traditional backyard cultivation for home consumption and

several moderately large commercial enterprises focused on export

production. With the exception of Hummingbird Hershey Ltd. (HHL),

there were no active sources of technical information or training

for prospective cocoa farmers.

Traditional cultivation methods for cocoa throughout 2entral

America have not taken good advantage of the research and

development work conducted since the 1950s. Farmers typically

establish cocoa under improper shade and apply minimal management

inputs and practices other than harvesting. Experience in Belize

with improved methods that can increase yields from 200-300

lbs./acre up to over 1,000 lbs./acre was limited to HHL staff and

did not benefit independent small farmers.

The first major effort to assist farmers and extension workers

came when HHL and the Ministry of Agriculture sponsored a 2-week

course in cocoa production technology in late 1984. This training

provided the foundation for the project's training program over the

next three years.

Project plan: Training of farmers was planned to be conducted by

the project with support from HHL, through both technical workshops

and regular field visits. Beneficiaries were the participating

farmers from Ringtail Village and Valley of Peace. Workshop

subjects were scheduled to correspond with seasonal field activities

such as nursery establishment, land assessment, lining and

transplanting, etc. Workshop formats included an introductory

discussion followed by practical field demonstration in which

participants gained hands-on experience with specific tasks.

During the final project year the training program was greatly

expanded to include a series of workshops offered in Cayo, Stann

Creek, and Toledo districts as part of the field testing and

replication of the technical package.

Results: Ringtail farmers had the advantage of work experience at

HHL and were able to begin cocoa farming without extensive training.

After several initial training sessions conducted by HHL and project

staff, most technical support came as individual field extension

visits. Small, informal groups of 2 or 3 farmers would work

together with staff to learn specific methodologies such as shade

adjustment, lining, pruning, etc.

A workshop that focused on self-evaluation was particularly

helpful in identifying farmer-perceived needs and solutions.

Farmers criticized their own results and offered suggestions for

others' questions. Successful and unsuccessful variations in

practices were discussed and recommendations agreed upon.

Farm management was the subject of a key workshop that

discussed the importance of financial records for budgeting,

planning, and tax reporting. This subject was completely new to

most participants who had little experience with record keeping or

tax requirements and proved to be very valuable.

11

Table B-I. Training Participation.

Training Session Location No. Farmers/NGO reps

Extension Officers TOTAL

5-Day Courses

1. October 1985 HHEL 0 3 3

2. Novenber 1985
HHL
0
8 8
3. December 1985 HHL 0 6 6
4. August 1986
HHL
1
4 5
5. November 1986
HHL
3
9 12

2-Day Wbrkshops
1. March 1987:

Site assessment & Cayo 9 4 13

nursery establishment
Stann Creek
28
2 30
Toledo 2 5 7

2. June 1987:

Nursery management, St.ann Creek 37 2 39

fertilization, & shade
Toledo
27
5 32
adjustment

3. August 1987:

Field establishment,
Stann Creek 36
4 40
pest & disease control,
Toledo
52
4 56
& intercrops

9-Day Course

Sept.-Oct. 1987:

Comprehensive BHL
6 5 11
 Technical workshops in VOP followed the seasonal activities

including workshops in nursery establishment and care,

underbrushing, shade adjustment, transplanting, care of young trees,

and multipurpose intercrops (for both shade and secondary crops).

Discussions were conducted in Spanish and considerable time was

spent on field demonstrations. Some workshops were conducted at

Ringtail Village or HHL in order to clearly illustrate practices and

results.

Expanded training during 1987 was coordinated with Ministry of

Agriculture (MOA) programs in Cayo, Stann Creek, and Toledo

districts in order to reach cocoa farmers outside the two project

sites. A schedule was set up for each district based on appropriate

seasonal topics for the first year of cocoa establishment. Based on

the experience of these workshops a training guide for extensionists

was compiled and is included in the Cocoa Guidebook and Training

Guide. Table b-1 summarizes the training program.

A total of 148 farmers from the districts in addition to the 24

project participants received technical training from the project

workshops. All trainees attended classroom discussions of the

principles and practices of cocoa production and participated in

hands-on field demonst'ations.

Conclusions: The training program was extremely successful both for

farmers within the original project sites and in extending the

technical package throughout Stann Creek and Toledo districts.

Sustained efforts were made to integrate Belizian and external

experts into training efforts. Adoption of improved practices was

confirmed by follow-up field visits including the following key

areas: use of improved hybrid seeds, intensive nursery care, site

assessment, use of proper natural shade, establishment of permanent

shade, intensive lining and transplanting, fertilization, pruning,

weed and insect control, and introduction of intercrops.

C. Train 6 Government Extension Officers (E/Os) in Improved Cocoa

Practices and Extension Methods.

Background and Constraints: The long-term objective of this project

to accelerate cocoa development required improving the extension

capability to support farmers to establish and manage small-scale

commercial cocoa farms. Extension officers usually have a general

agricultural background, many graduated from Belize College of

Agriculture (BCA), but had negligible experience with cocoa

production.

Project plan: The agreement between USAID and the Ministry of

Agriculture (MOA) called for training six extension officers to

serve as the main source of technical support to farmers. This

would allow two officers assigned to each of the southern districts

where cocoa development is likely. In turn, these six officers

would train twenty other extension officers over a period of time as

the need developed.

Given the shortage of available personnel in MOA three Peace

Corps Volunteers (PCVs) were to be trained at HHL and assigned to

the project as extension officers and trainers. It was also

13

determined that local NGOs were a potential valuable source of

extension service for cocoa farmers and should be included in

training programs.

A series of five 5-day training workshops at HHL was prepared

for Belizian and foreign extension officers to be conducted in 1985­

6. The curriculum included major aspects of cocoa production and

was prepared for both classroom and practical field presentations.

Following completion of the Cocoa Guidebook and Training Guide,

a comprehensive training and field visit program was developed in

coordination with the MOA's annual workplan for 1987. This included

a series of three seasonal 2-day workshops to be held in Cayo, Stann

Creek, and Toledo districts followed by staff district visits to

assist extension officers with application of the materials.

Finally, an extensive 2-week course was set up to train new

extension officers and NGO extensionists in improved cocoa

production technology and extension methods.

Results: MOA extension officers were not able to be assigned to the

project as planned. Working in conjunction with MOA and USAID,

alternative training and support strategies were developed. The

following training program was strengthened with an expanded

schedule of field visits in which project staff worked along with

extension officers to assist cocoa

farmers in the districts.

Five 5-day courses were offered in 1985-6 using HHL as the

training center and site of most field trips. A comprehensive

curriculum was presented at a technically appropriate level (see

Table C-1 for the complete syllabus). Classroom discussions by

project and Hershey staff local and expatriate specialists were

followed by practical field demonstrations presented by HHL senior

staff responsible for specific technical areas (e.g: nursery

management, field nutrition, pest control, post-harvest processing,

etc.). Daily study questions were given after the field study and

discussed the following morning for review. A final examination

including both a written and practical section was administered for

MOA staff and results reported to the MOA for inclusion in personnel

records. Other participants included extension officials from St.

Vincent, Grenada, Barbados, and Honduras.

Following the five 5-day courses at HHL, a series of three 2­

day in-district workshops was designed to reinforce extension

officers capabilities in cocoa production technology and extension

methods. Extension officers who completed one of the introductory

5-day courses were provided advance copies of the Cocoa Guidebook

and Training Guide and given responsibility for conducting portions

of the workshops with farmers.

The final 9-day course for new MOA extension officers was

centered at HHL with numerous field trips to other cocoa farms and a

series of presentations by development resource agencies. (See Table

C-2 for the complete program) Although the course was developed

upon request of the MOA to further strengthen their extension

capability in cocoa, actual participants also included agricultural

loan officers from Development Finance Corporation, field staff from

CARE, Peace Corps, and Toledo Cocoa Growers Association in addition

to new extension officers. This course was designed to provide: 1)

a comprehensive introduction to the principles and practices of

improved cocoa production, 2) hands-on field application of the

14

Table C-I. 5-Day Cocoa Production Course, Syllabus.

Day 1. 7:00 AM:

Overview of seminar program.

Introduction to cocoa.

- history of cocoa

- botany & ecology of cocoa

- breeding & reproduction

- soils & nutrition

9:00 AM:
Breakfast.

10:00 AM:
Welcome & opening activities/introductions.

- Ministry of Agriculture

- Hummingbird Hershey Ltd.

- Cocoa Development Project

11:00 AM:
Overview of Cocoa Development Project.

- Agricultural objectives

- Community development

12:00 PM:
Lunch.

1:00 PM:
Site Selection & Land Preparation.

- location & climate

- soils & topography
- vegetation, access, labor, marketing
- under natural shade - underbrushing
- established shade - temp. & permanent

2:30 PM:
Field Demonstration.

- established shade - Chanona's farm

- natural shade - Ringtail Village

4:00 PM:
Study Questions.

Day 2. 7:00 AM:

Nursery Establishment Practices.

- site selection

- shade: artificial & natural

- germ material: seed & vegetative

- potting soils & planting

8:00 AM:
Nursery Care Practices.

- fertilization & shade

- pest & disease control

9:00 AM:
Breakfast.

10:00 AM:
Field Demonstration - HHL Nursery.

- site, shade, soils, etc.

- budding demonstration

- clonal gardens & selection process

12:00 PM:
Lunch.

1:00 PM:
Young Cocoa Tree Care.

- lining & transplanting

- fertilization

- pest control

- pruning & jorquette control

- shade adjustment & week control

- grafted tree care

- intercrops

2:00 PM:
Mature Tree Care.

- fertilization & lime

- pest & disease control

- pruning: formation & suckers

- shade adjustment & weed control

3:00 PM:
Study Questions.

15

Day 3. 7:00 AM:

Field Demonstration - Tree Care.

- young tree care

- mature tree care

9:00 AM:
Breakfast.

10:00 AM:
Field Demonstration - Pruning.

- routine sucker (chupon) pruning

- formation & corrective pruning

12:00 PM:
Lunch.

1:00 PM:
Field Demonstration - Spraying.

- equipment

- handling & storage safety

- weed control

- disease control

- insect control

3:00 PM:
Study Questions.

Day 4. 7:00 AM:

Rehabilitation of Old Cocoa.

- objectives & principles

- pruning & fertilization

- coppicing & budding

- underplanting & replacement

9:00 AM:
Breakfast.

10:00 AM:
Field Demonstration - Rehabilitation.

- Caves Branch

- HHL

12:00 PM:
Lunch.

1:00 PM:
Harvesting & Processing.

- production cycles & pod development

- cutting & breaking pods

- fermentation: principles & methods

- drying: principles & methods

- marketing

2:00 PM:
Field Demonstration - Processing.

- mechanized processing at HHL

- quality control & testing

3:00 PM:
Study Questions.

Day 5. 7:00 AM:

Economics of Cocoa Production.

- market overview

- establishing cocoa

- maintaining cocoa

- high input vs low input

- financing & credit

9:00 AM:
Breakfast.

10:00 AM:
Review & TEST.

12:00 PM:
Lunch.

1:00 PM:
Test Results, Discussion, & Closing.

16

Table C-2. 9-Day Cocoa Production Course, Syllabus.

DAY 1

8:30 AM: Welcome & Opening (Corven)

- Introductions & general orientation
9:30 AM: Overview of course
10:30 AM: BREAK
10:45 AM: Introduction to cocoa (Corven)
- History, botany, & ecology
12:30 PM: LUNCH
1:30 PM: Site assessment & selection (Corven)
3:00 PM: Field Study - site assessment (Scott)

DAY 2
8:30 AM: Nursery establishment (Kather)
9:30 AM: Nursery management (Kather)
10:30 AM: BREAK
10:45 AM: Field Study - HHL nursery practices (Willacey)
12:30 PM: LUNCH
1:30 PM: Establishing cocoa (Raisner)
2:30 PM: Field Study - establishment (Raisner)

DAY 3

8:30 AM: Shade & nutrition (Raisner)

10:30 AM: Field Study - shade & nutrition (Scott)

12:30 PM: LUNCH

1:00 PM: Field Study - Tiger Sandy Bay (Downard)

DAY 4

8:30 AM: Pruning cocoa (Corven)

9:00 PM: Field Study - pruning (Raisner)

11:00 AM: Field Study - Blue Mountain Ranch (Chanona)

12:30 PM: LUNCH

1:30 PM: Insect pests, weeds, & diseases (Corven)

2:30 PM: Field Study - pest & disease controls (Scott)

DAY 5

8:30 AM: Rehabilitation & Renovation (Corven)

10:00 AM: Field Study - rehabilitation (Scott)

12:30 PM: LUNCH

1:30 PM: Harvesting, fermenting, & drying (Raisner)

2:30 PM: Field Study - processing beans (Bradley)

DAY 6

8:30 AM: Field Study - Valley of Peace (Kather)

12:30 PM: LUNCH

1:30 PM: Economics of cocoa (Corven)

2:30 PM: Toledo Cocoa Growers Association (Nichols)

3:00 PM: Field Study - intercrops (Raisner)

17

DAY 7

8:00 AM: Field Study - HHL practical (Scott)

12:30 PM: LUNCH

1:30 PM: Travel to DFC, Belmopan

2:00 PM: Cocoa Development Project (Corven)

2:30 PM: Belize Association for Rural Development (BARD)

3:00 PM: C.A.R.E.

3:30 PM: Belize Rural Womans' Association (BRWA)

4:00 PM: Belize Bank of Commerce & Industry (Pratt)

4:30 PM: Belize Enterprize for Sustained Technology (BEST)

DAY 8

8:30 AM: Field Study - HHL Research programs (Montero)

11:30 AM: HHL operations & policies (Burn)

12:30 PM: LUNCH

1:30 PM: Travel to DFC, Belmopan

2:00 PM: Development Finance Corporation (Bautista)

2:30 PM: Cocoa Advisory Board (CAB) (Smith)

3:00 PV: Dept. of Lands & Survey (Aguilar)

3:30 PM: Help for Progress (Shish)

DAY 9

8:30 AM: Review session (Staff)

10:30 AM: BREAK

10:45 AM: Examination

12:30 PM: LUNCH

1:30 PM: Exam results, discussion, closing. (Staff)

18

practices, 3) demonstration of alternative farming systems for

cocoa, and 4) strengthening of relationships between extension

personnel and development resources (e.g: banks, PVOs, relevant

ministries, and local projects.)

Conclusions: Participation in the five 5-day courses exceeded

expectations and provided an excellent opportunity for technical

exchanges between Belizian and foreign extension personnel. The

course material provided sound coverage of production technology.

The broad experience of participants greatly enriched the whole

training effort. Belizians who had attended the 1984 2-week course

sponsored by Hershey gained a good refresher of their technical

information and a basis for participation in the following 2-day in­

district workshops.

In-district workshops were excellent in terms of quality of

presentations by extension personnel, farmer participation, and

development of improved field practices. (See Table B-1 for summary

of attendance and subjects). Follow-up visits by project staff

provided additional technical assistance and confirmed of the

benefits to extension officers and farmers. Both MOA extension

officers and NGO staffs were found to have greatly increased their

attention to cocoa. Help for Progress, in addition to providing

technical assistance, had approved one loan to a ten-member cocoa

grower group and were evaluating two more. Farmers were

incorporating improvements into their field practices and realizing

excellent results in nursery productivity, field preparation, and

rehabilitation of older trees. MOA and NGO capability to continue

technical assistance appears to be well established and the farmers

have the confidence to continue improving their cocoa production.

The expanded program used in the final 9-day course was clearly

an improvement over the original 5-day program in that it offered

more time for practical field exposure to management principles and

various cocoa farming systems. Time spent actually working along

with HHL field teams and at Ringtail farms was especially productive

in terms of experiencing the farmers' perspective. The inclusion of

trainees from DFC and CARE was an excellent opportunity to broaden

the country's capability beyond the public extension service.

D. Adapt, Document, Institutionalize, and Replicate the

Methodology Developed for General Application in Belize.

Background and constraints: Technical information on improved cocoa

production technology has been developed in Belize by HHL and Toledo

Research and Development Project (TRDP). Although experience with

germ plasm selection and field practices is limited and significant

improvements have been made in Belize, much of this information was

neither adapted for nor available to the small-scale commercial

cocoa farmer on which this project was focused.

There was a clear need for training and extension materials to

support the project activities as well as for long-term development

by MOA, NGOs, grower groups, and farmers. The MOA extension

service, which has considerable amounts of printed material on most

aspects of agriculture, did not have satisfactory resources to

provide technical assistance for cocoa farmers. DFC was interested

in providing credit for cocoa but lacked adequate information on

19

crop budgets, development plans, or a financial analysis in order to

make sound assessments of proposed projects and to offer appropriate

financing.

Project plan: A major objective of the project was to develop "A

method to transfer this technology as a package to groups of farmers

in other areas...". The technical package was planned to include

extension documents appropriate for farmers and extension officers

and a training program on both improved production technology and

extension methods. Preliminary materials prepared in the first year

were to assist in the prcject's implementation. Testing and

improvement in the package was planned for the third project year.

The final components of the package would be revised based on the

experience of the project and provide a comprehensive resource for

continued work after the project's completion.

Results: The project produced three final publications based on

research and development by HHL and on-farm experience of the

project. During the establishment of cocoa farms at Ringtail and

VOP numerous modifications were made in standard recommendations to

fit the needs and capabilities of small-scale cocoa farms. Feedback

from participants was essential to adapt material to the specific

agronomic and economic conditions of diverse small farmers in

Belize.

The first documents produced by the project were a series of

"fact sheets" each of which focused on specific aspects of cocoa

from nursery establishment to cocoa bean grading standards. These

were made available to participating farmers, extension officers,

HHL staff, and others for evaluation. Revisions were made as

information, much of it provided by farmers, was added and updated.

Several were in both English and Spanish.

Testing of the package outside the two original sites of

Ringtail and Valley of Peace began in early 1987 with the district

workshops and field visits to cocoa growers in Cayo, Toledo, and

Stann Creek districts. In conjunction with Ministry of Agriculture

extension officials, Help for Progress, and BEST, the series of

training and extension activities (described fully in sections B and

C) was responsible for over 400 acres of new cocoa being established

by 200+ farmers outside Ringtail and VOP in 1987. In fact, two

established groups in Stann Creek have applied for leases on 1,050

acres to be used exclusively for tree crops (e.g: cocoa, citrus,

banana, etc.). Regular monitoring of the progress of farmers by MOA

extension officers and project staff provided invaluable information

including language clarity and technical improvements needed for

production of the package revisions.

Final versions of the fact sheets were compiled with

additional information to produce Growing Cocoa in Belize, a 28 page

booklet for farmers. It explains specific field practices and

recommendations in a brief, "how to" format. Illustrations, record

forms, and descriptive tables complement text when possible. The

booklet was provided to all participants in the district workshops

to use as a study and field guide. A complete distribution list is

reported in Table D-1 and contents are summarized in Table D-2.

The Cocoa Farm Economic Report, first edition, was prepared in

early 1985 to assist the project and DFC develop the loan program

20

for Ringtail and Valley of Peace farmers. It was based on

preliminary information from HHL, DFC, and local cost sources for

inputs and labor. The report was the main reference for information

on labor requirements, crLu; iudc-ts, and development models for

extension and the DFC cocoa credit program. A updated and

expanded version of the economic report was prepared in 1987 and

published as the Cocoa Farm Economic Report And Development Models.

Based on nearly three year's experience of the project, figures were

updated to more accurately project the costs and returns of cocoa

farming. Development plans and recommendations for "high input" and

"low input" management were included to offer guidelines for

alternative improved production strategies. The table of contents

is shown in Table D-3.

The Cocoa Guidebook and Training Guide initially was prepared

for the training program and a final revision produced after all

courses, workshops, and evaluations were completed during the

original 3-year project period. Resources for this manual include

Hershey scientists, HHL staff, cocoa project staff, farmers, and

other technical references. The text is a significant expansion of

the farmers booklet with technical descriptions of the principles

and practices of improved cocoa production adapted for Belize.

Recommendations for b,'th "high input" and "low input" farming

systems are elaborated. A training guide section provides ready-to­

use lesson plans for workshops and field demonstrations in specific

topics of cocoa production. The complete distribution list is

reported in Table D-1 and the table of contents is shown in Table D­

4.

Conclusions: The plan to produce preliminary documents that were

updated and revised based on the experience of the project proved to

serve the objectives very well. Interim extension material was

available for early training and extension work while regular

feedback and evaluation from these activities provided the practical

improvements needed to complete the final publications. The

technical materials are comprehensive, satisfy the need for an

extension and training reference, and offer appropriate literature

for farmers. The economic report was updated and provides sound

guidelines for cocoa financing at alternative levels of development.

While project donation supported by the experience of HHL

provided a substantial foundation for the technical package

materials, they are not technically refined and the documents should

be considered preliminary pending further field work, maturation of

new plantings, and post-harvest experience. Ongoing research at HHL

and other centers will undoubtably produce improvements in the

recommendations. Longer experience with cocoa farmers in Belize is

needed to develop the information fully. Hershey is preparing a

cocoa reference book for extensionists and researchers that will

provide a more technical level.

Naturally, the economic report should be updated periodically

to reflect local conditions.

21

Table D-l. Cocoa Project Publications Distribution List.

Cocoa
Growing Cocoa Economic

Received by: Guidebook

in Belize Report

MOA/Belmopan ............ ... 3

100 1

MOA/Toledo ....... ........... 7

MOA/Stann Creek ......... 4

40

MOA/Cayo ................ 2
20

USAID/Belize City 1
1 1

PADF/Wash., D.C ........... 1

1 1

VITA/Wash., D.C . ........ 1

1 1

Belize College Agric ... 2

2

Peace Corps/Belize ...... 1

1

Devel. Finance Corp .... 1

1 1

Toledo Cocoa Assoc. 2

235 1

Help For Progress ....... 1

10 1

B.E.S.T . . ..................... 1
2

British High Comm . ......

1

Hummingbird Hershey ..... 1

2

P.A.T. School ...........

1

Global Outreach .........

1

CARDI/Belmopan ..........
1

BEIPU/Belize City .......

1

Chamber of Commerce .....

1

C.A.R.E./Belize ......... 2

B.A.R.D./Belmopan .......
1

National Library ........

1

Santa Marta Coop . .......

5

22

Table D-2. Growing Cocoa In Belize, Table of Contents.

Economics

Cocoa Management for Belize ................................. 1

High & Low Input Systems for Cocoa .......................... 2

The Economics of Cocoa in Belize ............................ 3

Getting Started

Site Selection & Land Preparation ........................... 6

Soil Analysis Results ........................................ 7

Nursery Establishment & Care ................................ 8

Nursery Maintenance Schedule ................................ 9

Transplanting & Early Care ................................. 10

Regeneration of Milpas for Cocoa ........................... 11

Taking Care of Cocoa

Fertilisation & Shade Adjustment ........................... 12

Insect Control ............................................ 13

Disease Control ........................................... 14

Weed Control .............................................. 15

Pruning ................................................... 16

Harvesting, Fermenting, & Drying ........................... 17

Cocoa Bean Grading Standards ............................... 18

The Cocoa Calendar .......................................... 19

Tables

Cocoa Management Recommendations - High Input ............. 21

Cocoa Management Recommendations - Low Input .............. 23

Number of Trees per Acre/Hectare ........................... 25

Cocoa Bean Sales Record .....................................26

23

Table D-3. Cocoa Farm Economic Report And Development Models

-------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION ................................................ 1

COCOA MANAGEMENT FOR BELIZE ................................ 3

COCOA ESTABLISHMENT/Low Input System

Management Practices ................................ 7

Cocoa Management Recommendations .................... 8

Low Input Labour Assumptions ......................... 10

Production & Revenue Schedule ........................ 11

Cash Flow Projections ................................ 12

Development Plan ......................................13

COCOA ESTABLISHMENT/High Input System

Management Practices ................................. 17

Cocoa Management Recommendations ..................... 18

High Input Labour Assumptions ........................ 20

Production & Revenue Schedule ........................ 21

Cash Flow Projections ................................ 22

Development Plan ......................................23

FOUR-YEAR ESTABLISHMENT MODEL/High Input System

Production & Revenue Schedule ........................ 27

Cash Flow Projections ................................ 28

Graph: Economic Development .. ....................... 29

Development Plan ......................................30

Financial Analysis ....................................32

TWO-YEAR ESTABLISHMENT MODEL/High Input System

Production & Revenue Schedule ........................ 35

Cash Flow Projections ................................ 36

Graph: Economic Development .......................... 37

Development Plan ......................................38

Financial Analysis ................................... 40

TABLE: COMPARISON OF 2-YEAR & 4-YEAR MODELS .............. 41

REFERENCES ............................................... 43

24

Table D-4. Cocoa Guidebook And Training Guide, Contents.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Glossary of Terms ............................................ 1

1. SITE SELECTION

Climate ............................................... 7

Soils & Topography ..................................... 7

Map: Mean Annual Rainfall .............................. 8

Map: Principle Landforms ............................... 9

Table: Soil Features of Landforms ..................... 10

Natural Vegetation ..................................... 11

Access, Labour, & Market .............................. 11

2. SOILS FOR COCOA

Physical Properties .................................... 15

Chemical Properties .................................... 16

Collecting Soil Samples for Cocoa ................... 18

Soil Analysis Results .................................. 19

SUMMARY PAGE ........................................... 20

3. ESTABLISHING COCOA

Natural Shade .......................................... 23

Establishing Shade ..................................... 23

Temporary Shade ........................................ 24

Permanent Shade ........................................ 24

Windbreaks .......................................... 24

Intercrops .......................................... 25

Short Term Crop ........................................ 25

Mature Tree Intercrops ................................ 25

Regeneration of Milpas For Cocoa ...................... 26

Lining And Planting .................................... 27

Transplanting .......................................... 28

SUMMARY PAGE ........................................... 29

4. NURSERY ESTABLISHMENT AND PRACTICES

Site Selection ......................................... 33

Shade: Artificial & Natural ........................... 33

Nursery Bags ........................................... 34

Potting Soils .......................................... 34

Planting The Seeds ..................................... 35

Seed Germination & Growth ............................. 35

Why Hybrid seeds? ...................................... 35

Fertilisation & Shade ................................. 36

Culling ............................................. 36

Pests & Diseases ....................................... 36

Nursery Maintenance Schedule .......................... 37

SUMMARY PAGE ........................................... 38

25

5. SHADE AND NUTRITION

Shade ............................................... 41

Shade Adjustment ....................................... 43

Nutrition .............................................. 43

Fertiliser Application ................................ 45

Signs of Common Deficiencies .......................... 46

SUMMARY PAGE ........................................... 48

6. INSECT & PEST CONTROL

Insects ............................................. 51

Major Insect Pests ..................................... 51

Minor Insect Pests ..................................... 53

Vertebrate Pests ....................................... 54

SUMMARY PAGE ........................................... 55

7. DISEASE CONTROL IN COCOA

Major Diseases In Cocoa ............................... 59

- Black Pod ................... ................ 59

- Ceratocystis wilt .............................. 60

- Monilia ......................................... 60

- Witches Broom .................................. 60

Other Cocoa Diseases ................................ 61

'fable: Disease Resistant Varieties of Cocoa ......... 61

SUMMARY PAGE ........................................... 62

8. WEED CONTROL

Why Control Weeds? How? When? ....................... 65

Weed Classification ................................... 65

Methods of Weed Control ............................... 66

Precaution ............................................. 68

SUMMARY PAGE ........................................... 69

9. PRUNING COCOA

Objectives of Pruning ................................. 73

Background ............................................. 73

General Principles ..................................... 73

Formation Pruning ...................................... 74

Maintenance Pruning ................................... 74

Rehabilitation Pruning ................................ 75

SUMMARY PAGE ........................................... 76

10. RENOVATION & REHABILITATION

Background ............................................. 79

Turrialba Method ....................................... 79

Trinidad Method ........................................ 80

Rehabilitation ......................................... 80

26

11. HARVF.TING & PROCESSING

Production Cycles ................... ...................... 85

Harvesting .......................................... 85

Fermentation Principles ............................... 85

Drying Principles ...................................... 86

Fermentation Methods .................................. 86

Drying Methods ......................................... 88

Artificial Drying ..................................... 89

Storage ............................................. 89

Cocoa Bean Grading Standards .......................... 90

SUMMARY PAGE ........................................... 91

12. ECONOMICS OF COCOA

Cocoa Management For Belize ........................... 95

Table: High & Low Input Systems for Cocoa ........... 96

Value of Cocoa ......................................... 97

The Cocoa Market ....................................... 97

Establishing Cocoa ..................................... 97

Maintaining Cocoa ...................................... 97

Benefits of Cocoa ...................................... 98

Conclusions ...... ................................... 98

Table: Economics of Cocoa Establishment ............. 99

Table: Economics of Cocoa Development ................ 99

13. TRAINING GUIDE

How To Use The Training Guide ........................ 101

Site Assessment for cocoa ............................ 103

Cocoa Establishment .................................. 104

Nursery Establishment ................................ 105

Nursery Management ....................................106

Shade And Nutrition .................................. 107

Insect And Pest Control .............................. 108

Disease Control .......................................109

Pruning Cocoa ......................................... 0

Renovation And Rehabilitation ........................ 111

Harvesting And Processing ............................ 112

Economics of Cocoa ................................... 113

14. APPENDIX

1. Useful Conversion Factors (Metric-English) ....... 117

2. Number of Trees per Acre .......................... 119

3. Conversion Tables ................................. 120

4. Conversion Tables ................................. 121

5. Conversion Tables ................................. 122

6. Cocoa Bean Sales Record ........................... 123

7. Cocoa Mgt. Recommendations: High Input Systems ... 124

7. Cocoa Mgt. Recommendations: Low Input Systems .... 126

8. Labour Assumptions ................................ 128

9. Cocoa Management Calendar ......................... 130

15. REFERENCES ........................................... 133

27

E. Establish Community Information and Outreach Capability.

Background and constraints: Integraton of agricultural with

community development was a major fe ture of this project. It is

accepted that the viability of small-scale commercial cocoa farmers

depends upon more than agronomic knowledge. It requires

participation in many community affairs including local government,

physical infrastructure, social services, credit and income

opportunities, and leadership development.

Valley of Peace requirements for community development were

somewhat more evolved as well as more complicated than at Ringtail

Village. The government of Belize was working along with UNHCR and

NGO groups to provide roads, housing, schools, health services, and

cooperative development in VOP. The project's role, therefore, was

more as an adviser to complement ongoing efforts rather than to

initiate projects. Ringtail Village, in contrast, was an multi­

faceted effort to initiate the development of individual cocoa farms

within a new community with both physical and social infrastructure.

The work in VOP and Ringtail primarily involved improving the

beneficiaries' capabilities to establish and manage their young

communities. This aspect was constrained by the limited experience

of the residents. Considerable effort was required to develop

information resources and liaison capabilities within local

community leadership.

Project plan: Although at different levels in VOP and RV, the

planned tasks were to identify resources for community development

and to apply them to complement the agricultural aspects of the

project. A major goal was to further develop the capability to

continue this process within the beneficiaries after project

completion.

Results: This objective was characterized by the following four

phases in both VOP and RV: 1) compilation of baseline information on

participants, 2) organization of participants, 3) development of

inter-organizational linkages, and 4) training to satisfy specific

identified needs.

Baseline data was collected and studied on Hummingbird Hershey

Limited (HHL) employees and later on RV participants to help

determine existing capabilities and needs. This information

provided guidelines for the project in focusing its plans in both

community and agricultural development.

At Ringtail three groups were formed according to expressed

needs: (a) The primary group was an informal association of farmers

formed to coordinate work on the road, community center building,

cocoa nursery care, and to serve as a governing body. This was the

beginning of the Ringtail Village Association. (b) Ringtail women

developed interests in community and personal income opportunities

and formed the RV Women's Group. (c) The final, and perhaps most

significant group to form, was the Hummingbird Credit Union.

Training and operations of these groups is described in detail under

section F and H.

28

 Project work at VOP focused more on strengthening existing

organizations rather forming new groups. The Community Development

Adviser worked extensively with the village council to help it

improve internal operations and to work better with governmental and

development agencies. Workshops and speakers were provided to help

resolve various issues. Considerable effort was expended with the

VOP Young Adults Group in conducting a major census of the VOP.

Through organization improvements and assistance with technical

skills the census was successfully completed and forms the basis for

future work in VOP by the government and UNHCR.

The project coordinated training for the participating groups

both for institutional strengthening and to directly benefit their

members. The credit union officers participated in seminars on

specific aspects of credit union management provided by the Belize

Credit Union League (BCUL). Thses were offered throughout the year

focusing on such topics as credit committee, board of directors, and

management committee responsibilities, record keeping, and expanding

credit union services. Additionally, the project provided one-on­

one training with the credit union officers to follow-up BCUL

training and to address particular needs.

Training in farm management and record keeping for all RV

farmers was of particular value to participants who are entering the

world of agricultural finance and commercial production for the

first time. This focused on the needs for regular records and

planning on the small farm and illustrated its importance for

taxation and resource (labor and capital) allocation.

Conclusions: The establishment and support of three groups in

Ringtail and the support of existing groups in VOP provided

essential complementarity to agricultural development. This was

especially important at Ringtail where everything from land

preparation to housing was a pioneering effort. Had the project

only focused on agricultural aspects it is doubtful that sustainable

development could have occurred. The development of organizational

resources and inter-relationships was done very effectively and

formed the basis for local leadership capabilities.

F. Support Women Participation in Economic Activities.

Background and constraints: The agricultural focus of the project

on commercial production of cocoa by family farms implies

participation by the women. Further, there were non-agricultural

opportunities for community and family income that could be

developed by the women. At Ringtail all the men are employees at

HHL while only some of the women have, at best, part-time jobs to

provide off-farm income. In VOP cultural traditions and home-to­

farm distances often limited womens' role in cocoa and other field

crops.

Project plan: The role of women in economic activities involved two

aspects which developed distinctly. First, the establishment of

family cocoa farms would require the participation of wives in

initial decision making and planning followed by ongoing farm

management. Secondly, project staff encouraged the participation of

all affected women in meetings, workshops, and organizational

29

land surveying, road construction, housing, and access to health,

education, and transportation for participants who would be required

to live on their farms. (The original MOA policy was that all

project participants must establish a permanent residence on the

Ringtail land in order to qualify for a lease fiat.)

Fortunately, RV was along the Hummingbird Highway within four

miles of HHL. The public school and intermittent health clinic

there would serve families of Ringtail settlers who were all

employees of HHL, as well as other residents along the Hummingbird

Highway. Regular bus service to the north and south was available

on commercial carriers.

Project plan: Although it was expecte! that the project would

develop the Ringtail community infrastructure, little specific

funding was available and external sources had to be explored.

USAID has a rural roads improvement project that would be considered

and the Cooperative Housing Foundation had a home financing program.

A new USAID "Better Productivity Through Improved Health" project

was expected to provide technical assistance for water and

sanitation.

Results: The Department of Lands and Survey completed the property

survey and cut lines along all internal borders and the perimeter of

Ringtail. HHL provided temporary quarters, use of their dining

hall, and daily transportation for the survey team.

The Ministry of Agriculture was asked for and prcvided a

bulldozer to open and shape the roadways in early 1985 and again in

1986. Since the USAID roads project could not assist with the road

alternative sources were exploited: HHL contributed the use of its

equipment to put stone fill on the road. The Peace Corps Volunteer

working at Ringtail assisted the village association in obtaining a

Peace Corps SPA grant for road funds. The Ministry of Public Works

provided weekend use of dump trucks and a front loader for a limited

time. HHL granted permission to take fill stone from their property

along the Sibun River, for which the grant paid drivers' salary and

fuel costs. Significant time and effort were donated by men and

women of Ringtail who worked on the road with hand tools to spread

stone and fill the road. Four sets of culverts were donated by the

USAID roads project and installed by participants working with Peace

Corps. Finally, a private truck was hired to complete filling not

done by Public Works. Repeated requests to grade and finish the

6,000 feet of road were not answered by the Ministry of Public

Works.

Initially, requests to the CHF for housing assistance were

unsuccessful because CHF funds were only for urban housing. An

expansion of the CHF program, however, did make funds available

through the credit union for rural home loans. CHF also provided

on-site technical assistance in construction techniques and designs.

A CHF grant to the RV village association provided funds for the

services of a local builder as an adviser to residents beginning

their houses. HHL donated unused worker houses to Ringtailers who

dismantled the wood structures and recycled useable materials (e.g.,

lumber, roofing, doors, etc.) into their own homes at Ringtail.

Four participant houses were established in this way. Added

improvements made later included new paint, concrete floors, and

30

membership for community development.

Results: Despite limitations and logistical constraints, the role

of women in agricultural and community development activities

steadily increased until many of the initiatives began with women

who wanted a more active role. Given the limits of a small

community, it was essential to mobilize all the resources to the

extent possible and women successfully played a very construction

role that will Le vital to sustain efforts.

While the husbands were working at HHL, the women were often

responsible for continuing the farm work. Maintenance of the cocoa

nurseries and planting the home gardens by the women proved to be a

major advantage for those families to keep up with the agricultural

development of their new farms. The Ringtail Village Womens' Group

began functioning by assuming responsibility for the annual

childrens' Christmas Party from HHL. As Ringtail was established

they also developed the following dual purpose: 1) raise money for

expansion of the community center building funded by CHF and 2)

develop some home-based income generating activities. The first

initiative successfully raised the needed funds with a series of bi­

weekly video movies shown in the HHL recreation room. Members

prepared refreshments (e.g., cookies, pop corn, etc.), advertising

posters, and coordinated logistics. By late 1987 the expansion

construction was completed and plans developed for some basic

landscaping.

The second initiative focused on production of several craft

items and Christmas decoration for local use and sale. A numbe-7 of

workshops conducted by an HHL employee got the group started with

specific items. Planning for other activities such a roadlie

produce and refreshment stand continue to be discussed.

Discussions with a couple of other national support groups were

underway to explore broader marketing possibilities in Belize. For

example, in conjunction with Belize Enterprise for Sustained

Technology (BEST), a supportive program to strengthen the group

through organization planning and goal development partially funded

by the project was planned for early 1988.

Conclusions: Despite the small number of members (5) and very

limited resources, the Ringtail Womens' Group has taken some

successful initiatives and developed plans for future opportunities.

Their contribution to the community center building gave them the

personal satisfaction of participating in development of the new

community. They have seen the fruition of their own efforts in the

building and the home crafts and have gained confidence in their

capability to sustain more productive projects.

G. Develop Basic Social Infrastructure Including Health, Water,

Housing, Education, and Transportation.

Background and constraints: The infrastructural needs of Ringtail

Village were the responsibility of the project, whereas at Valley of

Peace this was done mainly by the UNHCR and government. RV was

established on a completely undeveloped site at which there were no

roads, water, or other community facilities. There was need for

31

additions. Technical assistance was provided in introducing

improved cooking stoves (lorena type) following a fire that

destroyed one house.

The community center was built with a CHF grant to the RV

village association. HHL contributed transportation of cement,

concrete blocks, and lumber to the site and the General Manager

generously provided on-site supervision of the construction. HHL

also donated an unused 4,000 gallon water tank that was dismantled

by Youth With A Mission volunteers and Ringtail farmers and

reassembled at the RV center to hold rainwater into the dry season.

An open-sided addition which doubled the building's size was

completed with funds raised by the RV Womens Group. The building

was very functional before it was even completed. Ringtailers

stored agricultural and construction materials undpr the roof and

inside for security for short periods while building and planting.

The housing adviser resided inside while he worked for the residents

and training field demonstrations were conducted there.

A groundwater survey was completed by Dr. White, Washington

State hydro-geologist doing research ir Belize, and confirmed by

Central Farm (MOA) tech Licians. The reports indicated that

groundwater was in abundance but because of limestone formations it

flows in narrow channels that would be very difficult to locate

given locally available technology. It was recommended that well

drilling was not feasible in the Ringtail site. Surface water is

available in one major and several secondary seasonal streams from

June through April. Rainwater is readily available providing one

has the capability to catch and sanitarily store from 90 inches of

precipitation per year. Most RV farmers set up small interim

collection systems and will expand as funds allow. HHL provides a

water delivery service during the dry season for Ringtail.

Domestic sanitation was a major concern and several options

were developed. The USAID-funded health project built a model

"ventilated improved pit"

latrine (VIP) at the RV community center.

Since this was beyond the budgets of most Ringtailers to build for

family use, homes installed basic pit latrines until better units

could be afforded.

A joint effort to improve housing, water, and sanitation in VOP

with CHF and the USAID health project were frustrated by the

unsettled political situation there.

Conclusions: The overall community development component of the

project exceeded realistic expectations considering that most

funding and technical assistance for surveying, road building,

housing, water, and transportation had to be obtained outside of the

project. The support of HHL, CHF, and Peace Corps proved to be

vital to the success of most of these activities. The key role of

the project in the identification and coordination of these and

other resources was the basis for this success.

The road construction began as a true grassroots effort by the

Ringtailers, gained support from HHL, and was completed with funding

through Peace Corps. Except for the initial opening of the roadway

by MOA equipment, the Ministry of Public Works provided minimal

assistance, even when funding was available to pay for the work.

Housing, which was not realistically expected to begin until

after all cocoa was established, began with individual "bush houses"

32

and then gaining the donation of materials by HHL. The CHF loan

program later came in to support construction of permanent homes and

strengthened the credit union also. At the end of the project

period (October 1987), four families were living on their own farms

and seven new homes were under construction.

H. Provide Institutional Support for Self-reliance.

Background and constraints: The situations in Valley of Peace and

Ringtail Village must be distinguished as above. In VOP there was

really almost no role for the cocoa project to play in this area

since the Refugee Office and UNHCR had already been addressing these

needs for some time. One exception was to consider organizing the

cocoa growers. In contrast, Ringtail had no history and the

residents would need to consider all possibilities for a small rural

community.

Project plan: The general plan was to facilitate the establishment

of participant chosen organizations, enterprises, cooperatives, and

social groups and to assure the capability for their continued

management and development. It was anticipated that this would

focus on groups primarily appropriate to commercial cocoa production

and to rural Belize living.

Based on the initial case studies of RV participants and

follow-up interviews several needs and interests were to be

identified and addressed. The community development adviser

explored the resources available in the government and private

sector to determine the most practical strategies within the scope

of the project. These resources would be enlisted to assist the RV

groups, to establish productive linkages, and to provide training

for the operation of the groups.

Results: Two needs became immediately apparent early in the

establishment of Ringtail Village. First, a new community should

have a representative body to speak for the residents and to

coordinate development activities. Second, RV residents, and most

HHL employees for that matter, lacked knowledge of and access to

basic financial services for savings and credit. The only two

routes for finances available were either through an informal

program of the financial officer of HHL which provided some credit

to employees, or through local syndicates that offer their own

peculiar form of savings by way of a rotating lottery. In fact,

personal savings depended on the time cash could be held in the

pocket, offering little for long-term planning or emergencies.

It was unclear how to address the credit need until the

opportunity for home loans for rural areas became available from

Cooperative Housing Foundation (CHF). The one constraint was that

CHF money was being provided to local credit unions through the

Belize Credit Union League (BCUL) but no credit union was in the

area, not even in Belmopan, the nation's capital city. Fortunately,

this opportunity created the idea that a credit union would be the

answer to several Ringtail needs.

The credit union began by forming linkages with the Ministry of

Cooperatives as required by law and with the Belize Credit Union

33

 League. Additionally, within its first year financial arrangemnts

were established with Cooperative Housing Foundation (CHF) for

housing assistance.

The Hummingbird Credit Union is the first new credit union in

Belize for several years and was labelled by the Minister of Trade

and Commerce at the 1987 annual meeting as the "most promising in

Belize because it was founded to encourage production rather than

consumption". Training was provided to the officers by a project

Peace Corps Volunteer and through representatives from the BCUL at

regular seminars for credit unions. Two officers completed 20 hours

of specialized training in computer literacy to use their computer

donated by the project. Membership, deposits, and loan activity

grew from the beginning and continue. Many members have selected to

have payroll deductions made by HHL for both savings and loan

repayments.

The Ringtail Village Association is legally recognized by the

government to represent the RV residents. Elected officers received

training in various aspects of public administration and have

successfully overseen the acquisition and utilization of the funds

for the community center and road construction. They will continue

be responsible for developing land use policies, community planning,

and obtaining public services available to communities in Belize.

In the Toledo District, the Ministry of Agriculture had

coordinated with HHL a program of cocoa seed distribution for

farmers until 1985. Discontinuation of that effort brought a

request from several farmers for assistance from the cocoa project.

Although Toledo was outside the scope of the project, an established

Peace Corps Volunteer (PCV) working with cocoa farmers could

coordinate activities. The farmers agreed that the most practical

strategy for them would be to form an organization of cocoa farmers

to support ongoing cocoa development in the district.

Representatives of the new group worked with the PCV and cocoa

project director to prepare a terms of reference and constitution.

Application for official recognition was submitted to and eventually

approved by the government. A proposal for institutional funding

was prepared by the project director a-nd team members aid stkibmited

to the Peace Corps SPA program. This formed the basis for the

Toledo Cocoa Growers Association (TCGA).

Since its inception, TCGA has grown to over 105 dues paying

members who have elected officers, participated in training at HHL

and in project workshops, opened a small input supply center with a

paid manager, and become a capable organization to represent the

interests of Toledo cocoa growers. The cocoa project has agreed to

sponsor a series of five 2-day training courses at the Belize

Institute of Management (BIM) for selected members. These will

occur
from January through March 1988 and include the following:

1. Effective Business Management

2. Supervisory Management

3. Finance and Accounting

4. Starting and Managing a Small Business

5. Fundamentals of Marketing

Additionally, TCGA will benefit from assistance of advisers from

Belize Enterprise for Sustained Technology (BEST) in organizational

planning and development.

34

Conclusions: The institutions at RV are very small and need ongoing

contacts to develop and benefit their members. Appropriate

government and private agencies were identified and linkages

established as the groups developed. The village association,

officially linked to the Ministry of Local Government, requested

assistance from and began working with the Cooperative Housing

Foundation (CHF) on the community center building and with the Peace

Corps Special Projects Assistance (SPA) program on the roads. An

informal relationship with Youth With A Mission (YWAM) provided

voluntary assistance for several farmers in need of help and with

the community rainwater storage system.

Hummingbird Credit Union is a clear success in that it has been

strongly supported by a growing membership, initiated innovative

financial programs for it members, and has developed capable

leadership internally to continue performing well. HHL staff

support is valuable.

Toledo Cocoa Growers Association was formed by its members out

of a need for better coordination and technical assistance in cocoa

development. Continued growth of its voluntary membership indicate

its appeal and the confidence that Toledo farmers have in its

leadership. TGCA will continue to improve its services and

undoubtably will benefit from the new Toledo Agriculture Marketing

Project (TAMP) in improved post-harvest processing and marketing of

cocoa and from other donor activities benefiting Toledo District

farmers.

35

 III. LESSONS LEARNED

1. There were significant advantages in combining the interests

and resources of private sector corporation with public and

nonprofit development efforts.

The corporate interests of Hummingbird Hershey were

compatible with the governments in cocoa development and the

implementing PVOs were able to facilitate and enhance the

resources of both to strengthen the project. To support the

project's infrastructure established by the PVOs, HHL

generously contributed use of its facilities, equipment, and

personnel to aid project beneficiaries. Similar

relationships with other projects clearly would improve

development capabilities.

2. The creativity allowed under an Operating Program Grant (OPG)

was responsible for several successful inter-organizational linkages

that significantly expanded the benefits and assured the

sustainability of the project initiatives.

Funding and technical assistance for roads, housing, a

community center, a cocoa growers association, and the credit

un.on were not included in the project budget but are major

accomplishments. Vigorous exploration of resources with

USAID, Cooperative Housing Foundation, and Peace Corps led to

creative solutions which were important to project success.

3. The original project design and expectations were unrealistic

in terms of the rate at which participants could establish

intensive cocoa farms, housing, and community infrastructure while

working full-time jobs.

At Ringtail Village farmers faced with labor requirements of

187 man-hours/acre to establish cocoa could not reasonably be

expected to plant 10 acres of cocoa plus subsistence crops,

build a family residence, and assist with constructing the

new road and community center in evenings and weekends after

their regular work at HHL. Project plans to establish 10

acres per participant will be realized in four or five years

rather than three as became the pattern for the DFC loan

program as well.

Valley of Peace farmers generally lack off-farm income and

capital to establish cocoa at the same rate. A more realistic

program for VOP would have be for them to do a total of five

acres in four years.

36

4. Government capabilities in the key roles of land acquisition

and provision of extension personnel were over-estimated and

caused basic changes in project strategy. Ministry of Agriculture

personnel from all levels should have been much more involved in

initial project design and development to assure clarity of roles

and interests.

Although project design was sound, Ministry of Agriculture

personnel below the Permanent Secretary level did not

participate or contribute in its development. Government

resources are very limited and the project tended to be

perceived as external to the MOA and intruding on their

plans. Misunderstandings regarding objectives and resource

allocations could have been avoided with a better initial

integration in government's activities.

5. The innovation of a continuous evaluation process provided

valuable support and criticism when it was needed rather than after

project completion.

Final evaluations provide good hindsight and the basis for

"lessons learned". The continuous evaluation, performed every

six months with annual retreats, provided fresh insights,

mid-course corrections, and facilitated project management

when and where it was needed.

6. Resolution of the political difficulties in Valley of Peace

were outside the scope of the project, directly constrained cocoa

development efforts, and should have disqualified VOP from

participation.

The lack of a clear public policy on refugees/aliens,

inconsistent representations by government officials about

immigration, land rights, -nd local organizations, and the

erratic development of the local village council out of the

UNHCR refugee project proved to be too disruptive to allow

long-term agricultural activities to proceed. It should have

been apparent in the beginning that, as refugees, VOP people

would require more time and support than were available within

the scope of this project.

7. Local leadership capabilities were critical to the success of

both agricultural and community development components as

demonstrated in the contrasts between Ringtail Village and Valley

of Peace.

Ringtail Village began with the recognized dynamic

leadership of Patrick Scott, HHL Farm Manager, and with a

working comradery that immediately facilitated cooperation

and mutual confidence on their farms.

37

 Valley of Peace, which had cultural tensions between Belizians

and Salvadorians, divided leadership, and little commurity

direction, could not work well in easy times, much less well

in difficult situations. Despite sincere efforts by numerous

hard-working, well intended individuals, VOP clearly illustrated

the need for community cooperation with local leadership.

8. Land assessments for Ringtail Village and Valley of Peace

suitability were unsatisfactory, limited the number of farmers

that could participate, and burdened the project with the major

responsibility to acquire alternative sites.

The criteria for land selection was not well defined and

allowed the Ringtail site to be accepted before it was

completely assessed. The services of the Land and Survey

Department and Central Farm technicians were not properly

included in site identification. The consequences adversely

affected the number of farms available, the percentage of

land that could be cultivated, and required extensive time to

be spent searching for but not obtaining alternative land.

Soils in Valley of Peace proved to be marginally suitable for

cocoa with shallow topsoils over heavy clay or marl subsoils.

9. Seasonal training with an emphasis on practical field

demonstrations is superior for farmers, while more intensive short

courses combining cocoa technology and extension methods is most

effective for extension workers.

Technical training in improved practices for a long-term crop

such as cocoa includes a lot of new information for farmers

used to working on a seasonal basis. Organization of training

into seasonal packets gave the farmer manageable amounts of

fresh information about relevant activities at times when field

demonstrations could show actual materials and examples.

Extension officers who must guide farmers in planning must have,

on the other hand, a comprehensive understanding of cocoa

technology and require more extensive training including the

principles of field practices and special extension methods for

tree crops.

10. The incompatibility of permanent tree crops and annual slash

and burn cropping systems dictates that fire-free areas be

established either by farmers or the government to avoid the

unacceptable risk to long-term crops.

Fire damage at Ringtail Village, Valley of Peace, and

elsewhere in Belize illustrated the incompatibility of slash

and burn agriculture with any kind of permanent crops

including cocoa. geparation of land uses must precede

establishment of trees and can be accomplished by the farmers

38

 such as was done in Stann Creek, or by enforcement of

government restrictions on burning. The risk of lost capital

and labor invested is simply unacceptable and should not be

borne by farmers pursuing productive, sustainable agriculture

that is in the nations and environments interest.

11. The overall economics of small-scale commercial cocoa

production are excellent, but proven recommendations for short-term

cash crops during the four-year establishment period and for

multipurpose intercrops for long-term diversification are limited

and need further development.

Preliminary information developed by Hummingbird Hershey and

in the projct's Cocoa Farm Economic Report indicate that

over a 20 year period a very good economic return in cocoa is

possible. This, however, assumes the resources to endure the

first four years of establishment in which there is no return

on labor or capital. Full-time farmers need better

recommendations for interim cash crops that can be

interplanted with young cocoa and for permanent shade

tolerant intercrops to diversify production.

39

COCOA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OF BELIZE

SPan American Development Foundation

1889 F Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006 USA
(202) 458-3969 Cable: FUPAD Telex: 64128

* , Volunteers In Technical Assistance

1815 N. Lynn St., Suite 200, Arlington, VA 22209 USA

(703) 276-1800 Cable: VITAINC Telex: 440192 VITAUI

Accelerated Cocoa Production Project:

Addendum to Final Report

Prepared by Dr. J.Corven, Project Director

L The Cocoa Development Project was funded by the United States

1 Agency for International Development (USAID/Belize) and
11lfi implemented by PADF & VITA with support from the US Peace Corps.
 ADDENDUM

This report serves as an addendum to the Final Report of the

Accelerated Cocoa Production Project and covers all project activities

conducted from January 1 until June 30, 1988. Approval by USAID/Belize

was given for this no-cost project extension to continue ongoing cocoa

project activities funded by OPG no. 505-0023. The following three

activities were undertaken in cooperation with the Belize Ministry of

Agriculture:

A. Technical training of farmers and extension

officers in Stann Creek and Toledo Districts;

B. Institutional strengthening of the Toledo Cacao

Growers Association through management training;

C. Organization and implementation of the Belize

National Cocoa Forum.

Project extension work in Belize was done during four field trips

conducted according to the following schedule:

March 1-7: Preparations for the technical workshops.

Organization of plans for Cocoa Forum.

April 4-15: Stann Creek workshop (April 7-8).

Toledo workshop (April 12-13).

Preparations for Cocoa Forum.

May
9-13: Final preparations for Cocoa Forum.

June 1-15: Logistics for Cocoa Forum.

Conduct Cocoa Forum (June 8-10)

Compile and distribute Proceedings.

Results and Accomplishments

A. Technical Workshops

The anticipated expansion of cocoa in Stann Creek and Toledo Dis­

tricts requires that the capability to conduct proper land assessments

and to manage cocoa nurseries be well established within the farmer

groups and the extension service. Further, post-harvest processing of

cocoa beans and rehabilitation were also identified as needed subjects

for the 1988 training program. MOA extension officers and farmers

participated in selecting these topics and arranging logistics for the

workshops.

The Stann Creek District workshop was held in Santa Rosa Village and

was attended by 19 farmers from 6 villages and 5 district agricultural

extension officers. Specific topics included nursery establishment,

 -2­

nursery management, and improved field practices. Local extension offi­

cers were responsible for specific presentations and provided excellent

materials. Field trips 7ere taken to nearby farms to demonstrate field

conditions and practices. Participation was very good with farmers join­
ing in presentations, discussions, and asking pertinent questions. The

new cocoa established in 1987 appears to be in satisfactory condition

with plans for expansion established. As a result of the workshop, farm­

ers placed orders for an additional 10,500 seeds (about 21 acres worth)

to be acquired through Hummingbird Hershey in late May or early June.

The MOA extension officer will help coordinate the effort and Help for

Progress will continue the technical assistance we initiated with them in

1987.

The Toledo District workshop was held in San Antonio Village and was

attended by 57 farmers from 9 villages and 6 district agricultural exten­

sion officers. Specific topics included site assessment, rehabilitation,

and fermenting, drying, grading, and storage of cocoa beans. Local

extension officers and the Peace Corps Volunteer accepted responsibility

for several technical presentations as well as the field demonstrations,

and were very effective. Farmer participation was highly enthusiastic

with several offering brief presentations on their own experience in

post-harvest processing and other topics. Following the workshop, three

farmers who are just beginning production transported 400 pounds Uf fer­
mented and dried beans to HHL where they received payment.

These workshops served as a continuation of the effort to strengthen

the MOA extension officers' capabilities in improved cocoa production and

extension methodology. Responsibility for giving the presentations and

field demonstrations was gradually transferred to the extension officers

over the period from March 1987 until April 1988. It was clear that not

only did the extension officers' technical capability increase, but also

their confidence and credibility improved significantly. This should be

reflected in a more vigorous effort by the districts to promote cocoa

production and will secondarily support development of other crops.

B. Institutional Strengthening of TCGA

Arrangements were established between the Toledo Cacao Growers

Association (TCGA) and Belize Institute of Management (BIM) for a series

of seminars in wnich TCGA members participated with financial support

provided by the cocoa project. The following table summarizes the

training completed:

Dates Seminar Attendees

Jan. 13-15 Effective Business Planning

1

Jan. 25-27 Supervisory Management 2

Feb. 22-26 Starting a Small Business 3

Total
6

 -3-

Proposed training in organizational development to TCGA and the

Ringtail Womens Group to be provided by Belize Enterprise for Sustained

Technology (BEST) was not approved by the Ministry of Agriculture and the

activity had to be cancelled.

C. Belize National Cocoa Forum

The first Belize National Cocoa Forum was held June 8-10, 1988, at

the Belmopan Convention Hotel. The official opening was done by Rt.

Honorable Manuel Esquivel, Prime Minister of Belize and the Keynote

Address was provided by Hon. Dean Lindo, Minister of Agriculture.

Special Guest Speakers included Dr. Oleen Hess, Director, PADF Eastern

Caribbean Project, Mr. Inge Nordang, IFAD/Rome, and Mr. Peter Lapera,

USAID/Belize.

Attendance was better than expected with delegates representing

governmental ministries, parastatal institutions, numerous private

voluntary organizations and producer groups, private cocoa and agricul­

tural businesses, as well as cocoa farmers from three southern districts

of Cayo, Stann Creek, and Toledo.

At least two Ministry of Agriculture extension officers from every

district in the country participated with financial support from the

Cocoa Project. Ten officers were awarded certificates of participation

by PADF in recognition of their professional efforts and contribution to

cocoa development in Belize.

The Toledo Cacao Growers Association (TCGA) funded four members to

attend the Forum. Other cocoa grower groups in Toledo and Stann Creek

selected sixteen representatives to attend for whom the Cocoa Project

provided financial assistance for transportation and accommodations.

There was a total of 79 registered delegates with several additional

visicers attending selected panels. The following is a breakdown of

participants:

Ministry of Agriculture .......................... 22

Private cocoa farmers ............................ 15
Private Voluntary Organizations .................. 14
Hummingbird Hershey/Hershey Foods ................ 7
Government of Belize (non-MOA) ................... 6
Farmer organization representatives .............. 5
International/diplomatic personnel ............... 5
Peace Corps ...................................... 3
Private businesses ............................... 2

Each panel consisted of 3-4 subject experts who presented a selected

paper within the topic coordinated by a moderator who previewed and

summarized the material. A discussion period followed each panel in

which all participants were given an opportunity to ask questions and

 - 4 ­

offer remarks. In general, questions and remarks were excellent and

strengthened the panels' contribution to the Forum. All panelists

submitted written copies of their papers, and these along with with a

transcribed record of the discussions were published in the Forum

Proceedings.

The format of the Forum consisted of seven panels organized and

conducted as follows:

Panel 1: Policy and Planning. The Ministries of Agriculture,

Economic Development, and Natural Resources representatives provided

official presentations of public policy and plans regarding general

public support, agricultural programs, and land resources. The discus­

sion period focused on issues of land policy with strong concern

expressed over land tenure in Toledo the need for better land assessments

to identify cocoa areas.

Panel 2: Economics and Marketing of Cocoa. Topics related to

agricultural economics and marketing of cocoa were discussed by repre­

sentatives of Development Finance Corporation, MOA Policy and Planning

Department, Cocoa Advisory Board, and PADF. Questions were raised by the

audience concerning the dependability of economic projections for Belize

and the world market for cocoa.

Panel 3: Cocoa Production Factors. Technical aspects of cocoa

production were presented by Hummingbird Hershey Ltd. staff including

propagation, management, pest management, and post-harvest technology.

Most of the discussion centered on issues of hybrid versus vegetative

propagation and their relative cost-benefits for small farmers in Belize.

Panel 4: Scientific Research. Results of field studies were pre­

sented by the Ministry of Agriculture station in Toledo, Hummingbird

Hershey, Hershey Foods Corporation, and a private cocoa farmer. These

papers documented the results of initial research projects involving

field trials with fertilizer;, shade, intercrops, and fermentation

methods. The questions drew attention to the economics of the various

recommendations including intercrop revenues and establishment costs.

Panel 5: Extension and Technical Assistance. Experience and

programs in extension were discussed by extension officers from Stann

Creek and Toledo, Hummingbird Hershey, and the Toledo Cacao Growers

Association. These papers documented the efforts and constraints of

growing public and private extension programs in Belize. The follow-up

discussion questioned plans for expanding the extension service to small

farmers.

Panel 6: Development Programs and Resources. Organization

rdpresentatives provided previews of the planned cocoa-related projects

supported by USAID and IFAD. A narrated slide presentation of the

Accelerated Cocoa Project was given by PADF. There were questions that

clarified details of the new projects.

 - 5 -

Panel 7: Conclusions and Recommendations. The moderator of each

preceeding panel served as a panelist on this final panel summarizing

their topics and formulating recommendations based on the papers and

discussions. Their reports were supplemented by comments and suggestions

and are attached to this addendum.

D. Conclusions

The technical training clearly was of interest to farmers and

extension officers as reflected in their enthusiastic participation. The

information was practical and relevant for both farmers and extension

personnel and complemented material available in the previous workshops

and technical guides published under the project. Field demonstrations

were not only useful in illustrating field practices but in showing the

-benefits already realized by farmers incorporating improved practices in

their management.

Management training by BIM served to broaden the capabilities of the

TCGA officers and to get new leaders started in management level activi­
ties. Since the seminars were brief and specific, continued training and

support will be necessary to encourage application of the principles in­

volved. TCGA is a growing association (130 members as of June 8, 1988),

but is experiencing serious difficulties in defining its goals and

responsibilities. Additional guidance in defining its structure and

management priorities should be a major priority of the TAMP effort.

This must be done so that ultimate responsibility for decisions and

actions rests with the TCGA membership and is not pressured to satisfy

preconceived concepts of what the group should do.

Remarks following the Forum indicate widespread satisfaction that the

important issues were well orga:.ized and presented by panelists, the di­
verse participation from public, technical, and economic sctors provided

an integrated perspective on issues, and that the overall knowledge and

enthusiasm for cocoa has been significantly advanced by the Forum.

The Forum provided a dynamic format for the exchange of technical

information and issues. The participants contributed to and benefitted

from the program in a very constructive manner. Although cocoa develop­

ment has been gradual in Belize, interest in continued growth of the

cocoa industry in Belize has never been greater, and the Forum reinforced

this atmoephere. An informed and enthusiastic foundation has been estab­

lished on which the Toledo Agricultural Marketing Project can build.

4248c/1-5

 POLICY AND PLANNING

Conclusions and Recommendations

the papers presented and the subsequent discussion revealed

that there is an effective government policy for the development

of the cocoa industry, and that this policy is being

implemented.

There would seem to be a general understanding of the policy

by those most concerned.

One aspect not covered in the papers presented nor raised in

the subsequent discussion is that of marketing, and an early

policy decision on marketing channels is desirable.

The agri,'ulture policy of the Government of Belize is based

on diversification of production, the free play of market forces

and with special emphasis on export crops. The development of
the cocoa industry has a high priority, having a guaranteed
market and being very suited to small farm production.
Government has amply demonstrated its commitment to cocoa
production by way of development concessions, feeder roads,

allocation of lands, etc.

Even more emphatic has been the close co-operation between

the Government and the various development agencies in special

projects, such as the Ringtail Village, the Accelerated Cocoa

Development and with the upcoming Toledo Small Farmers

Development Project.

The Prime Minister's opening address emphasized further the

Government's commitment to the development of

the cocoa

industry, and indeed highlighted the progress already made and

the close co-operation and effectiveness achieved with the

various development agencies in this project in contrast to some

others.

During discussions on land availability, it was emphasized

that the total land available for allocation was limited and

that sultable for cocoa production even more so. Belizeans

could readily obtain lands, as could non-Belizeans provided they

eatlified certain conditions.

Soil surveys have been carried out in great detail in the

Belize River Valley and parts of

the Toledo and Stann Creek

Diiricts, ~More surveys are projected for 1989 through the UK

Technical Assistance Programme. Subsequently a land -,emap

will be prepared which will, it is claimed, make the decision to

dereserve or
enlarge land reserves etc. a scientific one rather

than a more arbitrary one, as at present.

 One queries too much reliance on such surveys, experience in

the banana industry has shown that soils previously considered

unsuitable have proven to be fine, although sometimes new

techniques have to be employed.

In a discussion on lands, some confusion arose over the

procedure to be followed by an applicant for land for a

particular development project. It would seem desirable to

streamline this process. The problems arising from the

r.omnunally held Indian reserves was raised -- the problem

remains.

Would-be cocoa farmers in Toledo were advised to obtained

lands outside of the reserves, thus enabling them to have

collateral for loans.

Another matter of concern is the restriction of development

concessions to larger scale farmers, thus denying the small

farmer of the benefits of duty free entry for project inputs

etc. Whilst it would not be administratively feasible to grant

_rall farmers development concessions individually, some-of the

benefits could be achieved if such concessions were available to

grower s cooperatives.

Many agricultural inputs such as fertilizers are duty-free,

but some such as insecticides and fungicides are not, this is an

area where Government could materially assist small farmers by

making essential inputs duty free.

A point raised during discussions was that cocoa was by no

means a new industry to Belize, that one of the earlier attempts

was wiped out by Hurricane Hattie, when in the first years of

development. In view of this had any thought been given to

linsurl rig the crop. Investigations revealed that the costs of

such insurance were prohibitive.

In conclusion, with the possible exception of marketing, the

policiez of the Government of Belize in respect of the cocoa
industry seem adequate. The implementation of the poiicy is
proceeding apace. Thanks to the close cooperation between
Government and the various development agencies.
 ECONOMICS AND MARKETING

Conclusions and Recommendations

Present Status of Cocoa in Belize

As agriculture has been placed as first priority on the

Government's list of industries and as their is a strong determi­

nation to diversify and broaden our agricultural base, the

production of cocoa has been revived from the 1950's.

Since 1977 cocoa production has been gradually increasing by

means of new averages and by rehabilitation of old groves. This

has been accomplished by larger farmers averaging in excess of

50 acres of cocoa and small farmers with averages ranging from 1

to 20 acres. There is a renewed interest by farmers to

establish and cultivate cocoa as is evident by your

participation in field demonstrations carried out over the past

several years and also by your participation at this forum.

Cocoa cultivation by small farmers may perform better than

larger plantations as this crop is easily intercropped and can

use the labour of all members of the household. It is estimated

that more than 40% of the world cocoa production is provided by

farmers not having more than three acres of cocoa.

Puestions have been asked whether or not yields of up to 800

lbs per acre can be achieved. The answer is yes it is. HHL has

achieveci 600 lbs/acre in snme field and has an average over its

400 acres of approximately 500 lbs per acre. This is similar to

the Eastern Caribbean.

However, several factors of cocoa production must be

addressed in order to achieve those production levels. These

lactors have been discussed in other presentations during the

forum and pertains to the agricultural practices needed to grow

cocoa.

Presently the few main components for the success of cocoa

productions has already been addressed. Some cocoa can be grown

in' somie solis of Belize, the technical know how of cocoa

cultivation is available through several public and private

Qgan$zaitons, processing facilities and processing know how is

available to cocoa farmers and even have already established a

market.

Use of the available technical assistance provided by local

sources. Learning techniq.es in fermentation and drying to

ensure a relatively high quality cocoa bean.

Economics of Cocoa Production in Belize

To be able to be a successful farmer, one must be able to

produce his goods cheaper than the price he is being paid for

his goods. This can be achieved by several methods. Lower the

cost of your inputs by correct applications for the most

economic return, supplementing your income from one crop with

the income from another (diversification/intercropping), knowing

your capabilities and not over extending your acreage.

Production figures and cost of production has been compiled

from data made available to the Accelerated Cocoa Production

Project and are consistent with the industry at that time.

Lending agencies have also scrutinized these figures and agree

that they are realistic.

Cost vary from individual to individual and it is the

responsibility of the individual to make his own projection

prior to investing in any crop not only cocoa. As is with

agricultural practices, a farmer should check to see if his land

is suitable for a crop so should he to see if he can make money

from what he is about to plant.

Conclusion

Evaluation undertaken on the progress of the cocoa industry

from its inception until now, indicate that some success has

been achieved in areas such as training, institution building,

project awareness, research and production.

It is now necessary for all relevant participating agencies

to cooperate and to coordinate their activities for the purpose

of continuin g the development of a viable cocoa industry.

It is believed that more effort should be made to encourage

farmers and other prospective investors to take advantage of the

availability of credit and other supporting services.

Loan applications for cocoa production can be made at the

DFC Head Office in Belmopan and its branch offices in Dangrig-a

and in Punta Gorda.

Marketing Options and Prospects for Cocoa

There are several options available to the cocoa producer

for the marketing of their produce. These being individual

eales of wet or dry cocoa to HHL, individual sales of fermented

dried cocoa to a Cocoa Growers Association for sale to HHL, or

another cocoa buyer such as the New York Coffee Sugar & Cocoa

Exchange, sale of wet beans to a Cocoa Growers Association which

in turn ferments, dries and sells the bean to cocoa buyers.

 Processing of the cocoa bean is another market option but an

in-depth market research would be required to establish feasible

markets, the technical knowledge required to process the cocoa

beans, and the amount of capital required to do such a venture.

At present HHL is committed to purchase all cocoa bean of

acceptable quality grown in Belize at World Market prices less

handling and shipping costs. This commitment will stand as long

as HHL maintains its operations in Belize and should HHL

discontinue active operations in Belize, then Hershey Foods

Corporation will establish buying representative to continue the

cocoa buying function for a minimum of five years beyond that

date.

Based on the World Bank 1986 Report No. 814/86, 1986 and as

the past is the best indication of the future, it is anticipated

that the prices of cocoa will reverse its downward trend. The

rise and fall of commodity prices is not restricted to cocoa but

to all consumer- goods. A farmer would be better off planting

cocoa in the years when cocoa prices are down so as to be able

to be selling cocoa when the prices are rising and not the

reverse.

Recommendations

The marketing arrangement with HHL is good. This

arrangement should be kept as long as possible. It would be

wise to know at what volume of purchases will HHL deviate from

the present policy of buying all beans produced in order to

develop alternative marketing arrangements for sale of excess

production.

Try to keep the highest quality as our volume of production

has little or no impact on the world price.

Develop the Cocoa Growers Association into a strong

organization to be able to process a high quality bean and to

defend the interests of members. This will involve credit,

training and perhaps technical assistance.

Continue to train the growers in better management practices

to get higher yields and quality.

Strengthen the extension staffs of Ministry of Agriculture

and HHL in cocoa knowledge and experience.

Further effort should be directed at the construction and

rehabilitation of feeder roads in the cocoa production areas to

allow for all weather passing to facilitate the production and

marketing processes.

Cocoa disease management must continue to be a team effort

including Ministry of Agriculture, HHL, CGA, growers and input

suppliers, etal.

An integrated crop management system must be encouraged to

allow for adequate cash flow situation during the gestation

perioa of the cocoa crop.

 COCOA PRODUCTION FACTORS

Conclusions and Recommendations

Panel Ill, Cocoa Production Factors consisted of four

panelists, Mr. Simon Willacey, Mr. Patrick Scott, Mr. Felipe

Magana and Mr. Michael Bradley whose respective papers were

titled: (1) Cocoa Planting Materials and Propagation (2) Manage­

iment and Field Practices (3) Pest and Disease Management in

Belize and (4) Post Harvest Processing of Cocoa Beans. These

papers discussed the various factors influencing the establish­

ment of a successful cocoa plantation in Belize with the

eventual objective of obtaining satisfactory levels of productiv­

ity and quality of the final product.

Starting with nursery establishment it was pointed out that

planting material could originate from either hybrid seeds,

rooted cuttings, air layering or budding. The relative

successes with each type of planting material tested at

Huimi ngibird Hershey Limited were detailed, with the resulting

recommendation that patch budding as a form of vegetative

propag ation: proves to be the most feasible alternative to the

use of hybrid seeds. Arguments for and against the latter two

methods were that (i.)Hybrid seeds are the cheapest and most

easily grown planting material, (2) production from hybrid seeds

is. inconsistent and unpredictable, (3) it costs more to produce
a budded tree than a hybrid seedling (4) budded trees need
continuous pruning and staking for at least 2 years (5) budded
trees grow less vigorously than hybrids but have a higher and

more uniform production Other important requirements for

nursery establishment elaborated on were the need for the
availability of an uncontaminated water source, shade, good
potting material and control of insect pests and fungal

diseases.

Lana-ement and Field Practices for cocoa production focused

on personnel management skills for developing the right attitude
towards= work so as to increase efficiency and encourage
initiative of the human element, which is an important factor in

the labour intensive activity ot cocoa production. Proper

training in field practices such as pruning, fertilizing,

harvesting, weed and pest control, sanitation, machinery

maintenance and safety of operations was emphasized. Similarly

trainini was directed at improving the post harvest processing

methods to achieve quality cocoa beans for export.

On Pest and Disease Management of cocoa plantations in

Belize the panelist emphasized the necessity for the integrated

poet mfinargeiment approach to avoid the indiscriminate use of

pesticides which could compound the problem. Proper monitoring

of pest and disease incidence, good cultural practices and a

good understanding of the causative agents of disease were
impor-tant to reduce cost and increase efficiency of maintaining
a healthy cocoa plantation. The point was stressed that in

Belize at this time there are relatively few pests and diseases

in cocoa compared to other parts of the world. The most serious

disease occurring in Belize is Black Pod (Phytophthora

palmivora) for which control measures at HHL were explained.

Other minor diseases and pests currently found in Belize were

mentioned and recommended methods for control were given. The

overriding need for quarantine measures was noted to prevent the

entry of serious diseases which could endanger our young cocoa

industry in Belize.

The final stage of cocoa production by small farmers and by

HHL in Belize is the post harvest fermentation and drying of

-ocoa beans. The panelist explained the chemical reactions

taking place during fermentation which are responsible for the

development of the characteristic cocoa f]evour and indicated

that in this process the flavour of the cocoa can be enhanced or

destroyed. The use of temperature, time and aeration in the

fermentation and drying process for box fermentation and heap

fermentation was outlined based on HHL methods, and the

importance of the interrelationship of these variables for

a

quality dried product was emphasized. Factors affecting the

quality of the fermented product are (a) ripeness of pods (b)

pod diseases (c) type of cocoa (d) climatic and seasonal

differences (e) storage of pods (f) quality of cocoa and (g)

duration and turning. It was also pointed out that beans

extracted by hand are free from foreign agents and the potential

for good ferments are therefore better than beans extracted from

mechanically broken pods.

Good quality dried beans commanding

premium price should be free from moulds, extraneous matter and

defective beans.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Participants in the iorum were particularly concerned that

the use of hybrid seed imported from Costa Rica and the

Dominican Republic which gave extremely variable yields were too

riskcy to be used as planting material in the small farmer

project.. Whilst parentage of

the hybrid seeds imported are

icnown there are not adequate records of the resultant crosses

emerging from the mixing of seeds which was necessary due to

self-incopatibility of the hybrids. HHL explained that 500 lbs
per acre was the average yield potential of the different
hybrids. It was concluded that vegetative propagation of good
small

performance trees was the only way of estimating yields in

farmer holdings with a high level of confidence. In response to

questions raised by farmers it

was suggested that farmers could

Identify their non high yielding trees to use as budwood

material and HHL would render assistance in training farmers to

do budding.

The question was asked whether seeds produced from F,

hybrids have potential use for production. It was decided that

since a 30% reduction in hybrid vigour could be expected from

planting of 1 2 seeds, these seeds should be used only as

rootstocks and not for production.

On tertilizer usage for cocoa at HHL the recommendations

were three applications per year using 23:1b:16 at a rate of

2 oz./seedling and increasing to 6 - 8 oz./application for the

mature tree. Site selection and soil testing were essential to

ensure adequate fertility.

For small farmer fermentation HHL recommended heap fermenta­

tion for small batches of around 300 lbs and box fermentation if

in excess of 1,000 lbs.

The question of pest control in relation to woodpeckers was

raised in connection with the potential impact the shooting of

these birds could have on the tourism industry. The use of

scarecrows in the form of an owl figure or an owl eye design

appears to be effective in scaring woodpeckers according to HHL.

Price and availability to small farmers was not discussed.

(j

 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Conclusions and Recommendations

Research into the selection of good agronomic practices for

cocoa production and controlled post-harvest processing of the

beans, under local conditions, are underway. Research is being

done by a unit in HHL under the supervision of Hershey Food Ltd.

and at TREC of the Ministry of Agriculture. Very useful

information is also forthcoming from practical farmer field

experience. The provision of suitable high yielding practices

emanating from these combined efforts will enable us to supplant

borrowed technology with that appropriate for cocoa production

in Cayo, Stann Creek and Toledo.

A range of trials have been established at Hershey and on

farmers' fields. These include the evaluation of fertilizer

respoise, differing shade regime, pest and disease control,

evaluation of hybrid lines and the use offence planing of high

yielding plants for mechanical cultivation. In the all

important area of bean processing, studies are underway to

determine the flavour by controlling the fermentation and drying

processes. The studies will attempt to quantify optimum

physical conditions for the production of flavour precursors, to

reduce seasonal variation in fermentation and drying, to

evaluate the contribution of microbes to flavour and to identify

the biochemical constituents associated with any particular

flavour.

The distribution of bearing trees is not normal in most

cases, however, as the environment is made more optimum for the

cocoa plant the yield distribution becomes more normal. The

fact that a larger proportion of trees are non-bearing can be

telling us
that the genetic make up of the cocoa planted are not

those that would produce high yields. On the other hand, it

can

be telling us that environmental factors are not suitable for

cocoa. A large part of the practice of agricultural research

and practical farming is aimed at modifying the agroecosystem so

as to improve crop yields and profits.

The fact that farmers often do not obtain more than 25% of

the yield potential of hybrids that has been demonstrated in

experiment station trials is evidence that the package of

agronomic practices is deficient when compared to that used at

the experiment stations. This situation is unlikely to change

if superior clonal material is distributed to farmers and it

is

poesible that the percentage of genetic potential for yield

exploited by farmers may decline

even as total yield increase.

The point of all of this is that Agronomic research in its

broadest sense
must be actively pursued, extension research

results to farmers must be vigorous. Communication from the

farmer through the Extension Service to research must be

continuing.
If and when this is done there is an excellent

chance that the cocoa industry in Belize will be viable in the

face of the various problems facing it.

Preliminary results from the field trials have highlighted

the need to:

a. have adequate shade for the young plant.

b.
manage the temporary and permanent shade as crops in their

own right. The selection of shade trees with multiple

use

was advocated.

depend

c. consolidate
use of hybrid seeds and to increasingly
yielding plants.

on vegetative planting material from high

of

Research will have to play a key role

in the development
answers such as

the cocoa crop in Belize. Several areas require

water us=e
and management, fertilizer requirements for differing

high -density

soil conditions, fertilizer use and pest control in

stand= and the standardization of fermentation and drying at

farmer level.

Concerted elforts are needed to transfer new and known

benefits

techniques to farmers and to make them aware of

the
The importance of using good farmers' fields

that can accrue.

as demonstrations cannot be overemphasized.

 EXTENSION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Conclusions and Recommendations

Extension Officers from the Stann Creek and Toledo Districts

presented papers describing AE;ricultural Extension activities

and training in their respective districts. Their presentations

showed that the Ministry of Agriculture was instrumental in

promoting the cultivation of cacao in those districts. This

activity began in 1983 when the Ministry provided hybrid cacao

seeds through Hummingbird Hershey Ltd. to farmers. The seeds

were provided on credit to be repaid when the crop was

harvested.

Farmers responded positively, particularly after Hummingbird

Hershey Ltd. along with the Ministry of Agriculture provided

training programs for farmers.

With the commencement of the Cocoa Accelerated Project in

1984, training was emphasized and organized for farmers and

Extension Officers. The Cocoa Accelerated Project encouraged

the assignment of a Cocoa Officer, a Peace Corps Volunteer, who

organized farmers into a Cocoa Growers Association. Peace Corps

provided a grant of 110,000 to be used by this Association to

purchase agro-chemicals and seeds.

The Officer from the Cocoa Growers Association also

presented a paper explaining how the Association was organized

including a brief history of cocoa cultivation in Belize.

Ihe Officer from Hummingbird Hershey Ltd. presented a paper

in which he emphasized farmer involvement along with more

training required for various groups.

From these presentations and previous panels the following

conclusions were made.

1. The Agricultural Extension service will play an important

role in the IFAD and TAMP projects where the production of

cocoa will be further promoted.

In order to have the desired impact, Extension Officers

should be facilitated with proper transportation and housing

facilities to be located within the farming communities.

This frequent farmer contact, will provide information to

justify any modifications required in the implementation of

the programs.

2. Training should continue for farmers, Extension Officers and

their supervisors particularly in:

a. group dynamics

b. Extension communication

c. coordination with other organizations

 d. involvement of farmers in programme planning and

implementation
e. designing of Extension Programs to include women in the
training programs

The Extension Service must undertake some activities in

order to accomplish its goals. It must hi-e female Extension

Officers; it must liaise closely with the adaptive research

conducted at HHL;
it must make use of local values and customs

such as the fahina where farmers pool their resources and labour

to achieve a target.

One of the main goals of Extension will be to encourage

farmers to establish a balance between cocoa and subsistence

crops.

The papers clearly showed Lhat much could be achieved by

coordinating activities with the private voluntary organizations

and Hummingbird Hershey. Farmer involvement will continue

to be

encouraged to ensure continuity.

 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND RESOURCES

Conclusions and Recommendations

by Inge Nordang

This panelist did not

submit a document for publication.

 I-a.nel Vii - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATiONS

Mr. Eric King - Policy and Planning and Land Use

Mr. Richard Burn - Economics and Marketing
Ms. Francine Hyde - Cocoa Production Factors
Dr. Marila Holder - Scientific Research
Mr. Eirain Aldana - Extension and Technical Assistance

Mr. Inge Nordang - Development Programs and Resources

Discussion

Williams: We will make sure that Mr. King's comment on duty

concessions will be addressed. It

is under analysis now.

How do
we address Mickey Craig's concern with lead poisoning

of woodpeckers?

Chanona: How do we go about obtaining sufficient high

quality planting material for 4,000 to 5,000 acres?

Ico: In case of budding, I would suggest we get one

farmer in each village to be trained as well as an Extension
OClticer, so we don't have to run lor Extension Officer when­
ever we need to ato budding.

Chanona: Mr. Aldana, do you see problems with training

extension officers for 1,000 new farms?

Aldana: We need to get farmers more involved. Not just

someone to get the iniormation himself, but to train other

larmers iii the techniques.

Burn: That opportunity has existed for ten years - we

ave ,-.oldu ted training! sessions on farms. Farmers cre
housed arid instructed. All they need to do is call to set
up a time.

Holder: Regarainpg planting materials, the aim is not to

but
to raise

replace hybrid seeds with vegetative material

1:rieyi in con.jurnctioni, since there is a limitation of good
material
vegetative material.
Farmers can use propagative
from tneir own best trees.

and

Chanona:
Extension Service with Government of Belize
Herehey can arrange training for these new farmers. Farmers.
in roledo District can be trained to select high quality
I'd like to

budding material and in the budding technique. ).

will be

(land surveys
ask Mr. King if this information

available to the farmers and the public.

unless

Kling:
I see no reason for doing these surveys to

or otherwise

made available
they are published and sold
past.

the public, they have been

in the
Holder: Both the Belize River Valley Survey and the

Charles Wright Survey are not very available. There are

copies at the Central Farm Library. Toledo surveys are

available from the British High Commission. The Stann Creek

report is not published yet but should be by the end of the

year by the British High Commission.

Chanona: In regard to conservation impact - do you see

problems with 1,000 acres of

land being cleared? What

recommendations would you make?

Craig: For conservation, farmers must understand the

importance of caring for what you have. Land must stay

productive not just for your lifetime but for your children

and grandchildren. Our neighbours from Central America

don't know proper methods for conservation. There will be a

real problem in a few years along the Hummingbird.

The Pesticide Control Board consist of 14 persons, including

the Audubon Society. There will be three categories of

pesticide restricted, registered and
. Farmers
don't have time to be on boards, so you need to have

conlidence in DFC, Hershey, extension people who are

on

boards. Hopeiully, chemicals banned will

stay banned.
I
fy=.eli use restricted chemicals for termites.

Franklin: I think the Hummingbird landscape is being raped

and needs to be addressed. Not just land, but waterways are
oy pesticides, nitrates (fertilizers). It
being polluted
ends up being a risk/benefit thing. Do we die of hunger or

put nitrites in our water?

Forestry conservation and

Audubon Society are working very hard.

The business

community is working on environment protection and training

for safety. They want

a good image. We donate pesticides

for rat control to the Audubon Society every year. So

pesticides do have a place. We need an integrated

approach

IPM (Integrated Pest

to pest control.
HHL has a good
Ma anaceiiient) program research is put into it.

with

The Pesticide Control Board is working hard to come up

a plan to include pesticide safety.

Carlos: On marketing,
HHL has done a great job promoting

cocoa, But now we are talking about business, about people

(HHL)

putting their life savings into cacao.

Are you
prepared to enter into contracts with farmers for a

guaranteed price?

Burn:
We have contracted with the Government of Belize

don't know anyone

to buy all
cocoa at world market price.
I
else who offers such an open-ended deal. I don't know of

any company that offers guaranteed prices.

Patterson: Yes, we do encourage you to seek other buyers, to

 encourage a competitive market. It's the only way you can

convince yourself that you are getting a good deal from us.

Burn: I ask Mr. Carlos, would you do that? Offer a

guaranteed price for an indefinite time?

Car los: is there a negotiated agreement between HHL and

GOB? Can it be extended to farmers co-op?

Burn: There is a contract for all cocoa beans grown in

Belize, as long as HHL is in Belize and five years beyond

date of withdrawal.

Carlos: Will you sign contracts with farmers' coops?

Burn: Our price will go up, or down as soon as contract

is up.

Ico: We signed a contract in 1971, of which Mr. Aldana

knows the story. You have to know exactly what percentage

you will get. I'm not -z favor of contracts for guaranteed

price.

Chavarria: 1928 law for Indian reserves need to be updated.

Indians have become budding capitalists, they have been on

the periphery but they need to be addressed. Numbers are
coming in (Ketchi and Maya) from Guatemala, because of
persecution. They need to be given a chance at national
landz. I was disappointed to hear there are six official
and six unolficial reserves. These need to be defined by
Government. Many Indians have decided to relocate.

Downard: intercropping has been recommended. I've not

heard of the disadvantages - mango, avocado, etc. attract

insect pests, plantain can damage cacao trees. Is there any

other intercrop besides plantain that could be used?

Burn: Cocoa production is an individual business we

tried plantains without success but Mr. Chanona tried it

successfully. Even shade trees must be handled as a crop.

You can't intercrop citrus and cocoa because both require a

large area at the same height, however, other combinations,

like coconut, do work.

Casteneda: Indian lands need to be resolved as soon as

possible so that Indians have lands defined before IFAD and

TAMP are started.

Carlos: I'd like to commend BEST, and other private

voluntary organizations and a new one, ANDA. We hope this

kind ol vroup will gain the recognition from Government that

they deserve.

Flowers: We have a committee set up to look at the Indian

issue. Probably some Indians will be allowed to live on the

reserve, while others will get private lands.

Recommendation will be made to the appropriate ministry when

they are decided upon.

Chanona: Does IFAD have plans to do marketing research to

help in the efforts of the Toledo farmers?

Nordang: We are cooperating with TAMP on marketing research

to find additional markets for such things as annatto.

Williams: Regarding the teaching of techniques to farmers,

one way is a radio program every Wednesday morning - Mr.

Scott could give radio announcements. Also, we could distri­

bute pamphlets through PVO's, and Extension Officers. Make

Information available.

Patterson: There is an information flow problem with

vegetative propagation vs. hybrid seed. There is a severe

shortage of vegetative propagation material in Belize. The

tree has to show excellence year after year for seed size,

yearly for pod bearing. At HHL we have designated 100 trees

but they are good trees perhaps only for Hershey farms.

They might not perform over time or at other locations.

Chanona: There should be technical work done in the field.

There is the obvious need for the Cocoa Advisory Board to be

revitalized - a land study. There is also a need for

extension agents to be
aware of new land being brought under

cocoa cultivation and pesticide safety. 1 still do a

certain amount of slash and burn for various reasons. It
can be used well but it can also be very destructive. We
see the need for a governing agency responsible for cocoa
production.