University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL COCOA FARMING SYSTEMS IN ATWIMA MPONUA DISTRICT OF GHANA BY JOSEPH BANDANAA (10277380) THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF PHD IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE DEGREE INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND SANITATION STUDIES COLLEGE OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON FEBRUARY 2022 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh DECLARATION I, Joseph Bandanaa, do hereby declare that the work presented in this thesis titled: “SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL COCOA FARMING SYSTEMS IN ATWIMA MPONUA DISTRICT OF GHANA” was done entirely by me in the Institute for Environment and Sanitation Studies, University of Ghana, Legon except where references of other people’s work were duly acknowledged. This work has never been presented in part or whole for any degree in this University or elsewhere. Joseph Bandanaa PhD Candidate Date: 07.02.2022 This thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as supervisors. Prof. Isaac K. Asante Prof. Irene S. Egyir (Major Supervisor) (Co-supervisor) Date: 08.02.2022 Date: 08.02.2022 Dr. Ted Y. Annang (Co-supervisor) (Co-supervisor) Date: 08.02.2022 Date: 07.02.2022 i University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh DEDICATION I dedicate this piece of work to my late dad, Meteu-Naa Bandanaa Chielinah, my lovely mothers, Rosina Bandanaa and Irene Egyir, my wife, Fella Babuuhu, and my son Jaden Mwinnumbu Bandanaa. ii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ABSTRACT Cocoa, a major source of livelihood for smallholder farmers in Ghana, is produced using conventional practices. Conventional cocoa production depends on high energy and input use. Organic practices were introduced in the late 1990s as an environmentally friendly option that depends on low external input use. Organic cocoa production has the potential to contribute profitability increases through premiums from higher added value. The full potential of organic agriculture and its suitability as a future solution to key agricultural challenges is still not adequately recognised. The study addresses three objectives: (1) comparison of the sustainability performance of organic with conventional cocoa farming system in terms of environmental integrity, economic resilience, social wellbeing, and good governance, (2) identification of trade-offs and synergies within and among the sustainability dimensions of the two farming systems, and (3) the impact of organic and conventional cocoa practices on environmental efficiency. The Sustainability Monitoring and Assessment Routine (SMART-farm tool) and Mann-Whitney U test used to test the mean rank differences between environmental integrity, economic resilience, social well- being, and good governance of the two farming systems. Using the principal component analysis (PCA) method, trade-offs, and synergies between thirty (30) sub-themes of environmental integrity and social wellbeing were identified. The publicly available specification (PAS) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) method were used to determine the impact of organic and conventional cocoa practices on environmental efficiency, using GHGs emissions. The 2017 Organic Farm Systems for Africa (OFSA) database was used to compare the sustainability performance, as well as the identification of trade-offs and synergies between environmental integrity and social wellbeing of two cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District. The 2015-2017 ProEco Africa database was used to determine the impact of organic and conventional cocoa practices on environmental efficiency. In comparing the sustainability performance of organic with conventional cocoa farming systems, the study found the organic farming system to perform better in terms of land degradation, greenhouse gases, profitability, gender equity, and full cost accounting, compared to the conventional. Of the possible pairs among the sustainability dimensions, 52 sub themes were positive and strongly correlated (p < 0.05) for organic farming system suggesting synergies; whiles 32 (30 positive and 2 negative) and were strongly correlated (p < 0.05) for the conventional farming system. The study found more synergies within and among the sustainability dimensions for the organic cocoa farming system compared to conventional. Organic cocoa production (13.29 kg CO2 eq per kg) is environmentally efficient compared to conventional (17.67 kg CO2 eq per kg). There is a need for improvement in the sustainability performance of cocoa farming systems by Cocoa Health and Extension Division (CHED), Tano Biakoye organic cooperative and the department of agriculture. Conserving biodiversity should be prioritise by conventional farmers and they should be encouraged to use indigenous knowledge in the planning and implementation of cocoa sustainability programmes or projects. iii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS “Ebenezer, this is how far the Lord has brought me’’… My ultimate gratitude goes to the Almighty God for His wisdom, understanding, mercies and favour to me from the beginning to the completion of this work. My sincerest appreciation goes to my supervisors, Prof. Isaac K. Asante, Prof. Irene S. Egyir, Dr. Ted Y. Annang and Dr. Christian Schader for their guidance and diverse contributions towards the success of the study. Without their advice, criticisms and directions, this work would not have been completed. The funding of this PhD study was made available by the Dutch Humanist Institute for Cooperation (Hivos), the Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation (SDC) and the Mercator Foundation Switzerland through the ProEcoAfrica and OFSA projects (www.proecoafrica.net) led by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland. Special thanks to the project coordinator, Dr. Irene Kadzere, for her immense contribution throughout the PhD studies. I would also like to thank Anja Heidenreich and Blockeel Johan at FiBL for their constructive criticisms and diverse contributions throughout the data management. My heartfelt appreciation further goes to my wife, Fella, for her prayers and emotional support throughout this period, and to my son, Jaden, thank you for always levelling my stress. Finally, my appreciation is extended to all cocoa farmers in Tano Odumasi, Gyereso, Pasoro, Wurubegu, and Anansu who hosted me for one year and allowed me into their homes during the data collection period as a Site Manager. I am grateful for all the lovely meals we shared on the farms. God richly bless and flourish you. Special thanks to Mr. Joseph Clottey, my peer reviewer for all your contributions. To all Research Fellows and colleagues of the Institute for Environment and Sanitation Studies (IESS), thank you for the constructive criticisms during seminars. Joseph Bandanaa iv University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh TABLE OF CONTENTS Content Page DECLARATION i DEDICATION ii ABSTRACT iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES x LIST OF FIGURES xii ACRONYMS xiv CHAPTER ONE 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background of the study 1 1.2 Problem Statement of the study 8 1.3 Objective of the Study 13 1.4 Justification of the Study 13 1.5 Organization of the Report 16 CHAPTER TWO 18 LITERATURE REVIEW 18 2.1 Introduction to the Chapter 18 2.2 Sustainability Concepts 18 2.2.1 Ecological/environmental Sustainability viewpoint 19 2.2.2 Economic sustainability viewpoint 20 2.2.3 Social sustainability viewpoint 21 2.2.4 Sustainability good governance viewpoint 22 2.2.5 Worldview on sustainability 22 2.3 Systems Thinking Theory of Sustainability 25 2.4 Concept and Classification of Farming Systems 27 v University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.4.1 Concept of farming systems 27 2.4.2 Classification of farming systems 30 2.5 Sustainability Assessment of Farming Systems 31 2.5.1 Tools for assessing the sustainability of farming systems 32 2.5.2 Indicators for assessing the sustainability of farming systems 39 2.6 Concept of Trade-off and Synergies 49 2.7 Empirical Studies on Sustainability Assessment of Farming Systems 50 2.7.1 Studies on the sustainability performance of crop farming systems 50 2.7.2 Studies on trade-offs and synergies between sustainability dimensions 59 2.7.3 Studies on the environmental efficiency of organic and conventional perennial crops 61 2.8 Cocoa Sector Governance and Policies for Sustainability 65 2.9 Summary of Literature Review and Identification of Knowledge Gaps 69 CHAPTER THREE 71 MATERIALS AND METHODS 71 3.1 Description of the Study Area 71 3.1.1 Location, drainage, and soils 71 3.1.2 Non-governmental organisations (NGO) activities in the study area 72 3.2 Data Sources and Types 73 3.2.1 ProEco Africa project database 73 3.2.2 Organic farm systems for Africa (OFSA) project database 75 3.2.3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Ghana database 75 3.2.4 Sample size 76 3.3 Analysis of Data 77 3.3.1 Socio-demographic characteristics 77 3.3.2 Socio-economic characteristics 77 3.3.3 Comparative analyses of sustainability performance of organic with conventional cocoa farming systems 77 3.3.3.1 Degree of Goal Achievement (DGA) 77 vi University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.3.3.2 Differences between organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in terms of dimensions 78 3.3.4 Identifying trade-offs and synergies within and among the four main sustainability dimensions 79 3.3.5 Determination of the impact of organic and conventional cocoa practices on environmental efficiency 79 CHAPTER FOUR 81 RESULTS 81 4.0 Introduction 81 4.1 Background of Respondents in Atwima Mponua District 81 4.2.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents 81 4.2.2 Socio-economic characteristics of respondents in Atwima Mponua District 83 4.2.2.3 Types of inputs used by cocoa farmers in Atwima Mponua District 85 4.2.2.4 Perception of soil fertility status of cocoa farms in Atwima Mponua District 86 4.3 The Sustainability Performance of Organic and Conventional Cocoa Farming Systems in Atwima Mponua District 86 4.3.1 Environmental integrity sustainability performance between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District 87 4.3.2 Economic resilience sustainability performance between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District 88 4.3.3 Social wellbeing sustainability performance between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District 89 4.3.4 Good governance sustainability performance between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District 91 4.4 Mean Difference between Organic and Conventional Cocoa Farming Systems for the four Sustainability Dimensions in Atwima Mponua District 92 4.4.1 Mean difference for environmental integrity between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District 92 4.4.2 Mean difference for economic resilience between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District 93 vii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.4.3 Mean difference for social well-being between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District 94 4.4.4 Mean difference for good governance between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District 96 4.5 Trade-offs and Synergies within and among Sustainability Dimensions of Organic and Conventional Cocoa Farming Systems in Atwima Mponua District 97 4.5.1 Interactions within sustainability dimensions for the organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 97 4.5.2 Principal component analysis (PCA) within sustainability dimensions for the organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 102 4.5.3 Interactions among sustainability dimensions for the organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 115 4.5.4 Principal component analysis (PCA) among sustainability dimensions for the organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 120 4.6 Impact of Organic and Conventional Cocoa Practices on Environmental Efficiency in Atwima Mponua District 124 4.6.1 Distribution of sources of GHG emissions for organic and conventional cocoa practices 124 4.6.2 Estimates of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional cocoa practices 125 CHAPTER FIVE 127 DISCUSSIONS 127 5.1 Background of Respondents in Atwima Mponua District 127 5.1.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents in Atwima Mponua District 127 5.1.2 Socio-economic characteristics of respondents in Atwima Mponua District 128 5.2 The Sustainability Performance of Organic and Conventional Cocoa Farming Systems in Atwima Mponua District 129 5.2.1 Environmental integrity between farming systems 129 5.2.2 Economic resilience between farming systems 131 5.2.3 Social wellbeing between farming systems 132 viii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5.2.4 Good governance between farming systems 133 5.3 Trade-offs and Synergies within and among Sustainability Dimensions of Organic and Conventional Cocoa Farming Systems in Atwima Mponua District 134 5.3.1 Interactions within sustainability dimensions 134 5.3.2 Principal component analysis (PCA) within sustainability dimension 135 5.3.3 Interactions among sustainability dimensions 136 5.3.4 Principal component analysis (PCA) among the sustainability dimensions 137 5.4 Impact of Organic and Conventional Cocoa Practices on Environmental Efficiency in Atwima Mponua District 137 CHAPTER SIX 139 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 139 6.0 Introduction 139 6.1 Conclusions of the Study 139 6.2 Recommendations of the Study 141 REFERENCES 143 APPENDICES 163 Appendix 3.1: SAFA themes, sub-themes, sustainability goal and indicators used by the SMART-Farm tool 163 ix University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 2.1 A summary of Sustainability Assessment Tools 35 Table 2.2 Indicators for measuring the four dimensions of sustainability 41 Table 2.3 GHG emissions studies of organic and conventional farming systems 61 Table 2.4 Productivity-enhancing, and environmental sustainability initiatives introduced to the cocoa sector 67 Table 3.1 Activity data for organic and conventional cocoa production 74 Table 3.2 SMART-Farm tool, themes, sub-themes, and indicators 75 Table 3.3 Activity and greenhouse gas emission factors 76 Table 3.4 Interpretation of scale for sustainability performance 78 Table 4.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of farmers in Atwima Mponua District 81 Table 4.2 Average labour hours spent per activity in Atwima Mponua District 84 Table 4.3 Types of crops grown in cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 85 Table 4.4 Types of inputs used by cocoa farmers in Atwima Mponua District 85 Table 4.5 Mean difference for environmental integrity sub-themes between organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 92 Table 4.6 Mean difference for economic resilience sub-themes between organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 94 Table 4.7 Mean difference for social wellbeing sub-themes between organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 95 Table 4.8 Mean difference for good governance sub-themes between organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 96 Table 4.9 Interactions within environmental integrity dimension 98 Table 4.10 Interactions within economic resilience dimension 99 Table 4.11 Interactions within social wellbeing dimension 100 Table 4.12 Interactions within good governance dimension 101 Table 4.13 Eigenvalues and their contribution rates of PCA for environmental integrity dimension 102 Table 4.14 Eigenvalues and their contribution rates of PCA for economic resilience dimension 106 x University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.15 Eigenvalues and their contribution rates of PCA for social wellbeing dimension 109 Table 4.16 Eigenvalues and their contribution rates of PCA for good governance dimension 113 Table 4.17 Interactions among sustainability dimensions for the organic farming system 116 Table 4.18 Interactions among sustainability dimensions for the conventional farming system 118 Table 4.19 Eigenvalues and their contribution rates of PCA among sustainability dimensions 120 Table 4.20 Distribution of sources of GHG emissions for organic and conventional cocoa practices 124 Table 4.21 Estimates of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional cocoa practices in Atwima Mponua District 125 xi University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1.1 National cocoa production statistics 10 Figure 1.2 Cocoa production statistics for cocoa-producing regions 10 Figure 2.1 Weak sustainability model 23 Figure 2.2 Sketch showing the Strong sustainability model 24 Figure 2.3 SMART-Farm Tool: Dimensions, Themes and Sub-themes 38 Figure 3.1 Map of the study area 72 Figure 4.1 Perception of soil fertility status of cocoa farms in Atwima Mponua District 86 Figure 4.2 Polygon view of the environmental integrity sustainability performance of cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 87 Figure 4.3 Polygon view of the economic resilience sustainability performance of cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 89 Figure 4.4 Polygon view of the social wellbeing sustainability performance of cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 90 Figure 4.5 Polygon view of the good governance sustainability performance of cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 91 Figure 4.6 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for environmental integrity of organic farming system 104 Figure 4.7 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for environmental integrity of conventional farming system105 Figure 4.8 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for economic resilience of organic farming system 107 Figure 4.9 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for economic resilience of conventional farming system 108 Figure 4.10 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for social wellbeing of organic farming system 111 Figure 4.11 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for social wellbeing of conventional farming system 112 xii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Figure 4.12 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for good governance of organic farming system 114 Figure 4.13 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for good governance of conventional farming system 115 Figure 4.14 Principal component analysis biplot among sustainability dimensions of the organic farming system 122 Figure 4.15 Principal component analysis biplot among sustainability dimensions of the conventional farming system 123 xiii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ACRONYMS AgroEco-LBI Agro Eco- Louis-Bolk Institute AMD Atwima Mponua District CHED Cocoa Health and Extension Division CO2eq Carbon dioxide equivalent COCOBOD Ghana Cocoa Board CODAPEC Cocoa Diseases and Pests Control COSA Committee on Sustainability Assessment CRIG Cocoa Research Institute Ghana CSDS Cocoa Sector Development Strategy CSSVD Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus Disease DGA Degree of Goal Achievement EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESI Environmental Sustainability Index FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FASDEP Food and Agriculture Sector Development Plan FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FOB Free on Board FSR Farming Systems Research GAPs Good Agricultural Practices GCA Global Cocoa Agenda GHG Greenhouse Gases GSS Ghana Statistical Service Ha Hectares ICCO International Cocoa Organisation IFOAM International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Kg Kilogram xiv University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LCA Life Cycle Assessment LOHAS Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability MCA Multi-criteria analysis MDG Millennium Development Goals MELR Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations NARS National Agricultural Research Systems NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NPECL National Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour NPK Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium OCP Organic Cocoa Project OFSA Organic Farm Systems for Africa PAS Publicly Available Specification PC Principal Component PCA Principal Component Analysis QCS Quality Control Systems RA Rainforest Alliance RISE Response Induce Sustainability Evaluation SAFA Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agricultural systems SDG Sustainable Development Goals SMART-Farm tool Sustainability Assessment Monitoring Routine Farm tool TCP Tree Crop Policy UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme VSS Voluntary Sustainability Standards WCED World Commission on Environment and Development WCF World Cocoa Foundation WI Well-being Index YGL Yayra Glover Limited xv University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the study Cocoa is an essential perennial crop in Ghana. It is grown in ten (10) regions of Ghana, namely the Ashanti, Ahafo, Bono East, Bono, Central, Eastern, Volta, Oti, Western and Western North regions. The crop generates about US$2 billion in foreign exchange annually and accounts for 30% of the total export earnings of Ghana (COCOBOD, 2018a; Ahoa et al., 2020). Ghana plays a vital role in the international cocoa market, being the second-largest producer of cocoa in the world after Cote D’Ivoire, and accounting for about 20% of global production (Bangmarigu & Qineti, 2018). Ghanaian cocoa is grown mainly by smallholder farmers and serves as a source of livelihood contributing to the social well-being of farmers in terms of income and employment. The sector employed more than 800,000 farm families in 2018 (Afriyie-Kraft et al., 2020). Cocoa is mainly grown using conventional practices, organic production practices in few locations in Ghana. Organic cocoa production was introduced in the late 1990s (Amanor et al., 2020) as an environmentally friendly production option with low external input use, and environmental sustainability as core values. According to the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement (IFOAM, 2008), organic farming is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems, and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity conservation, and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation, and science 1 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and good quality of life for all involved. Conventional cocoa production, on the other hand, depends on energy and input use e.g. agrochemicals like chemical fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides (Singh & Maharjan, 2017). The excessive and inappropriate use of these agrochemicals pollutes groundwater, streams, and rivers, trigger land degradation through soil erosion, and severe deterioration of the arable soil (Nesheim et al., 2015; Winsnes, 2013). Agro-chemicals further cause hazards, kill beneficial insects and other wildlife, reduce biodiversity, increase pest adaptation and resistance, desertification, and water eutrophication. The chemicals affect those who consume it through food residue and up the food chain. Therefore, conventional farming is said to disregard the basis for sustainable food production, health of the environment and living beings (Singh & Maharjan, 2017; Kassie & Zikhali, 2009; Kesavan & Swaminathan, 2008 and Hole et al., 2005). The importance of organic and conventional farming systems is espoused by proponents (Seufert & Ramankutty, 2017; Bandanaa et al, 2016). Mostly so because sustainability includes a wide range of environmental, resource-based, economic, and social issues. For instance, rising global population, the rising cost of production and increasingly scarce natural resources and environmental change, makes it difficult for farmers to produce adequate agricultural products that can meet the food, fibre, feed, and biofuel needs at an affordable price. Environmental issues related to agriculture are greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, energy use, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles and other aspects (Godfray & Garnett, 2014; Schader et al., 2014). Globally, the more significant emitters of GHGs in agriculture are enteric fermentation (40%), manure left on pasture (16%), 2 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh synthetic chemicals (pesticides, fertiliser, and herbicides) (13%), paddy rice (10%), manure management (7%), and burning of savannah (5%). In Ghana, greenhouse gas emissions from farming, livestock-raising, fisheries, and forestry continue to rise (Akrofi-Atitianti et al., 2018). Agriculture, the second largest contributor to GHGs, contributes about 36% of methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (NO2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) (EPA, 2016). Agricultural activities that contribute directly to GHG emission are the use of synthetic agro products like fertilisers and manure management on cocoa farms. Conventional cocoa farmers use synthetic fertilisers, manure, pesticides, and herbicides for their soil amendment, pest management and weed control, respectively. Organic farmers, on the hand, use manure as a soil amendment, and organic pesticides to manage the pest. There is the need to understand the amount of GHGs released in cocoa production by both organic and conventional production from cradle-to-farm-gate measurements (Ortiz-Rodríguez et al., 2016; Knudsen et al., 2014; Bocchiola et al., 2013). The growing awareness of unintended impacts associated with some farming systems has led to heightened societal expectations for an improved environment, community, labour, and animal welfare standards in agriculture (Clay, 2013; National Research Council, 2010 and Conway & Barbie, 1988). Social issues, such as discrimination in trade and poor labour conditions, influence human well-being and society (Reza et al., 2018). The need for stable production and profitability so that farmers can make a living from their work (Schader et al., 2016) is an economic issue relative to farming systems. 3 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh According to Roth (2010), the complexity of sustainability may arise when the benefits of one aspect can result in negative consequences in another. Hence, meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs jeopardised (Brundtland, 1987). The sustainability of Agriculture is demanded at both the policy and the consumer levels (ICCO, 2012). The policy level is occasioned by Agenda 21, a comprehensive action plan that is to be implemented globally, nationally, and locally by organisations of the United Nations, Governments and major groups in areas humans impact the environment. At the consumer level, the Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS) concept relates to sustainable living, thus championing “green” ecological initiatives for a healthier and more sustainable lifestyle. This has led to the implementation of certifications by farmers, companies, and trade to meet this demand. Certifications including GLOBAL G.A.P, Fairtrade, among others. Following the Abidjan Cocoa Declaration in 2012 (Ortiz-Rodríguez et al., 2016), and with remarkable changes and the responsibility to feed the growing population (Singh & Maharjan, 2017), there have been responses to the challenge of combining increased yield, technological innovation, and sustainability in the cocoa production chain with some responses at global, and localised levels. On the global front, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement (IFOAM) is championing the organic movement with recommendations of organic agriculture/farming as one that provides equity, respect, and justice for all living things, 4 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh sustains natural systems, fairness - care for generations and promotes healthy Soils, plants, animals, and humans. Since the 2000s sustainability issues have been on the radar of world leaders at the United Nations (UN) as ways of addressing the issue is planned. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) one (1) and seven (7): eradicate extreme poverty and hunger and ensure environmental sustainability respectively emphasised the commitment of leaders in addressing the challenges of sustainable agriculture. Subsequently, the UNs’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), after the MDGs inability to adequately address the challenges of Agriculture, sought to respond to the challenge through SDGs 1, 2, 10 and 15 which specify respectively: • SDG 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere • SDG 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture • SDG 10: reduce inequality within and among countries and protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) one and two, especially aptly captures the concern faced by global agriculture. They stress that a “major step to securing zero hunger is by prioritising sustainable agriculture in the 2030 Agenda’’ (Griggs et al., 2017; Godfray et al., 2010) to ensure sustainable food production systems by making agriculture resilient through increased productivity and production, maintenance of ecosystems, strengthen capacity for adaptation to environmental change and progressively improve land and soil quality (Verhulst et al., 2010; Altieri & Koohafkan, 2008). However, recognising potential 5 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh trade-offs, there is a concern for the SDGs on reducing poverty and equality to be met, (Schleicher et al., 2018). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is also promoting organic farming as a climate-smart initiative (FAO, 2013). Furthermore, the International Cocoa Organisation (ICCO) through Global Cocoa Agenda (GCA) developed a roadmap for achieving sustainable world cocoa economy through all economic, social and environmental considerations of cocoa production (ICCO, 2012), and ensuring sustainable cocoa production by increasing productivity through conservation and use of cocoa genetic diversity, use of better planting materials and inputs, and managing pest and diseases in an integrated manner and improving Soil fertility. The GCA identified biodiversity conservation and use of energy and carbon-efficient inputs and technologies in cocoa production as a catalyst to ensure sustainable production. At the local level, both state and non-state actors in Ghana have introduced other interventions in addressing the challenge of agriculture within the tree crop sub-sector. About a decade ago, private sector firms such as Yayra Glover Ltd. (YGL) and Agro Eco- Louis-Bolk Institute (LBI) started vigorous promotion of the farming system (Glin et al., 2015; Glover, 2010). Agro Eco-LBI supported cocoa farmer groups in the Eastern and Ashanti regions with capacity building modules whiles YGL partnered Fetchlin/ Lindt and importing company in Switzerland and began purchasing organic cocoa beans for export. Ghana COCOBOD through the Cocoa Health and Extension Division also supports farmers with organic fertilisers (COCOBOD, 2018a). The Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), a state actor, introduced the Cocoa Disease and Pest Control Programme (CODAPEC), the Cocoa Hi-tech initiative, the payment of the remunerative producer prices and the bonus payment scheme as a means of rewarding the farmers’ effort in 6 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh improving yields (Arko, 2020; Onumah et al., 2013; Teal et al., 2006). The Cocoa Hi-tech initiative is a conventional system of cocoa production that promote the intensive use of fertilisers to replenish soil fertility; the application of pesticides; and the adoption of improved planting materials to replenish aged cocoa trees to improve the productivity of cocoa farms (Arko, 2020; Onumah et al., 2013). Under the Cocoa Hi-tech programme, a non-state actor, RMG Ghana Limited subsidiary, WIENCO (Gh) Limited, introduced an agronomic package through their Cocoa “Abrabopa” association to supply hi-tech cocoa inputs on credit to cocoa farmers. This was to enhance farm productivity and solve the constraint of farmers receiving inputs. The package included six bags of 590kg Asaase wura fertiliser, agrochemicals, a pneumatic sprayer as well as extension support (Dube, & Mitra, 2011). Other climate-smart cocoa interventions focus on cocoa agroforestry systems; however, they are being piloted on a small-scale basis (WCF,2020). The Cocoa Hi-tech initiative was to boost the output of cocoa through improving Soil fertility and control of pest and diseases of cocoa. The Cocoa Hi-tech initiative, enhanced cocoa growth and output by 266 515 metric tonnes per annum (Arko, 2020; Omane- Adjepong, 2012). However, the extraction of the raw materials like fossils fuels, minerals, and production of farming inputs e. g. fertiliser, herbicides, and pesticides for the Cocoa Hi-tech initiative have a direct and indirect effect on air and water pollution. It also degrades the environment and leads to loss of biodiversity (Binta, & Barbier, 2015; Scherr & McNeely, 2008; Ntiamoah & Afrane, 2008; Ramachandran & Bachamanda, 2007) hence said to lack sustainability. Farming systems with less environmental impacts have been advocated considering the numerous issues associated with conventional farming (Seufert 7 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh & Ramankutty, 2017; Bandanaa et al., 2016). These practices have been described variously as organic farming, climate-smart agriculture, green agriculture, ecological agriculture, and sustainable farming. Despite the potential benefits of farming systems that improve sustainability, farmers do not adopt fully. This is because the state-owned COCOBOD which is leading the sustainability of the cocoa sector is yet to achieve the necessary synergies between emerging socio-economic and environmental trade-offs (Akrofi-Atitianti et al., 2018). In Atwima Mponua District, conventional cocoa farming practices is widespread. Other projects have implemented practices like organic/climate smart cocoa production since 2010. Cocoa farmers from both farming systems in Atwima Mponua District are beneficiaries of interventions implemented in the cocoa sector (Akrofi-Atitianti et al., 2018). In concluding, the concerns for cocoa farming systems sustainability is recognised globally and locally. State and non-state actors have been implemented several interventions to ensure sustainability of the cocoa sector, albeit inadequate. To meet demand for cocoa, addressing the challenges of farming systems sustainability is paramount. 1.2 Problem Statement of the study Globally, many food production systems are experiencing challenges like improvement in resource-use efficiency and gains in resource conservation, which should be achieved globally to meet the growing and changing food demand, and halt and reverse environmental degradation (FAO, 2017). The challenge is widespread with accompanying problems like soil loss due to erosion, loss of soil fertility, salination and other forms of degradation, access to water for production, over-fishing; deforestation, ‘misuse’ of 8 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh pesticides, reducing household incomes, plus other socio-economic issues (WCF, 2016; ICCO, 2012). Food system governance, land rights, child/forced labour or exploitation and food safety, are among the global challenge. Organic farming is often seen as the strategy in Sub-Saharan Africa, with the potential to contribute to increased profitability compared to the conventional practices, and a higher value addition through premiums and lower input costs. However, the full potential of organic agriculture and its suitability as a future solution to some critical agricultural challenges is still not adequately recognised by most of the farmers and policy or decision- makers due to a lack of significant by sound data on economic, ecological, and social sustainability, as well as lack of/limited contextual performance of the system under smallholder farming in Sub-Saharan Africa. Over the past five (5) years, there have been concerns in Ghana for fluctuating cocoa production (COCOBOD, 2018c; Wessel & Quist-Wessel, 2015; Onumah et al., 2013 and Dormon et al., 2004) (Figure 1.1) especially in the Ashanti region of Ghana (Figure 1.2). The declining cocoa production in the Ashanti region is multifaceted. In Atwima Mponua District, the concern for low production of cocoa is economic, social, and environmental. Factors such as the low producer price, age of the trees (more than 30 years), pest and disease infestation, poor agricultural practices like overuse of inputs or not using required inputs among others, are some of the socio-economic, cultural, and environmental issues that affect production. 9 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1,200 1,000 800 600 National Organic production 400 National conventional 200 production 0 Source: COCOBOD (2018c) & Glover, (2017) Figure 1.1 National cocoa production statistics The social concerns include land tenure, child labour (Berlan, 2013; Baradaran & Barclay, 2011; Schrage & Ewing, 2005), and gender diversity (Barrientos, 2013; Anglaaere et al., 2011). 700000 600000 500000 Ashanti 400000 Brong Ahafo 300000 Eastern 200000 Central 100000 Western 0 Volta Source: COCOBOD (2018c) Figure 1.2 Cocoa production statistics for cocoa-producing regions 10 Production (MT) Production (000 MT) 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The environmental concerns for cocoa production also include degradation in terms of soil fertility, air quality and biodiversity loss as in deforestation (Gockowski et al., 2013; Ntiamoah, 2008; Gockowski & Sonwa, 2011; Asare, 2006). COCOBOD recognises organic and conventional cocoa farming in Ghana (COCOBOD, 2018b). However, in Ghana, the limited knowledge on the relative performance of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems makes policymakers reluctant to encourage their adoption, especially at a time where the outcomes in terms of governance, economic, social and environmental integrity of these farming systems are uncertain to policy/decision- makers (Hutchins et al., 2015; Zougmoré, 2014). Comparing the sustainability of organic and conventional farming systems mostly focus on only one dimension (Klumper & Qaim, 2014). This hides information on the other dimensions that could influence policy decisions. For instance, a comparison that focuses on only economic resilience outcomes without considering the environmental impacts presents recommendations geared towards improving economic benefits without recourse to the environmental implications. The most promising farming system relies on the four dimensions of sustainability, economic resilience, social well-being, environmental integrity, and good governance (FAO, 2014). Schader et al., (2016) and Pretty (2008), argue that in considering a holistic sustained farm, there exist trade-offs between the sustainability dimensions and within same. In this context, the information can be such that, a farming system is economically better but lacks environmental integrity, social well-being, and good governance. In this case, where trade- offs exist, priority is given to the better performing sector whiles managing the trade-offs (Kathuria et al., 2018). Social and environmental concerns in sustainability are inherently 11 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh intertwined (Grace & Pope, 2015). Regardless of the farming system, trade-offs exist between social well-being goals and biodiversity conservation goals (McShane et al., 2011). Sustainability assessment is a valuable tool to guide the journey towards sustainability. However, sustainability assessment remains an elusive concept because of the varied ways analysts interpret agricultural sustainability. Achieving sustainability means understanding how different farming systems and their practices impact environment integrity, economic resilience, social wellbeing, and good governance. Organic farming does not mean zero environmental impacts. However, the full potential of organic farming and its suitability as a future solution to some of these key agricultural challenges in Atwima Mponua District is still not adequately recognised. In promoting sustainable cocoa farming systems and addressing the declining cocoa production in the Atwima Mponua District, reducing the carbon footprint on farms, maintaining biodiversity, and ecosystem services are paramount. Assessing sustainability at the individual farming system level is an essential step towards achieving sustainability. Thus, what is the farming systems’ sustainability of organic and conventional cocoa farms and their trade-offs and synergies, and environmental efficiency in the Atwima Mponua District of Ghana? This study aims at assessing the sustainability of organic and conventional farming systems in Atwima Mponua District. 12 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Specifically, the research questions expected to address these issues are as follows: 1. What is the sustainability performance differences between organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in the Atwima Mponua District? 2. What are the trade-offs and synergies within and among the sustainability dimensions of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in the Atwima Mponua District? 3. What is the impact of organic and conventional cocoa practices on environmental efficiency in Atwima Mponua District? 1.3 Objective of the Study The main objective of the study is to determine the sustainability of cocoa-based farming systems and their trade-offs, and environmental efficiency in the Atwima Mponua District of Ghana. To achieve this major objective, the specific objectives were to: 1. Compare the sustainability performance of organic with the conventional cocoa farming system in the Atwima Mponua District 2. Identify the trade-offs and synergies within and among the sustainability dimensions of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems 3. Determine the impact of organic and conventional cocoa practices on environmental efficiency in Atwima Mponua District 1.4 Justification of the Study This research contributes to knowledge and development in many ways. Firstly, Atwima Mponua District was selected because of the predominance of smallholder cocoa farming households, engaging in either ‘business-as-usual’ or improved cocoa farming systems based on scientific recommendations (Akrofi-Atitianti et al., 2018). 13 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Though the conventional cocoa farming system is quite common in Atwima Mponua District, it has successfully implemented major Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS) in Ghana including Rainforest Alliance (RA) and UTZ certification (Addae-Boadu, Aikins, & Alhassan, 2014). Besides, Agro Eco-LBI in 2011 introduced an Organic Cocoa Project (OCP) in the district as an agroecological intervention. Thus, Atwima Mponua District represents an essential classification that allowed the study to explore and compare the sustainability performance of the organic and conventional cocoa farming systems, as well as the impact of organic and conventional practices on environmental performance. Secondly, the results of the sustainability assessment serve as a basis for targeted capacity building on sustainability among farmers/advisors/researchers. The results on the sustainability performance of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems provide information on good agricultural practices (GAPs) for farmers and policymakers or advisors. The trade-offs and synergies within and among the sustainability dimensions will inform policy decisions and prioritisation. Thirdly, the research has generated comparative and contextual evidence on the sustainability of organic and conventional farming systems in Ghana. It provides the first assessment of organic and conventional farming systems in Atwima Mponua District, Ghana, using a Sustainability Assessment Monitoring Routine (SMART)-Farm tool. This farm tool integrates all four dimensions of sustainability and allows improvement in areas that the farm will not perform sustainably. Therefore, a holistic account of cocoa farming systems sustainability performance in the Atwima Mponua District has been provided. 14 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The results of this research contribute to the on-going debates on the sustainability performance of organic and conventional farming systems. This research has addressed the debate on which farming system is economic or environmentally sustainable. In terms of economic sustainability, the organic farming system is profitable because price premiums are paid to farmers (Crower & Reganold, 2015). The claim that organic farming system is environmentally sustainable cannot be made when environmental sustainability measurements are on per unit output basis (Meier et al., 2015). Specific environmental aspects; biodiversity, land degradation, energy use, pesticide use, and greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) (Bandanaa et al., 2016; Meier et al., 2015) holds organic farming system superior. Fourthly, while there have been attempts to assess the environmental performance of cocoa, few studies focused exclusively on cocoa production and processing Ntiamoah and Afrane (2008, 2009) respectively. The study was on environmental impacts of cocoa production and processing in Ghana using the life cycle assessment approach. It did not consider the differences between organic and conventional farming systems and contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. An essential issue in the environmental assessment of farming systems is greenhouse gas emissions (Lee et al., 2018). How farming systems contribute to national levels through certain practices is critical and should be studied (EPA, 2016). The data collection for the 2008 study was at farm level. The sampling considered visits to select few farms and interviewing cocoa farmers. Given that statistical analysis requires larger sample sizes to have confidence in policy suggestions, the studies are said to be limiting. In the current study, a total of 398 respondents provided data for four seasons (2015-2017). 15 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Overall, this research produces new knowledge on the differences between organic and conventional farming systems to stakeholders in the cocoa value chain. To Agro Eco-LBI, Ghana Cocoa Board and other stakeholders in the cocoa chain, programmes aimed at improving the productivity of cocoa farms should consider the trade-offs and synergies within and among the environmental integrity, economic resilience, social wellbeing and good governance dimensions. For the Ghana Cocoa Board as the lead government agency in the development of cocoa, policy interventions for making the cocoa sector sustainable should focus on low input farming systems. 1.5 Organization of the Report This study is organised into five chapters. Apart from Chapter One, Chapter two provides literature on the concept of sustainability. It discusses the sustainability perspectives by dimension and the broad worldviews on sustainability. The next section discusses the concept and classification of farming systems. The third section discusses the sustainability assessment of farming systems in terms of the tools and indicators used for assessing the sustainability of farming systems. The fourth section discussed the concept of trade-off and synergies. Empirical studies on Sustainability Assessment of Farming Systems including studies on the sustainability performance of crop farming systems, studies on trade-offs and synergies between sustainability dimensions and studies on the environmental efficiency of organic and conventional perennial crops are discussed in the fifth section. The Cocoa Sector Governance and Policies for Sustainability are discussed in the sixth section. A summary of the review and identification of knowledge gap is provided in the last section in chapter two. Chapter three describes the materials and methods used in the study. 16 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Chapter four provides the results of the study in four main subsections: background of respondents studied, the sustainability performance of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems, the trade-offs and synergies of organic and conventional farming systems and the environmental efficiency of organic and conventional cocoa practices in Atwima Mponua District. Chapter Five discusses the results of the study, and Finally, Chapter Six summarises the study and provides conclusions and recommendations based on the specific research objectives. 17 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction to the Chapter The main objective of this study was to assess the sustainability of organic and conventional farming systems. As such, this section provides an overview of the concept of sustainability, the systems theory of sustainability, and the concept and classification of farming systems. This section also reviewed the sustainability assessment of farming systems, the concept of trade-off and synergies and provided empirical studies on Sustainability Assessment of Farming Systems. A full review and identification of knowledge gap is provided in the last section. 2.2 Sustainability Concepts Sustainability has been a popular buzzword since the 1980s, espoused by both academics and cross-country initiatives and projects (Gray, 2010). The final report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) the “Brundtland Report” incorporates a widely used concept of sustainable development. This report highlighted environmental concerns for sustainability and described sustainable development as "development that meets present needs without compromising future generations ' ability to meet their own needs" (WCED, 1987, p. 43). After the Brundtland report, many definitions of sustainability have been proposed. Nevertheless, there has not been a consensus, making sustainability an open concept with myriad interpretations and context- specific understanding (Purvis et al., 2019). Based on the context, sustainability can be referred to as agricultural, social, environmental, and economic sustainability. 18 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Agricultural sustainability is defined in many ways to meet the varied interests of various audiences (Hayati et al., 2011; Herzog & Gotsch, 1998). The common themes that run through the definitions include protecting ecosystems and biodiversity, improving quality of life and value creation, reducing child labour and gender equity, and promoting accountability and participation. All general definitions of agricultural sustainability relate to ecological/environmental, economic, social (Dillon, Hennessy & Buckley, et al., 2016; Velten et al., 2015; Reig- Martínez et al., 2011; Grenz et al., 2009; Giovannucci & Potts, 2008; Rasul & Thapa, 2004) and governance dimensions (Antunes et al., 2017; Schader et al., 2016). Dyllick & Hockerts (2002) referred to the economic, social, and ecological/environmental sustainability dimensions as Business, Society, and Nature and called them Economic capital, social capital, and Natural capital. Kates et al., (2005) referred to the dimensions as Economic growth, social progress, and Environmental protection. Similarly, the United Nations World Summit (2005) referred to the dimensions as Economic, Social, and Environmental. As a result, agricultural sustainability is interpreted based on four (4) viewpoints. The different views are further described below. 2.2.1 Ecological/environmental Sustainability viewpoint From the 1970s to the 1990s, the concept of sustainability has been primarily related to environmental concerns (Giovannoni, & Fabietti, 2013) with interests ranging from global ecological problems and the quest to reducing industrial pollution significantly (Kidd, 1992). The discourse on carrying capacity of the earth led to the development of 26 principles to address environmental concerns (Riddell 1981; WRI/IIED 1986). 19 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh From the Ecological/Environmental sustainability perspective, the natural environment because it is important and described as a fountain of valuable resources and a reservoir of waste. The natural environment includes air, soil, water, and fauna and flora (biodiversity), and maintain essential vital functions of the environment, which serves as basis for achieving sustainable agriculture. For example, high soil fertility is a crucial feature of sustainable farming systems, thus, soil fertility management should go with the use of minimum inputs from non-renewable resources like fuel form fossil energy, mineral fertilisers, pesticides (Tuğrul, 2019). Biologically, the capacity of the environment to be resistant to increases with the number of genotypes, species, and ecosystems within a given area. When this function is disturbed/breached, the structure of the system changes irreversibly to another state, such as a degraded environment (Milot et al., 2020; Drury et al., 2017). Proponents of an ecological/environmental sustainability viewpoint believe that for agriculture to be sustainable, there is the need for harmony between natural cycles, agrobiodiversity maintenance & promotion, recycling of waste & materials, and crops, land, and livestock (Bragdon, 2019, Plumecocq et al., 2018). Therefore, the environmental viewpoint is key in assessing farming systems sustainability. 2.2.2 Economic sustainability viewpoint Economic Sustainability as related to agricultural production, is defined as the economic viability of farming systems, i.e., their ability of farming systems to generate sufficient profits through increased yields and prices (Lebacq et al., 2013). The economic sustainability viewpoint considers the use of resources that serves not only the current generation, but with recourse to future generations. 20 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Giovannoni & Fabietti, (2013) posits that the resources must be consumed below the rate of natural reproduction or at rates below the development of substitutes. From a predominantly economic sustainability viewpoint, the ability of an economy to support a defined level of economic production indefinitely is vital (De-Pablos-Heredero et al., 2018). From the economic sustainability viewpoint, agricultural sustainability should sustain yields and economic performance (Dillon et al., 2016). Meeting demand for food production without considering the environmental burdens or limits as far as the society is willing, and the economic cost is low is an economic sustainability viewpoint. Economic viewpoint on technology and innovations emphasises developments that increase yield, even under conditions of soil and environmental degradation (Altieri et al., 2017). Therefore, the economic viewpoint in agricultural production is key in assessing farming systems sustainability. 2.2.3 Social sustainability viewpoint This viewpoint believes in social responsibility, that the achievement of welfare needs of the society, including promoting gender equality, indigenous knowledge, and eliminating child labour (Fast, & Collin-Vézina, 2019; Magni, 2017). The social sustainability viewpoint, relates to issues of the farm community and the well-being of farmers and their families and at the level of society's demands, including the values and concerns (Lebacq et al., 2013). Commitment to aspects of social equity and social justice, including distributive justice and equality of conditions, are reinforced in agricultural sustainability from the social 21 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh sustainability viewpoint. In this view, the concept of sustainability has to do with the relationships between men and nature (Giovannoni, & Fabietti, 2013). 2.2.4 Sustainability good governance viewpoint From the governance perspective, sustainability is a concept that is characterised by the promotion of participation, the rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equality, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability, and strategic vision (Yuwono, 2016). The good governance perspective provides credible and useful information to better guide decision making, learn from the past and improve governance for the future (Mollick et al., 2018). It also identifies factors for success or failure, assesses the sustainability of long- term outcomes and impacts, and draws a conclusion that can inform other interventions (Secco et al., 2014). It is the horizontal dimension that relates to the other three and assesses the ability of a farm, a processor, or a retailer to deliver adequate sustainability performance (Schader et al., 2019). Further, good governance sustainability could be achieved through the practice of good governance in all aspects of operations and procedures (Mollick et al., 2018). 2.2.5 Worldview on sustainability One of the ways of approaching sustainability is by the theory of capital. The capital theory defines the capital "stock that yields a flow of valuable goods or services into the future". The capital stock is composed of the economy, society, and the environment. The capital stocks are also referred to as financial capital, social and human capital, and the natural capital, respectively. For sustainability, the total stock of capital transmitted from one generation to the next must be maintained or improved (Stern, 1997; Atkinson, 2008). 22 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Depending on the extent to which different types of capital are considered sustainable for each other, there are two (2) schools of thought on the world view of sustainability. These are the weak and strong concepts of sustainability. While one school of thought allows for the almost complete substitution of the natural environment or natural assets by other forms of capital, there are limitations or no substitution of the natural environment with different types of capital assets by the other school of thought. These schools of thoughts are described by Neumayer (2003) as weak and strong sustainability, respectively. The weak sustainability assumes that a decline in say the natural capital assets can be compensated for by the societal and economic outcomes it generates (Dietz & Neumayer, 2007 and Neumayer, 2003). The improvement in others can compensate for the degradation of any one of the capital assets. Thus, no special treatment is required for the preservation of the environment or natural capital. The economy, society and the environment compete with some common ground where circles overlap (Figure 2.1). Economic Environment Society Figure 2.1 Weak sustainability model [Neumayer, 2003] 23 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh It is called the substitutability paradigm because substitution between different forms of capital is allowed if the total capital stock is maintained. In the case of low sustainability, it is acceptable to leave fewer environmental assets for future generations, if an increase in human capital compensates their loss. It is also referred to as the econocentric concept because it is based on economic strategies and considers the environment and its degradation in monetary terms" (Neumayer, 2003; Stoneham et al., 2003 and Rennings & Wiggering, 1997). Thus, most sustainability assessments consider the weak sustainability option. The strong sustainability, on the other hand, protects the natural environment with environmental sustainability as a pre-requisite for socio-economic sustainability. Protecting the natural environment or natural capital is essential for Sustainability (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 and Neumayer, 2003). Consequently, socio- economic considerations are limited by the finiteness of the environment. According to the strong viewpoint, "sustainability is about ensuring that human society lives within the environment's limits and that the economy meets society's needs." The strong sustainability, also called the Russian doll model of Sustainability (Figure 2.2), questions whether indicators are living within environmental limits and achieving a good quality of life. Environment Society Economy Figure 2.2 Sketch showing the Strong sustainability model [Levett, (1998)] 24 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh In the Russian doll model, development is sustainable if it provides a good quality of life and stays within environmental limits (Levett, 1998). A farming system objective is to achieve social, economic, environmental, and good governance. Depending on the farming system practised, one may achieve the overall environmental objective. 2.3 Systems Thinking Theory of Sustainability The “Systems Thinking” theory guides the assessment of the sustainability of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems. According to Nguyen & Bosch (2013), systems thinking is a way of conceptualizing and acting to integrate the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability to improve system well-being. Systems thinking focuses on the interactions and relationships between elements. These interactions are not negligible, not least because each of these elements is in a state of flux, and these topical changes may have unpredictable effects elsewhere in the system. Systems Thinking underscores the context of farming and rural livelihoods and is particularly useful in addressing the complexities that arise in sustainability assessments (Bosch et al., 2013; Nguyen & Bosch, 2013). The potential of a systems approach to address the vexing challenge of the interrelationships of dimensions of the sustainability assessment process has been explored by several authors (Lee & Choe, 2018; Grace & Pope, 2015; Morrison-Saunders & Thérivel, 2006). By identifying the dynamics in the system that lead to trade-offs, it is possible to explore options for transforming these dynamics through new solutions to mitigate or even eliminate a trade-off. At other times, a choice must be made considering the trade-offs. However, in these cases, making explicit the analysis of the winners and 25 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh losers of a given decision requires a system of governance to consider the losers and consider adaptive monitoring of ongoing compromise decisions. Morrison-Saunders & Thérivel (2006) opines those issues of environmental, social, and economic sustainability assessment require an integrated/systems approach, which re- echoes a statement by Ostrom, (1999) that “Complex systems are composed of a large number of active elements whose rich patterns of interactions produce emergent properties that are not easy to predict by analysing the separate parts of the system”. The approach allows for boundaries of the system and the hierarchy of aggregation levels defined, cropping system (plot-level), farming system (farm level), watershed/village (local level), landscape/district (regional level), and higher levels (national, supranational, and global level). By identifying the system boundaries, externalities between levels, trade- offs and synergies among components can be traced and explicitly taken into consideration (Becker, 1997), as well as a life cycle assessment of the product. Therefore, traditional sustainability assessment, based upon linear cause-effect thinking focused on separate social, economic, and environmental indicators, does not usually reflect conditions of sustainability (Thérivel, 2013). Farmers may also have conflicting goals given their diverse roles as managers of the farm and may want to increase their cash flow, they are the workers and therefore may want to improve working conditions. They are also part of a community as well as they may want to conform to local norms and values (Dedieu & Servière, 2012). Because of this internal tension, farmers may not implement a recognisable strategy, or their priorities may change over time. Due to the complexity, interrelatedness and dynamics of system components leading to feedback loops (Grace & Pope, 2015), concepts that permit structured, 26 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh interdisciplinary reasoning about complex problems in social-ecological systems (SESs) is often proposed (Binder et al., 2013). 2.4 Concept and Classification of Farming Systems 2.4.1 Concept of farming systems Farming systems are complex systems in which farmers, actors in the food supply chain, households and institutions interact with each other (Meuwissen et al., 2019). The farming systems perspective has a predetermined focus that targets the productivity of a commodity. Thus, a predetermined focus approach is relevant to farming systems dominated by one crop, because improving the productivity of that enterprise would have the most significant impact on the productivity of the overall farming system (Klerkx et al., 2012). The Farming Systems Research (FSR) approach evolved in the late 1970s, as a fundamental principle to create new types of partnerships between farmers, and technical and social scientists (Klerkx, Van Mierlo, & Leeuwis, 2012). The underlying principles of the farming systems approach are the emphasis on the empowerment of farmers and their families and a new focus on ecological sustainability and sustainable livelihoods (Van Ginkel et al., 2013; Klerkx et al., 2012). Subsequently, because of the multi-commodity mandates of most National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS), the farming systems efforts evolved quickly towards a more holistic orientation i.e., what is labelled farming systems with a whole farm focus. This approach enabled focusing on constraints-based needs. Farming systems are designed by farmers, depending on their material resources and structures including technology (Shaner, 2019). Farming systems are characterised by the 27 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh main product(s) of interest, e.g., food crops such as rice, cassava, plantain and tree crops like cocoa, coffee, apple. The core of the system is made up of the farms that produce the main product(s). Therefore, not all farms in a region or place are necessarily part of the same farming system. Farms and other farming systems influence each other, as farms unilaterally influence the context, and actors influence farms. Because farming systems operate in open agroecological systems and are linked to various social networks and economic processes, their activities can have multiple effects, such as job and income generation, network effects, resource use, landscape impacts and pollution. These external effects and public goods also characterise the farming landscape (Meuwissen et al., 2019; Darnhofer et al., 2012). Farming systems have multiple functions or goals which could be either private or public. Private goods include not only the production of food and other biological resources, but also the provision of a reasonable standard of living for people working in agriculture. Public goods include the support of natural resources in good condition and animal welfare. Because of the multiple functions of farming systems, it creates synergies or trade-offs (Reidsma et al., 2015; Reidsma & Jeuffroy, 2017). Where trade-offs occur between functions, stakeholders are likely to have different priorities, e.g., for landscape diversity or maximising production, which will also depend on the distribution of costs and benefits. Also, desired functions may change over time, for example, due to changing societal preferences (Meuwissen et al., 2019; Darnhofer et al., 2012). This implies that both dynamics and rates need to be considered when interpreting the results of farming system functions. Stable functions are not necessarily useful e.g., if the system is not sustainable, 28 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh or if it is impossible to support a balanced provision of public and private goods at the desired levels, a transformation may be necessary (Meuwissen et al., 2019). Overall, farming systems are characterised by three (3) main theories, the systems thinking, interdisciplinary and the participatory approach. With system analysis, circumstances considered 'problematic' are interpreted as evolving system anomalies that cannot be resolved comprehensively using a reductionist, logical method alone. There is the need to think interconnections between elements of a system, the system dynamics, and the environment. It analyses frontiers, relations, synergies, and emerging properties. The goal is to consider and consider interdependencies and dynamics, which means maintaining the 'bigger picture' even when the focus of a study is at the sub-system level. The interdisciplinary approach is also essential for a systemic understanding of agriculture. This approach includes agricultural disciplines working closely with the social sciences like sociology, economics, political sciences and interdisciplinary sciences like ecologists, human geography, landscape planning etc. This Farming Systems Research is therefore distinct from disciplinary research, which can provide additional insights e.g., informing the development of new methods of production. A participatory approach builds upon farming processes. Integrating societal actors into research is critical to understanding 'real world' situations, incorporating the goals of different actors, and appreciating their perception of constraints and opportunities. A wide range of societal actors e.g., farmers, extension agents, civil society organisations, and associations can actively shape the research process. The participatory approach also allows for the integration of local and farmer knowledge with scientific knowledge, thereby encouraging reciprocal learning processes. 29 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.4.2 Classification of farming systems For agricultural policy and development, classifying farms according to their farm- management characteristics is necessary (Shaner, 2019). Garrity et al., (2012) and Dixon et al. (2001) classified Africa farming systems based on two significant factors: 1. The available natural resource base, comprising water, land, grazing land, forests; climate, particularly the length of the growing season (LGP) and altitude. 2. The predominant pattern of agricultural activities and household livelihoods, including crops, livestock, trees, aquaculture, hunting and gathering, processing and non-agricultural activities; and considering the leading technologies used to determine the intensity of production and the integration of crops, livestock, and other events. The major farming systems in Africa are maize mixed, agro-pastoral, cereal-root crop mixed, root and tuber crop, highland perennial, humid lowland tree crop, fish-based, irrigated, and urban and peri-Urban farming systems. These farming systems in Africa are geographical in nature, with humid lowland tree farming system found in West and Central Africa. Livelihoods are derived from coffee, cocoa, rubber, and oil palm, as well as plantain, yam, cassava, and maize production. Based on the leading technologies or inputs used, farming systems are also classified as conventional or organic (Kamali et al., 2017). The intensity of inputs used in conventional or organic further classifies them as low input or high input (Beckmann et al., 2019; Musyoka et al., 2017). In West Africa, especially Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana due to declining yields of cocoa, farmers have relied on higher use of external inputs including pesticides, fungicides (Wessel & Quist-Wessel, 2015). Fertiliser use rates are low (Ruf & Bini, 2012). This method of farming is described by Hole et al. (2005) as conventional farming. 30 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh According to Naturland (2016), organic agriculture is a general switch from external inputs based to internal inputs and management. In the case of soil fertility management, for example, this is achieved by switching from application of chemical fertilisers brought onto the farm to compost and manure produced on the farm. Therond et al., (2017) posits that societal reluctance to chemical pesticides as well as human and ecosystem health issues, make some farmers seek to replace all or some chemical inputs with more "environmentally friendly inputs" while still managing a simplified farming system. Also, farming systems are classified based on its retention of a floristically diverse and structurally complex shade canopy with the potential of harbouring significant levels of biodiversity (Schroth & Harvey, 2007; Asare, 2006). This farming system is called agroforestry. It is a dominant practice especially for tree crops, including cocoa with some forest and fruit trees and oil palms. Agroforestry systems are classified based on the shade, which could further be categorised as medium or low shade agroforestry system (Abdulai et al., 2018). Nunoo et al., (2014) argues that the sustainability of cocoa production relies on organic and agroforestry systems, because they use fewer agrochemicals and supports biodiversity, thus, optimising ecological, economic, and social outcomes with production. 2.5 Sustainability Assessment of Farming Systems The essence of Sustainability assessment of farming systems is to provide decision-makers with an evaluation of global to local environmental, economic, and social perspectives, and to help them determine what actions should be taken to make society sustainable (Sala, Ciuffo, & Nijkamp, 2015; Ness et al., 2007). However, assessing the sustainability of agricultural practices can be a very demanding task, as it involves the consideration of 31 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh many case-specific variables (Lampridi et al., 2019). With the growing interest in assessing farming systems sustainability, several tools have been developed (De Olde et al., 2016a). This research therefore is essential to understanding the tools shared and indicators/ indices used in the sustainability assessment of farming systems. 2.5.1 Tools for assessing the sustainability of farming systems Sustainability assessment tools are mostly categorised based on the focus of the tool (Schader et al., 2014; Ness et al. 2007). Ness et al., (2007) categorises sustainability assessment tools into three (3), (1). indicators and indices, (2). product-related assessment approach, and (3) integrated assessment. The three (3) categories of sustainability assessment approaches can be identified according to the time orientation, either retrospective or sustainability assessment looking back in times, prospective or forecast, prognostic, or both. Indicators/indices are oriented retrospectively, product-related assessment has both a retrospective and a prospective orientation, and integrated assessment has a prospective orientation (Ness et al., 2007). Indicators are the essential instruments for measuring sustainability, and useful for implementing agricultural sustainability (Mili & Martínez-Vega, 2019; Rao et al., 2019). Indicators are simple measures that show the status, performance, and trends of a system under study (Franceschini et al., 2019; Ness et al., 2007). According to Greco et al., (2019) and Srinivasan et al., (2011), indicators are simple measures which can be aggregated to an index. Well-being Index (WI), Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) and Human Development Index (HDI) are examples of indicator or index-based tools. Product-related sustainability assessment focuses on the production and consumption of goods and services (Ness et al., 2007). The most widely used approach to product 32 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh sustainability assessments is a life cycle assessment. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is used to assess resource use and environmental impacts along the production chain or during the life cycle of a product (Rebitzer et al., 2004). It is used to investigate how best to improve the environmental performance of an existing product (Arvidsson et al., 2018). It is also used in various studies to identify the environmental impacts associated with a production system and to compare different systems in terms of environmental impact (Meier et al., 2015). Integrated assessment is based on systems approaches. It is used to support policy or project decisions. In the context of sustainability assessment, integrated assessment tools have an ex-ante orientation and are often carried out in the form of scenarios (Rotmans et al., 2017; Ness et al., 2007). Common integrated assessment tools include the Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA), Risk Analysis, Vulnerability Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Most of these methods do not explicitly apply to environmental concerns but can be applied across disciplinary thresholds in assessment. Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) is used to evaluate situations with competing evaluation criteria. The MCA sets goals or targets and then attempts to uncover trade-offs between them; the goal is to identify the optimal policy (Grippo, Romano, & Vastola, 2019). An example of a tool that uses the MCA is the Sustainability Monitoring and Assessment Routine tool (SMART), among others. Sustainability assessments within farming systems are becoming an increasingly important issue. Thus, there are several approaches used in assessing the sustainability of farms or farming systems (Schader et al., 2014). The different instruments used to assess sustainability mostly focus on the scope, the level of assessment, and the precision of 33 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh indicators used (Schader et al., 2014). Other instruments for sustainability assessment concentrate either on only one dimension or specific themes within a dimension in assessing farming systems sustainability (Schader et al., 2016). This review, however, concentrates on sustainability assessment tools whose level of assessment is at the farm level and the geographical scope is either global or a developing country (see Table 2.1). It also reviews tools that used indicators and the MCA approach, according to Ness et al. 2007 categorisation. The Committee on Sustainability Assessment (COSA) tool is a farm management tool that incorporates economic methods, environmental and social indicators to provide a multifaceted view of sustainability (Giovannucci et al., 2008). The economic dimension of COSA tool is measured with seven (7) themes: production, farm income, marketing costs and processing, market access, access to credit, quality levels, profitability, and farm management. The environmental status and performance were measured using energy management i.e. amount and kinds of energy used, water management i.e. evidence of water conservation practices, soil resource management i.e. erosion and coverage or prevention, biodiversity and resource management employs percentage, quality and diversity, pollution reduction involves record keeping, products and chemicals applied, IPM; recycling and reusing (systems in place); and carbon sequestration (vegetation density and quality). The key indicators of social sustainability used by the COSA tool are health and safety; hours of work and wages; fundamental rights; community relations; and farmer perception and satisfaction. The themes for each of the three (3) sustainability dimensions has a set of indicators that are used to quantify and measure the theme. For example, labour rights as a social 34 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh sustainability theme have indicators like freedom of associations, child labour, discrimination, and the existence of employment contracts. Besides, biodiversity as an ecological theme is a measure of the quantity and quality of natural vegetation, with tree life form as indicators. In terms of geographical scope and level of assessment, the tool has been used to compare different farming systems or sustainability initiatives (e.g., Fair Trade, Organic, Utz Certified and Rainforest Alliance) globally (e.g., Kenya, Peru, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Honduras). In terms of the perspective on sustainability, the COSA has a mixed perspective, but with a farm-level perspective on sustainability being the central area (Schader et al., 2014). Table 2.1 A summary of Sustainability Assessment Tools Sustainability tool Year Geographic Primary Thematic Impact scope purpose scope categories Committee on 2008 Developing Assessment Environmental, 12 Sustainability countries Social, Assessment Economic (COSA) Response Inducing 2009 Global Farm advice Environmental, 10 Sustainability Social, Evaluation (RISE) Economic SMART –Farm 2013 Global Assessment, Environmental, 21 Tool Monitoring Social, Economic, Governance Farm 2018 Global Assessment, Environmental, 16 Sustainability benchmarking, Social, Assessment (FSA) sustainability Economic reporting, market access Conversely, the Response Induce Sustainability Evaluation (RISE) according to Grenz et al., (2009) is an indicator-based tool with energy, water, soil, biodiversity, plant protection, 35 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh waste and N & P emission potential that measures the environmental dimension. The economic dimension measured by economic stability and economic efficiency. The local economy, working conditions, and social security measures the social dimension. Indeed, as a farm advisory tool, RISE considers child labour and working conditions from a societal perspective. Similar to the COSA tool, it has a mixed perspective but with a farm-level perspective on sustainability being the central area. In terms of geographical scope and level of assessment, the tool has been used to compare different farms or farming systems or sustainability initiatives globally e.g., Côte d'Ivoire, Colombia, Kenya, India, and China. Schader et al., (2016) and Jawtusch et al., (2013), operationalised the Guidelines for Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA) developed by the FAO into an indicator-based tool called "SMART-Farm Tool". The SAFA Guidelines provided a holistic and transparent global framework for the assessment of sustainability which seeks to harmonise sustainability approaches and establish a common understanding of the elements of sustainability and its assessment process (FAO, 2014). The Sustainability Assessment Monitoring RouTine (SMART-Farm Tool), a farm tool developed by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) provides an adequate tool to measure the sustainability performances of farming operations comprehensively. The dimensions of sustainability used by the SMART- Farm tool, according to the SAFA Guidelines are economic resilience, social well-being, environmental integrity, and good governance. The four (4) dimensions comprise of twenty-one (21) themes, fifty-four (54) sub-themes and over three hundred (300) indicators (see Figure 2.3). 36 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Good governance as the fourth dimension of sustainability, has given rise to multiple unique sub-themes and relates to the other three in parallel. Governance assesses the capacity of a farm/farmer to deliver adequate sustainability performance (Schader et al., 2016; FAO, 2014). In terms of geographical scope and level of assessment, the tool has been used to compare different farms or farming systems globally in Switzerland, Austria, Uganda, Costa Rica, Ghana and Kenya (Ssebunya et al., 2019; Schader et al., 2016). Compared to the COSA and RISE tools, the SMART-Farm Tool covers the environmental and social aspects explicitly from a societal perspective. In contrast, the governance and economic aspects are covered from a farm or company perspective (Schader et al., 2014). Therefore, for farming systems sustainability assessment, understanding the four dimensions of sustainability is paramount. 37 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Figure 2.3 SMART-Farm Tool: Dimensions, Themes and Sub-themes [FAO, 2014] De Olde et al., (2017), analysing the thematic scope of farm-level sustainability assessment tools used the Response Induce Sustainability Evaluation (RISE). The SMART-Farm tool has a wide variation in the selection of themes and sub-themes and indicators, the assessment approach, and the method of aggregation and scoring, despite their similar scope and purpose. Thus, each sustainability assessment tool will always lead to different assessment results and conclusions on the sustainability performance of farms unless guided by a framework for transparency of the assessment tool. The choice of indicators depends on what the analyst wishes to know and how the information will be used (Farrell 38 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh & Hart, 1998). Thus, indicators determine a tendency to have a notion of what is acceptable or to establish a baseline (Moldan et al., 2012). The Farm Sustainability Assessment (FSA) adopts the guiding vision of the tool developer (SAI), which is to "develop a sustainable, prosperous and resilient farming system that safeguards farm viability and protects and preserves land resources, human rights and animal welfare throughout the food and beverage industry" (SAI, 2018). In terms of geographical scope and level of assessment, the FSA tool has been used for agricultural sustainability initiatives globally. Compared to the COSA and RISE, the FSA and SMART-Farm tool further produces sustainability assessment results for the whole farm and does not require the use of attribution procedures. However, the allocation of resources and emissions for individual products will provide a better understanding of the environmental performance of the farm and identify sources of impact more clearly. Compared to FSA, both SMART and RISE consider the transparency associated with uncertainties and trade-offs, while the FSA provides a detailed overview of its benchmarking processes (Arulnathan et al., 2020). 2.5.2 Indicators for assessing the sustainability of farming systems Cruz et al., (2018) describe indicators as practical tools used to simplify the description of complex systems. They can be used individually, as part of a set, or aggregated within a set to improve end-users' understanding (Van Passel et al., 2007). At the farm level, indicators may be the best approach to directly assess sustainability (Bélanger et al., 2012). Rasul & Thapa (2004), analysed the sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh. They selected indicators based on three (3) dimensions of sustainability: environmental, economic, and social. The environmental indicators they 39 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh considered were cropping pattern, land use, soil management and fertility level, and pest and disease management (Table 2.2). Cropping pattern was measured in terms of cropping intensity, crop diversification, and mixed cropping, whereas land use pattern was measured as the proportion of land under field crops, homestead, and orchard. Soil fertility management was assessed based on the proportions of farmers using chemical and organic fertilisers application per unit area of land, including legumes whiles management of pests and diseases was assessed based on the proportion of farmers using biological, mechanical, and chemical methods. Economic indicators used by Rasul & Thapa (2004) were land productivity, the yield of crops and profitability. Land productivity was measured using the physical yield of crops. The yield of crops was measured based on the output per unit area of crop. At the same time, the profitability of the farms was determined based on financial return, economic return and value-added per unit of land. A social indicator was used to measure equity, and family food security was assessed in terms of the adequacy of the food grains produced and the ability of farm households to purchase the food grains needed for consumption. Giovannucci et al., (2008) in analysing Sustainability Initiatives in the Coffee Sector in Kenya, Peru, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Nicaragua selected indicators for three (3) dimensions of sustainability (Table 2.2). For the environment dimension, Giovannucci et al. (2008) selected energy management, water management, soil health, pollution reduction, recycling and reusing, biodiversity, and carbon sequestration. Energy management was measured based on the amount and types of energy used, water management was measured based on evidence of water conservation practices, and soil 40 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh health was assessed as the percentage of exposed soil and the percentage of land with evidence of erosion. Table 2.2 Indicators for measuring the four dimensions of sustainability Author Environment Economic Social Governance Rasul & 1. Land use 1. Land 1. Input self- Thapa (2004) pattern productivity sufficiency 2. Cultivation 2. Yield 2. Equity scheme stability 3. Food security 3. Soil fertility 3. Profitability 4. Risk and management uncertainties in 4. Pest and crop cultivation disease management 5. Soil fertility level Giovannucci 1.energy 1. farm income 1. Occupational & Potts management 2. market Health and (2008) 2. water access Safety measure management 3. access to a. existence and 3. soil health credit application of a 4. pollution 4. farm health and reduction management safety policy 5. recycling and 5. profitability b. access to reusing medical services 6. biodiversity and first aid 7. carbon c. secure sequestration handling of agrochemicals d. access to potable water e. living conditions for workers. 2. Labour rights a. freedom of association b. child labour c. discrimination d. existence of employment contracts 41 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3. Institutional measure a. transparent and democratic processes b. trade information and extension services c. emergency response plans d. commercial, health, educational and social activities e. crop or price risk management Grenz et al. 1. Energy 1. Economic 1. Working (2009) 2. Water stability conditions 3. Soil 2. Economic 2. Social 4. Biodiversity efficiency security 5. N&P emission 3. Local potential economy 6. Plant protection 7. Waste Reig- 1. Soil cover 1.Income of 1. Agricultural Martínez et 2.Nitrogen farmers employment al. (2011) balance 2.contribution 2. Work-force 3.Pesticide risk of stability 4.Energy balance agriculture to 3. Risk of 5.Environmental GDP abandoning subsidy areas 3. Insured area the agricultural activity 4. Economic dependence on agric. Schader et 1. Atmosphere 1. Investment 1. Decent . Corporate al., 2016 a. Greenhouse a. Internal livelihoods ethics Gases investment a. Quality of life a. Mission b. Air Quality b. Community b. Capacity- statement 2. Water investment building b. Due a. Water c. Long-term Diligence Withdrawal investment 42 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh b. Water Quality d. Profitability c. Access to 2. 3. Land 2. means of Responsibility a. Soil quality Vulnerability production a. Holistic b. Soil a. Stability of 2. Fair business audits degradation production practices b. 4. Biodiversity b. Stability of a. Responsible Responsibility a. Ecosystem supply Buyers c. diversity c. Market b. Supplier law Transparency b. Species stability 3. Labour rights 3. Participation diversity d. Liquidity a. Labour a. Dialogue c. Genetic e. Risk relations with diversity Management b. Forced labour stakeholders 5. Materials and 3. Product c. Child labour b. Grievance energy quality and d. Right of procedures a. Use of information association and c. Conflict materials a. Food safety negotiation resolution b. Energy use b. Food 4. Equity 4. The rule of c. Elimination of Quality a. Non- law waste reduction , c. Product discrimination a. Legitimacy 6. Animal Information b. Gender remedy Welfare 4. The local equality b. Prevention a. Animal Health economy c. Support for of restoration b. Absence of a. Value vulnerable c. Civic stress creation persons responsibility b. Local public 5. Safety and d. Resource procurement health of allocation persons 5. Holistic a. Safety and management health in the a. workplace Sustainability b. Provisions Management Public Health Plan 6. Cultural b. Full cost diversity accounting a. Indigenous knowledge b. Food Sovereignty Dillon et al. 1. GHG 1. Labour 1. Household (2016) emissions by productivity vulnerability operation 2. Land 2. Level of 2. GHG Productivity agricultural emissions per 3. Profitability education kilogram of 4. 3. Risk of Output Sustainability isolation 43 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3. Emissions from of the 4. High age fuels and investment profile electricity 5. Market 5. Work-life 4. Nitrogen orientation balance balance 5. Nitrogen use efficiency Antunes et 1. water balance 1. economic 1. working 1. al. (2017) a. Water efficiency environment accountability availability a. Revenues a. Wages a. Commitment b. Variability of and costs b. Working 2. Institutions water resources 2. Economic conditions for water c. Water vulnerability c. Working management consumption and a. Household hours a. The rule of use vulnerability 2. Non- law 2. water quality b. Water discrimination b. Conflict a. Water Quality dependency and equity management 3. Biodiversity c. Self-reliance a. Gender and water and ecosystems d. Adoption of equality allocation a. Agricultural risk b. Reduction of 3. Capacity systems minimization discrimination a. Water supporting strategies and inequalities governance biodiversity 3. Water 3. Education, capacity 4. Land and soil pricing health, and 4. Participation a. Soil structure a. Water tariffs social security a. Public b. Salinization of and taxes a. The level of participation in soils education of the water c. Soil quality population resources (chemical) b. Medical care management d. Land c. Social degradation security 5. Energy and 4. Population climate dynamics and a. Climate change social interactions a. Population dynamics b. Social commitment 44 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Pollution reduction was assessed using waste reduction measures, and evidence of safe chemical use, recycling and reuse procedures was measured based on the availability of recycle and reuse systems in place. Biodiversity was measured with the quantity and quality of natural tree vegetation with high diversity of indicator species. The ability of coffee farms to produce high-quality products under natural forest conditions has been the measure of carbon sequestration. For the economic sustainability dimension, the indicators Giovannucci et al., (2008) considered were farm income; market access, access to credit, farm management and profitability. Farm income was measured as the average gross revenue on per hectare basis. Market access and profitability were measured using quantity and quality of market information on of certification and the difference between revenues and costs of production, processing, and marketing, respectively. The measurement of occupational health and safety, an indicator of social sustainability, was assessed based on a set of elements like existence and application of a health and safety policy, access to medical services and first aid, safe handling of agrochemicals, access to drinking water, and quality of workers' living conditions. Other indicators of social sustainability are freedom of association, child labour, discrimination, and the existence of employment contracts. These indicators were measured as labour rights issues. Existence of employment contracts considered farms use written contracts. Freedom of association was evaluated based on the existence of unions or worker organisations. The governance indicators were stated by Giovannucci et al. (2008) as measures at the organizational level, analysed transparent and democratic processes, market information and extension services, emergency response plans, commercial, health, educational and social activities and crop or price risk management. 45 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Grenz et al. (2009) considered twelve (12) indicators based on the economic, social, and environmental dimensions in assessing the sustainability of agricultural production at the farm level (Table 2.2). Using the RISE farm tool, the environmental sustainability indicators Grenz et al. (2009) analysed were energy, water, soil, biodiversity, Nitrogen (N) & Phosphorus (P) emission potential, plant protection and waste. Energy was measured as the environmental effects of energy carriers used, water analysis based on water quantity and quality; the soil was measured based on soil pH, salinization, waterlogging, soil sampling and erosion index; biodiversity measured based on biodiversity-promoting practices; N and P emission potential analysed using the N & P balance and manure storage and application; plant protection measured based on the quality of the application and eco- & human-toxicological risks, and waste was evaluated based on the environmental hazard and methods of waste disposal. Economic stability, economic efficiency and the local economy were the economic sustainability indicators analysed by Grenz et al. (2009). Grenz et al. (2009) further measured economic stability as net debt service over a change in owner's equity & interest paid, equity ratio and gross investment. Economic efficiency was evaluated using the return on assets, return on equity, and total earned income. Share of regional workforce & salaries and lowest salaries on-farm compared to average regional salary were the measures for the local economy. Working conditions, an indicator for measuring social sustainability was measured with emergency/medical care, provision of potable water, accommodation & sanitary equipment, working hours, wage discrimination, child labour, forced labour and gender. Social security was evaluated by measuring the means of subsistence and social security. 46 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Reig-Martínez et al., (2011) chose indicators based on the three dimensions of sustainability in analysing sustainability of rain-fed farming in the central part of the Spanish Northern Plateau (Table 2.2). In 2013, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) developed indicators based on the four (4) dimensions of sustainability, good governance, environmental integrity, economic resilience, and social well-being (Table 2.2). These included 21 universal sustainability goals, 58 sub-themes or specific aims, and 118 indicators. Other studies have operationalised the framework. Schader et al., (2016), using the same universal sustainability goals and specific objectives, have over 300 indicators measuring the different enterprises of a farming system through the SMART-Farm tool. Dillon et al. (2016) chose indicators based on the three (3) dimensions of sustainability (Table 2.2). For example, they selected five (5) environmental indicators, namely GHG emissions per farm, GHG emissions per kilogram of production, fuel and electricity emissions, nitrogen balance and nitrogen use efficiency. Labour productivity, land productivity, profitability, investment viability and market orientation are the five (5) economic indicators selected. Five (5) indicators have also been selected for the social dimension, including household vulnerability, level of agricultural education, risk of isolation, high age profile and work-life balance. Antunes et al. (2017) developed a framework for assessing the sustainability of irrigated agricultural systems in Romania, Italy, Spain, Turkey, India, Brazil, Mexico, and Egypt and examined four dimensions of sustainability: (1) environmental integrity; (2) economic profitability and resilience; (3) social well-being; and (4) good governance. 47 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Antunes et al. (2017) assessed the water balance in terms of water resource availability, variability and patterns of water consumption and used in the region. Biodiversity conservation was assessed as the percentage of cultivated land that is managed to adopt biodiversity improvement practices, land degradation and soil quality were measured as a share of poor soil structure (physical soil quality). The degree of soil salinization was measured as a share of contaminated soils (chemical quality) and areas at high risk of erosion as indicators of environmental integrity. For economic indicators, Antunes et al. (2017) assessed economic vulnerability as the share of economically vulnerable households in the community, the level of dependence on subsidies in agriculture, water dependency of significant crops, ability to pay for water and ability to use diversification as a strategy to reduce risk. Regarding indicators of social well-being, Antunes et al. (2017) measured non- discrimination and equity in terms of gender equality and the distribution of opportunities and income in society and measured governance according to the four main principles of good governance established by the United Nations Development Programme (2014): accountability, water management institutions, capacity, and participation. Based on the perspective of the researcher on sustainability, the increasing concerns over the impact of agriculture on the environment and expectations for the current and future global demand generated interest in some studies focus on either one, two or all dimensions of sustainability. In conclusion, the choice of indicators for most sustainability measurements focuses on the traditional three (3) dimensions of sustainability. Indicators are the basic units for the understanding of agricultural trade-offs and must convey relevant and reliable information for assessment and decision making. 48 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.6 Concept of Trade-off and Synergies The terms "trade-offs" and to a lesser measure, "synergies" have attracted considerable interest, although they still require an acceptable meaning (Cord et al. 2017). The concept of trade-off describes an adversarial situation that involves the loss of one quality of something in exchange for the gain of another. In an economic setting, a trade- off is an expression of the opportunity cost of an alternative decision. Therefore, trade-off situations require making choices or managerial actions between alternatives that cannot be achieved at the same time (Cord et al. 2017; Turkelboom et al., 2015). In ecosystems service (ES) studies, trade-offs refer to the decreased supply of certain types of ecosystem service due to the increased use of other types (Li & Wang, 2018). Within farming systems, trade-offs exist between agricultural goals and the broader environmental or socio-cultural objectives, across time and space, and between actors (Klapwijk et al., 2014). To achieve sustainability, understanding the system dynamics that generate and change the nature of trade-offs is essential. Early trade-off studies assessed the economic, environmental and health concerns arising from the use of pesticides. The use of trade-off analysis to assess the sustainability of agriculture has since grown as a field of study, beyond agronomic and economic outcomes at the field and farm level, to integrate environmental and social impacts at the broader regional and continental levels (Kanter et al., 2018). The concept of synergy has been used in several fields to indicate the relationship between joint impacts (Luukkanen et al. 2012). Synergies in ecosystem studies refer to the improvement of two or more ecosystems services at the same time (Li & Wang, 2018). In systems theory, synergy is denoted by the behaviour of entire systems that is inherently unpredictable by the behaviour of their parts. In the field of sustainability planning, 49 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh synergies are often characterized with the concept of "win-win strategies" or winning strategies between the economic, social, and environmental dimensions (Forte et al., 2019). Synergies and trade-offs between sustainability dimensions can be analysed using qualitative and quantitative approaches, using methods like network analysis and conceptual frameworks, costs and benefits, multi-criteria analysis, and valuation of ecosystem services (Mainali et al. 2018). These methods examine the advantages and disadvantages of different lines of action, underlining the trade-offs and potential synergies. The approach in the sustainability assessment of a farming system will determine the feedback dynamics for trade-off and synergy analysis. 2.7 Empirical Studies on Sustainability Assessment of Farming Systems This section reviewed empirical studies on the sustainability performance of crop farming systems, trade-offs and synergies between sustainability dimensions, and the environmental efficiency of organic and conventional perennial crops. 2.7.1 Studies on the sustainability performance of crop farming systems Environmental integrity Fess & Benedito (2018), studying the environmental sustainability of organic and conventional crops, found that organic practices reduce the use of high energy requirements, soil building, microbial diversity, and carbon sequestration. Soil structure is key to improving cation exchange capacity, soil physical properties e.g., aggregate and water stability, infiltration of water, retention capacity, and soil biotic properties, with positive influences on nutrient and water cycling and suppression of some soil pathogens (Papadopoulos et al., 2014; Reeve et al., 2016; Fernandez et al., 2016). Freibauer et al. (2004) found that organic farm management increases soil quality benefits and climate 50 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh change mitigation. For climate change mitigation in terms of Greenhouse gas (GHG), conventional farming systems has been found to produce more significant amounts due to the use of soil amendments e.g., fertilizer and pest and disease management e.g. pesticide use (Gomiero et al., 2011). Schader et al. (2016) found that farms were the worst performers in terms of greenhouse gases generation, air quality, genetic diversity, and energy use. The degree of achievement was lowest for the following sub-themes: water withdrawal and quality, materials use, energy use, and waste reduction and disposal. However, for some other farms, the level of achievement was high for the sub-themes of animal health, absence of stress, waste reduction and disposal, material use and water withdrawal. Similarly, using the RISE sustainability assessment tool, De Olde et al. (2016a) examined the sustainability performance of organic farms in four agricultural sectors (vegetables, dairy, pigs, and poultry). De Olde et al., (2016b), using Mann-Whitney's U-test, found no significant differences in sustainability performance in the areas of land use (soil management, crop productivity, a supply of soil organic matter, soil response, soil pollution, soil erosion and soil compaction), livestock (herd management, livestock productivity, opportunities for species-appropriate behaviour), access to the outdoors, freedom of movement, habitat quality and animal health) in all four sectors, nutrient flows [nitrogen (N) balance, phosphorus (P) balance, N and P self-sufficiency, ammonia emissions and waste management] and energy and climate [energy management, the energy intensity of agricultural production, the share of sustainable energy carriers, greenhouse gas balance] 51 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh with no differences between the agricultural sectors concerning sustainability performance on biodiversity. However, at the sub-theme level, the intensity of agricultural production and the diversity of agricultural production showed differences. Vegetable farms performed better than all other sectors, in particular for the sub-theme diversity of agricultural production with land- use types, crop species and varieties, old and endangered crop species, livestock breeds, old and endangered breeds and beekeeping as indicators. Organic farms tend to be more energy-efficient and emit fewer GHGs than their conventional counterparts (Lee et al., 2015). Fuel use in organic and conventional citrus operations in Italy revealed that direct energy consumption was more significant in organic lemon farms than the conventional counterpart; while on the contrary, organic oranges required less direct energy than those produced conventionally (Pergola et al., 2013). Type of crop seasonal length and farming practices influences direct energy requirements (Fess & Benedito, 2018). Berg et al., (2018) concluded that organic olive farming contributed to an improved environment, health, and quality of olive oil. Grenz et al. (2009), assessing the sustainability of agricultural production at farm level using the RISE tool, found that the variability of indicator scores in Kenya was highest for energy, N and P emission potential, biodiversity, plant protection and water. The high variability indicates scope for improvement since some farmers achieve better performance under the prevailing conditions. The findings also revealed that, mean indicators degree of sustainability in Armenian points to significant deficits relating to N&P Emission Potential, Economic Efficiency and Social Security, while high sustainability scores were found for Energy, Water, Waste, Local Economy and Plant Protection. 52 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Giovannucci et al. (2008), found no significant difference in erosion control measures. However, waste reduction measures and pollution prevention or reduced contamination of solid waste and water was measurably better for certified coffee farms than conventional. There was a slight variation between conventional and certified farms in terms of biodiversity, indicating that for the first certification periods, these measures are likely to have little or no effect. Thus, given the critical role of local conditions and the time it takes for trees to grow, more extended measurement periods between three and five years are needed to show how certification effectively affects these indicators. Berbeć et al., (2018), using the RISE indicator system to assess the Sustainability Performance of Organic and Low-Input Conventional Farms from Eastern Poland observed that the overall performance of organic farms was better compared to conventional. Berbeć et al. (2018), using the Mann-Whitney U test, found no significant differences between organic and conventional farms in terms of land use indicators like soil management, crop productivity, soil organic matter supply, soil response, soil pollution, soil erosion and compaction, livestock indicators e.g., herd management, livestock productivity, opportunities for species-appropriate behaviour - outdoor access, free movement space, housing quality and animal health. These results are consistent with the observations made by De Olde et al. (2016b) who compared four agricultural sectors namely vegetables, dairy, pigs, and poultry, using the RISE tool. Berbeć et al. (2018) found a statistically significant difference in environment, between organic and conventional but the intensity of agricultural production differed statistically because of fewer applications of plant protection products organic compared to conventional farming. 53 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Bonisoli et al. (2019) used the SAFA framework to compare organic and conventional banana farming systems’ performance and concludes that organic banana performs environmentally better than conventional, attributed to organic performance in the SAFA themes, atmosphere, water, land and materials and energy use. However, no difference in biodiversity was found between the two banana farming systems. On the contrary, Bandanaa et al., (2016) found that organic cocoa farms were rated highly in flora in terms of species richness, abundance and evenness and contributed to household food security. Winter et al., (2020), using the SMART-Farm tool to compare sustainability performance of farming systems in Ethiopia and Brazil found that, a major driver of good performance in the coffee farming systems was genetic diversity due to the low use of external inputs. Ssebunya et al. (2019), using the SMART-Farm tool, compared the sustainability performance of certified organic, Fairtrade and non-certified coffee farms. They found that all farms had high scores on environmental issues including air quality, water quality, ecosystem diversity, waste reduction and disposal, & species diversity. Economic resilience A meta-analysis of 54 crops by Crowder & Reganold, (2015) concluded that the organic farming system is generally more profitable than the conventional system due to price premiums and that achieve comparable yields, the conventional system would only require price premiums of 5-7%. Primarily when the organic crops are grown for exports, it is highly profitable (Panneerselvam et al., 2015) and increases farm income (Giovannucci et al., 2008). Kamali et al. (2017), observed that the organic production system had a more significant performance in terms of profitability compared to the conventional production system. Winter et al., (2020), in comparing coffee farming systems in Ethiopia found that, 54 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh profitability, and liquidity was low due to the amounts farmers receive as price premiums and the low yields recorded by cash crops. Broadly, Fess & Benedito (2018), concluded that organic production has economic benefits, albeit low yields. Berg et al., (2018), found that, despite conventional olive farmers perception of low profits from organic olive farming, organic olive farming was more profitable than conventional due to high prices paid for organic olive. Berbeć et al. (2018) also found no statistical difference in economic viability factors like liquidity, profitability, stability between organic and conventional farms. Diversification is an essential element of resilience, which for agricultural systems can take the form of initiatives, habitats, crops, or genetic variation. Agricultural systems with greater genetic diversity have reduced the risk of crop loss or economic failure (Abson et al., 2013). Studies by Jacobi et al. (2014, 2015) on resilience and carbon stocks in organic and conventional production concluded that organic cocoa farms under agroforestry had the best results in terms of crop diversity, soil quality, yields and income, and social connectivity. Schader et al. (2016) found that farms had the worst results in terms of internal investment, long-term investment, and local sourcing. Others performed very well, with more than 90 per cent achievement of targets for local procurement, product information, food safety, liquidity, food quality and risk management. Sustainability performance on the theme economic viability showed no difference. However, a difference was found between sectors for sub-themes like cash reserve, debt level, economic vulnerability, and cash flow/sales ratio (Schader et al., 2016). Using the SAFA themes, organic banana performed economically better than conventional in terms of investment, vulnerability, and product 55 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh quality and information. No difference was found in local economy theme between organic and conventional banana systems (Bonisoli et al., 2019). Social well-being Schader et al. (2016) found that, in general, farms performed very well in terms of forced labour, child labour, indigenous knowledge, equitable access to the means of production, capacity development, safety and health in the workplace, public health and food sovereignty. Support for the vulnerable, non-discrimination, freedom of association and the right to negotiate is lowest relative to the median. Working conditions and quality of life show no difference between sectors respectively, while for the sub-theme "Occupation and education" a difference was observed. Occupational health and safety, and labour rights results show certified coffee farms to be slightly higher and higher, respectively than conventional farms. Certified coffee farms were found to have more existence of unions or worker organizations (Giovannucci et al., 2008). Winter et al., (2020) found that, public health scored higher among coffee farming systems in Ethiopia. Although the health of agricultural workers is recognized as an issue of global importance (Popp et al., 2013), much of the literature on it comes from the United States and Europe, where exposures are likely to be lowest due to stricter safety regulations. Humans are exposed to pesticides in the field during the application through pesticide drift (Lee et al., 2011), contaminated food (Smith-Spangler et al., 2012) or water (Stayner et al., 2017). Several assessments identify significant adverse health effects of many pesticides, but they bemoan data availability (Blair et al., 2014, Saillenfait et al., 2015). The focus is on the compounds and active ingredients from herbicides used with the recognition of glyphosate as a potential carcinogen (Myers et al., 2016). Atrazine in groundwater is a key cause in birth problems 56 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh (Stayner et al., 2017). Concerning differences in exposure between organic and conventional agricultural systems, Parelho et al. (2016) found adverse effects of conventional agricultural practices on testicular health using wild mice. In terms of genetic damage, Costa et al. (2014) found higher levels of genetic impairment in conventional compared to organic farmworkers. Pesticide drift is an essential source of exposure in rural communities (Lee et al., 2011). Food safety refers to "concern about the spread of disease-carrying pathogens such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella enterica and other microbes between agricultural systems and humans". Work linking the prevalence of foodborne pathogens to bacterial contamination in conventional and organic farming systems is incomplete and misleading due to lack of evidence (Shennan et al., 2017). Bourn & Prescott (2002) found no difference between organic and conventional foods in terms of microbial contamination. The difference between organic and conventional farming practices may be less vital for the spread of pathogens than specific practices common to both. The nutritional value of organic foods, as opposed to conventional food, varies depending on the methods used, the type of crop and the nutritional attributes measured. There are several mechanisms by which organic management can impact the nutritional quality of food crops (Reeve et al., 2016). However, the effects of other factors may mask the effect of management (Johansson et al., 2014). In their study, Reeve et al. (2016) found that organically grown foods are higher in minerals and vitamins, though these differences are minor. Two meta-analyses in their review also found no differences in nutritional content between organic and conventional products. Significantly, some studies conclude that consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic- 57 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh resistant bacteria (Smith-Spangler et al., 2012). Compared to the conventional system, the organic farming system respects indigenous knowledge and practices as well as modern technologies, promoting gender equality in the workplace, the full participation of vibrant rural communities to build confidence and mental health, and decreasing the suicide rate among farmers (Pandey, & Singh, 2012). Berbeć et al. (2018) also found no statistical differences in working conditions (personnel management, working hours, occupational safety, and income levels) and quality of life between organic and conventional farms. Ssebunya et al., (2019), found higher scores among coffee farming systems in terms of indigenous knowledge, public health, workplace health & safety, and child labour. Bonisoli et al. (2019) found no difference in SAFA themes, decent livelihood, human safety and health, and cultural diversity between organic and conventional banana systems. However, conventional banana systems performed better in fair trading practices, labour rights and equity compared to organic. Economic resilience is an important predictor for economic sustainability performance of farming systems. Good governance Schader et al. (2016) found, using the sustainability monitoring and evaluation programme (SMART-Farm tool), that the performance of the selected farms on sustainability themes in the governance dimension was worst for the mission statement and full cost accounting. They also observed that the transparency and holistic audits of most farms had a low level of achievement of objectives. At the sub-theme level, however, objectives were achieved mainly in the areas of legitimacy, corrective action, restoration and prevention, resource allocation and stakeholder dialogue, especially concerning civic responsibility. Similarly, 58 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Winter et al., (2020) found that the performance of the good governance dimension for coffee farming systems in Ethiopia were mostly insufficient to limited, especially for legitimacy and mission statement. The organic banana system performs better in terms of the application of rule of law compared to the conventional. There was a significant difference in corporate ethics, accountability, participation, and holistic management among organic and conventional banana systems (Bonisoli et al., 2019). Ssebunya et al. (2019) found low scores in the governance dimension, regardless of certification status (i.e. organic or Fair Trade). They attributed the various opportunities and challenges faced by farms as well as differences in institutional or political influence in coffee production. In conclusion, differences in the performance of farming systems according to sustainability measures depend on multiple factors, including landscape heterogeneity, organic price premiums, farmers' knowledge and investment capacity, and the suitability of each system to local agronomic and socio-economic circumstances. 2.7.2 Studies on trade-offs and synergies between sustainability dimensions Many researchers have explored studies on trade-offs and synergies for the sustainability dimensions while most are limited to environmental and economic trade-off and synergy, few focus on the social and environmental dimension of sustainability. Pursuing social goals is often associated with higher environmental impacts (Scherer et al., 2018). The relationships between social and environmental goals determine the impact positive or negative. According to Duru et al. (2015) and Foran et al. (2014), complex interactions exist between social and environmental systems. Organic farming practices are less harmful to the environment but foster social well-being (Schader et al., 2015). Sittisak & 59 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Ekasingh (2015) found a decrease in the expenditure on pesticides or erosion led to a reduction in employment on farms. However, a decrease in fertilizer or nitrogen use did not have any significant impact on employment. Schader et al. (2016) observed that trade- offs within the environmental dimension were more than trade-offs with the others, especially the social dimension. They found that synergies in the social dimension were generally strong, except for the sub-themes "Quality of life", "Safety at work" and "Public health". Although trade-offs and synergistic relationships are not necessarily stable and may change over time (Haase et al., 2012), the findings of Ssebunya et al. (2019) corroborated the observations made by Schader et al. (2016) on trade-offs and synergies between the environmental dimension and other dimensions. Kurgat et al. (2018) explored trade-offs in farming systems between economic and environment in sub-Saharan Africa. The economic outcome was a measure of livelihood using productivity enhancements like fertilisers whiles the environment outcome was measured using greenhouse gases. Kurgat et al. (2018) concluded that, to achieve optimum economic and environmental outcomes, fertilising soil should be a mix of organic and inorganic nitrogen fertilisers. Jespersen et al., (2017) and Annunziata & Vecchio, (2016), found a significant positive correlation between public health, waste reduction and disposal, ecosystem diversity and energy use. Similarly, Jouzi et al. (2017) found that the environmental benefits of supporting vulnerable people in farming systems include ecosystem diversity, reduced land degradation, a better quality of soil and air. Supporting vulnerable groups or helping disadvantaged farmers in the organic farming system enhances environmental integrity (Makita, 2016). 60 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Rosa-Schleich et al. (2019) evaluated diversified farming systems in terms of environmental and economic trade-offs. They observed that diversified farming systems have the potential to increase and stabilize yield and profitability in the long-term. However, the environmental benefits are partly inadequate to outbalance economic costs. Rosa-Schleich et al. (2019) conclude that diversified organic farming systems will achieve great environmental and economic benefits. On the contrary, Tälle et al. (2019) found trade-offs in the environment and economics, with trade-offs in reduced GHG emissions per ha farmland, reduced eutrophication and pesticide use per ha farmland, Improved animal welfare and decreased yields in economic terms for organic production. Similarly, Vallet et al., (2018) found a trade-off between farming system and carbon sequestration. 2.7.3 Studies on the environmental efficiency of organic and conventional perennial crops Though several researchers have studied the environmental efficiency of farming systems, many have limited such studies to the life cycle of a crop in terms of energy efficiency (Neira, 2016a & 2016b; Lee & Choe, 2018). Studies to understand the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in different systems dominate. In Table 2. 3, a summary of ten studies is presented. Table 2.3 GHG emissions studies of organic and conventional farming systems Reference Product/ System Method Results Country Boundaries Vervuurt, 2019 Cocoa/ Côte Cradle to Cool Conventional cocoa emits 3.6 kg d’Ivoire gate Farm CO2eq of cocoa produced. Tool Composting and fertilizer application contributed more. Akrofi- Cocoa/Ghana - Ex- CSA/Agroecology recorded higher Atitianti et al., Ante emissions (42 KgCO2eq) from its 2018 Carbon- practices compared to the 61 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Balance conventional system (33 KgCO2eq) Tool in Juabeso due to intensification with high inputs by CSA farms. CSA/Agroecology recorded lower emissions (4.9 KgCO2eq) from its practices compared to the conventional system (9 KgCO2eq) in Atwima Mponua due to low or no use of organic inputs. Leyte et al., Cocoa/ Cradle to LCA Conventional cocoa emitted 629.9 2017 Philippines gate KgCO2eq of greenhouse gases due to nutrient management, transportation and harvesting. Schroth et al. Cocoa/Brazil Cool Farm Cool Conventional cocoa emits 0.36kg (2016) Tool Farm CO2eq of cocoa produced. Fertilizer Tool application was the highest input related emission. Utomo et al., Cocoa/Indone Cradle to LCA Conventional cocoa -coconut 2016 sia gate agroforestry contributed less emissions (3.67E +01 kgCO2-eq) compared to conventional cocoa monoculture (7.06E+01 kgCO2-eq) and cocoa-rubber agroforestry (7.65E+01 kgCO2-eq). The cocoa - coconut agroforestry had higher levels of soil organic carbon and matter. Ortiz- Cocoa/Colom Cradle to PAS Lower environmental burdens in Rodríguez et bia gate 2050 conventional management al., 2016 (8.00E+00 kg CO2 eq kg-1) compared to agroforestry practice (8.89E+00 kg CO2 eq kg-1). Composting in agroforestry is the reason for the difference. Trinh et al., Coffee/Vietna Cradle to LCA GHG emission in conventional 2020 m gate (0.935 kg CO2eq) was the highest compared to organic (0.644 kg CO2eq). Fertilizer and pesticide application contributed to the difference. Zhu et al., 2018 Apple/China Cradle to LCA Greenhouse gas emissions were gate higher in conventional (913.4 Kg CO2 eq) compared to organic (864.8 Kg CO2 eq). Fertilizers and pest and disease management accounted for high emissions in conventional. 62 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Longo et al. Apple/Italy Cradle to LCA/IL GHG emission in conventional 2017 gate CD (6.12E + 02 kg CO2eq) was the highest compared to organic (5.88E + 02kg CO2eq). The difference is accounted for by high fertilizers, pesticides, and diesel used in conventional. Montalba et al., Blueberry/ Cradle to LCA Organic farms contribute less (110 2019 Chile gate kg CO2eq) to GHG emission compared to conventional (280 kg CO2eq). This is because of soil management and pest control by conventional farms. Studies on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for perennial crops focused on a cradle to gate system boundary in environmental efficiency analyses. The literature on GHG emissions related to cocoa bean production is scarce. A few studies have assessed the GHG emissions associated with cocoa production according to farming systems (Table 2.3). Although it is recognized that perennial crops can have zero or even harmful net emissions (Ledo et al., 2018). All these studies report a net GHG emission per kilogram of cocoa beans, coffee, or apple/blueberry produced. Vervuurt, (2019) modelled Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of conventional cocoa production in Côte d’Ivoire at plot level using the Cool Farm Tool. Vervuurt (2019) found that conventional cocoa emits 3.6 kg CO2eq of GHG. These emissions are mostly from composting and fertilizer application. Similarly, in Brazil and the Philippines, Schroth et al. (2016) and Leyte et al. (2017) studied conventional cocoa production in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, respectively. The authors observed that fertilizer application accounted for most of the GHG emitted. Akrofi-Atitianti et al., (2018) using the FAO Ex-Ante Carbon-Balance Tool estimated the annual greenhouse gas emissions produced by Climate Smart Agriculture 63 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh (CSA)/Agroecology and conventional cocoa production systems in Juabeso and Atwima Mponua Districts of Ghana. Akrofi-Atitianti et al. (2018) observed that conventional cocoa farming produces more GHG compared to CSA/Agroecology. Also, Utomo et al., (2016) compared conventional cocoa agroforestry systems with monoculture in Indonesia using the life cycle analysis (LCA) approach. Utomo et al. (2016) found that cocoa-coconut agroforestry contributed less GHG emissions compared to conventional cocoa monoculture and cocoa-rubber agroforestry. Conventional cocoa- coconut agroforestry produced soil organic carbon and matter. Similarly, Ortiz-Rodríguez et al. (2016) evaluated the carbon footprint per kilogram of Colombian cocoa bean produced under conventional and agroforestry management. They found that environmental burdens were lower for the conventional management compared to the agroforestry practice due to composting of cocoa pod husks. Trinh et al., (2020) worked on a comparative life cycle assessment for conventional and organic coffee cultivation in Vietnam. Their results showed that the conventional (0.935 kg CO2eq) method had the highest emissions in comparison with organic (0.644 kg CO2eq). This is due to fertilizer or high use of manure, and pesticide application. Also, Zhu et al. (2018) studied the life cycle analysis of conventional and organic apple production systems in China. The LCA results found that greenhouse gas emissions were higher in conventional (913.4 Kg CO2 eq) compared to organic (864.8 Kg CO2 eq). The emissions in the organic system are attributed to organic manure use, and the high emissions in conventional are attributed to fertilizers (i.e., synthetic and manure), and pest and disease management. 64 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Longo et al., (2017) compared organic with conventional apple using the LCA methodology. They found that GHG emission in conventional (6.12E + 02 kg CO2eq) was the highest compared to organic (5.88E + 02kg CO2eq). The difference is accounted for by high fertilizers, pesticides, and diesel used in conventional. Montalba, Vieli, Spirito, & Muñoz, (2019) in studying the performance of different blueberry systems using LCA found organic farms to contribute less (110 kg CO2eq) to GHG emission compared to conventional (280 kg CO2eq). This is because of soil management and pest control by conventional farms. In conclusion, GHG emissions related to perennial farming are highly dependent on management practices, changing farming practices is paramount in achieving a more sustainable farming system (Ledo et al., 2018). For cocoa, the GHG emission values vary between 0.36 and 42 kg CO2-equivalents per kilogram of cocoa. 2.8 Cocoa Sector Governance and Policies for Sustainability Global governance of the cocoa sector involves the interaction between public and private actors to coordinate economic activity and decision-making. The system of institutional governance is defined by the integration of the value chain, the level of state involvement and market coordination mechanisms (Ton et al., 2008). With the introduction of the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) in the late 1980s, governance processes in other cocoa-producing countries e.g., Cote D’ivore shifted from state governance to other forms of corporate and joint governance (Kolavalli & Vigneri, 2018; Ton et al., 2008). The governance structure of the Ghana cocoa sector is one with a common/joint governance system with an active role for the state and a more passive role as a global 65 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh buyer based on the Griffiths and Zammuto (2005) framework as adopted by Ton et al., (2008). The post Structural Adjustment Programmes era introduced several reforms and policies for the sustainability of the cocoa sector, including the tree crop policy (TCP) and Cocoa Sector Development Strategy (CSDS) I & II policy. The main objective of the tree crop policy is to focus on value chain development and improved technologies to create job opportunities, ensure food security, enhance the environment, and improve livelihoods. The tree crop policy of Ghana is hinged on the Food and Agriculture Sector Development Policy (FASDEP) II, which provides the framework for Sustainable Agricultural Development. However, cross-cutting issues like access to credit and adequate financial services, working conditions on-farm/child labour and gender-related issues have not been addressed by the tree crop policy explicitly, albeit the consequences on the cocoa sector. Ghana’s draft Cocoa Sector Development Strategy II seeks to modernize Ghana’s cocoa sector and promote climate-smart cocoa and enhance the productivity of farms, following the expiration of the CSDS I in 2009/2010 which targeted increasing production and raising the producer price to 70% of the gross Free on Board (FOB) price. The modernization of the cocoa sector was underpinned by three (3) pillars namely competitiveness, resilience, and robustness. A competitive Ghanaian cocoa sector means, increasing productivity and efficiency of cocoa farmers along the cocoa supply chain. In addition, a resilient Ghanaian cocoa sector means a sector that can stand the challenges and risks associated with the global cocoa market and climate change. Also, the robustness of the sector means its readiness to be an industry leader through innovation and differentiation with a focus on quality management, traceability, and certification. The draft Cocoa Sector Development Strategy II serves as the new governance framework that will 66 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ensure the sustainability of the sector specifically introducing productivity enhancement initiatives to reduce the incidence of pests and diseases, ageing cocoa farms and farmers, decline in soil fertility, low extension agent-farmer ratio and unfavourable weather conditions. Over the years, especially after the 2000s, there have been various interventions and reforms introduced by Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) and its partners to address some of the challenges mentioned (see Table 2.4). Table 2.4 Productivity-enhancing, and environmental sustainability initiatives introduced to the cocoa sector No. Challenge/issue Intervention Year 1 Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus Control of CSSVD and rehabilitation 1940s Disease (CSSVD) of affected farms 2 Pests and diseases Cocoa Mass Spraying Programme 1965 3 Pests and diseases Cocoa Diseases and Pests Control 2001 (CODAPEC) programme 4 A decline in soil fertility Cocoa HI-TECH programme 2003 5 Ageing cocoa farms Cocoa Rehabilitation Scheme 2010 (aged/moribund and CSSVD- infected cocoa farms) 6 Low extension agent-farmer Recruitment of extension officers 2010 ratio 7 Training materials on agronomic Piloting of mobile technology under 2017 practices by extension officers & the Cocoa Link Project farmers 8 Unfavourable weather conditions Piloting of irrigation systems in 2018 cocoa stations for farms around the cocoa stations 9 A decline in yield of cocoa Artificial pollination of cocoa 2017 10 Smuggling of Cocoa Beans and Anti-Smuggling of Cocoa Beans and 2017 Cocoa inputs Cocoa inputs through the establishment of greater co-operation with Ghana’s neighbouring countries 11 Deforestation (Loss of forest 1.Eco-certification programmes that 2012 cover due to agricultural promote climate-smart agroforestry expansion esp. cocoa), ageing systems (e.g., Conservation Alliance, Rainforest Alliance, UTZ etc.) cocoa trees, and lack of shade trees 67 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2. Environmental Sustainability Project (ESP) funded by Mondelez & UNDP 3. Emission Reduction Programme (ERP). A joint programme by Forestry Commission (FC) and COCOBOD 4. Forest Investment Programme (FIP) with a focus in high forest zones of Western & Brong Ahafo regions. 5. Organic cocoa farming as a pathway towards a sustainable cocoa sector 12 Ageing farmers 1. Youth to secure own farmlands 2016 (e.g., MASO project of Solidaridad) 2. COCOBOD to provide technical support and inputs. 3. COCOBOD to build the capacity of the youth and provide the platform for them to access funds intended for cocoa farming. 13 Gender mainstreaming 1. Create a desk in COCOBOD Yet to 2. Integrate gender in extension done programming 14 Labour shift/ land ownership in 1. labour-saving technologies Yet to Cocoa 2. protect both landowners and done sharecroppers by streamlining land ownership with the relevant institutions 15 Child Labour National Programme for the 2006 Elimination of Child Labour (NPECL) through the Ministry of Employment and Labour Relations (MELR) Source: Authors compilation from CSDS I & II (2019) The interventions range from pest and disease control, cocoa farms rehabilitation, trade liberalization of cocoa beans, extension recruitment & training, through a public-private arrangement to meet a target ratio of 1 agent to 500 farmers by 2027 though at current it 68 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh hovers around one agent to 2500 farmers, artificial pollination of cocoa, anti-smuggling of cocoa beans and cocoa inputs initiative, organic farming and climate-smart practices including piloting irrigation schemes, gender mainstreaming, youth in cocoa farming to address the sustainability of the cocoa industry and youth unemployment and a national programme for the elimination of child labour. 2.9 Summary of Literature Review and Identification of Knowledge Gaps This review focused on the concepts of sustainability, examining the viewpoints of sustainability in terms of economic, environmental, social, and good governance dimensions. It also discusses the two broad world views of sustainability. The systems thinking on sustainability, the concept of farming systems and their classification was reviewed and the sustainability assessment of farming systems in terms of the tools and indicators used in the assessment. It also included the concept of trade-offs and synergies, and empirical studies on farming systems sustainability in terms of studies on the sustainability performance of crop farming systems, trade-offs and synergies between sustainability dimensions, and studies on the environmental efficiency of organic and conventional perennial crops. The cocoa sector governance and policies for sustainability in Ghana were also reviewed. The general observation was that empirical studies on the sustainability performance of farming systems show that, there has been few or no study that addresses the concerns of the cocoa sector holistically i.e., social, economic, environmental and governance concerns. Most studies on farming systems comparison mostly focus on one indicator in a dimension. Also, trade-offs and synergy analysis in farming systems mostly focus on the weak sustainability world view. The trade-offs and synergies between and within the 69 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh sustainability dimensions in achieving the sustainability of cocoa farming systems have not been adequately covered in the literature. Furthermore, empirical studies on cocoa sector environmental efficiency are few, and they did not consider the different farming systems. The number of farmer observations to conclude on the cocoa cradle to gate and cradle to grave assessments were few. The major objective of this study was to use the SMART-Farm tool to do a comprehensive assessment of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua, as well as evaluated the trade-offs and synergies within and between sustainability dimensions. 70 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER THREE MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 Description of the Study Area This study was carried out in the Atwima Mponua District in the Ashanti region of Ghana (Figure 3.1). 3.1.1 Location, drainage, and soils The Atwima Mponua District is in the south-western part of the Ashanti Region. It lies between longitudes 2o00'W and 2o32'W and latitudes 6o32'N and 6o75'N and covers an area of about 1883.2 square kilometres (GSS, 2013). The district is marked by a double maximum rainy season. The major rainy season begins in March and ends in July, with a peak in May. The average annual rainfall for the main season is about 1700 mm - 1850 mm per year. The minor rainfall season begins in August and ends in November, with an annual average of 1,000 millimetres - 1,250 millimetres per year. From December to February, the weather is dry, hot, and dusty with an average daily temperature of about 27oC, with monthly average temperature levels ranging from 22oC to 30oC throughout the year. The climate of the district is ideal for growing cash crops and food crops such as cocoa, plantain, rice, and all kinds of vegetables. The soils are moderately adapted and deep and supports the cultivation of a wide range of cash, food, and tree crops. The Atwima Mponua district is drained by the Offin and Tano rivers (GSS, 2013). There are 310 communities in the district, 5 of which were selected for the study (Figure 3.1). 71 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Figure 3.1 Map of the study area 3.1.2 Non-governmental organisations (NGO) activities in the study area The Atwima Mponua District is predominantly agrarian, with cocoa as the dominant cash crop (GSS, 2013). The district exemplifies a successfully implemented major ecological and/or organic farming system with other voluntary sustainability standards (VSS) including Rainforest Alliance (RA) since 2011 by Agro Eco Louis Bolk Institute (LBI) (Akrofi-Atitianti et al., 2018). The conventional cocoa farming system is the commonly practiced system in Atwima Mponua District. The organic cocoa production system was an initiative of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in the district from 2011to 2017 to enable them to access the organic cocoa market in Europe (Agro Eco- LBI). They provided training and other support 72 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh services to farmer cooperatives like the Tano-Biakoye Organic Cocoa Farmers’ Co- operative Society Limited for which the farmers received certification in 2012. Trained organic farmers under the Tano-Biakoye Organic Cocoa Farmers’ Co-operative Society Limited are Rainforest Alliance certified, a pre-requisite for joining this organic farming group. 3.2 Data Sources and Types Data for this study employed secondary data from four (4) sources as follows: 1. ProEco Africa Project 2. Organic Farm Systems for Africa (OFSA) Project 3. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and 4. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Ghana Data for each of these sources provided information for specific sections of the study. Details of these are provided below. 3.2.1 ProEco Africa project database 1. Provided data for socio-demographic characteristics includes: • Gender • Marital status • Educational status • Age of farmer • Total farm size • Household members 2. Data on socio-economic characteristics includes the following: • Types of crops grown in cocoa farming systems • Types of inputs used by cocoa farmers • Average labour hours spent per activity • Perception of soil fertility status of cocoa farms 73 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3. Farm activity data There were three main data sources, as shown in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Activity data for organic and conventional cocoa production Activity (per Ha) Conventional Organic Energy for Farming Operation Petrol (L1) 1.37 1.23 Pest and Disease Management Fungicide (L) Mancozeb 17.90 0.00 Metalaxyl-M 0.02 0.00 Metallic Copper 12.12 5.30 Sulphur 17.32 0.00 Herbicide (L) Atrazine 0.46 0.00 Glyphosate 21.83 0.00 Paraquat Chloride 0.42 0.00 Paraquat Dichloride 0.87 0.00 Propanil 0.04 0.00 Insecticide (L) Bifenthrin 5.94 0.00 Imidacloprid 64.64 0.00 Neem 12.25 14.13 Pyrethrin 24.71 15.98 Thiamethoxam 2.93 0.00 Nutrient (L) Nitrogen 0.06 0.00 Nitrogen (urea) 0.05 0.00 Phosphorus 0.01 0.00 Potassium 0.01 0.00 1L is litres 74 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.2.2 Organic farm systems for Africa (OFSA) project database The Organic Farm System for Africa (OFSA) provided information on the four main dimensions of sustainability namely environmental integrity, economic resilience, social well-being, and governance as shown in Table 3.2 and their accompanying themes, sub- themes, and indicators (Appendix 3.1). Table 3.2 also shows the distribution of themes, sub-themes, and indicators for the four main sustainability dimensions. There was a total of 21 themes, 58 sub-themes and 327 indicators, as shown in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 SMART-Farm tool, themes, sub-themes, and indicators Dimension Themes Sub-theme Indicators Environmental integrity 6 14 67 Economic resilience 4 14 120 Social well-being 6 16 60 Good governance 5 14 80 Total 21 58 327 3.2.3 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Ghana database The IPCC and EPA database provided data on greenhouse gas emission factors from farm activities, as shown in Table 3.3. The greenhouse emission gases were carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (NO2). 75 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 3.3 Activity and greenhouse gas emission factors Activity GHG emission factor CO2 Source/reference NO2 CH4 CO2 equivalent (kg)1 Energy for Farming Operation Petrol 2.00E-05 0.007 3.15 3.301 EPA, 2016; Eshun et al., 2011 Pest and disease management Fungicide - - - 7.383 EPA, 2016; Audsley et Herbicide - - - 23.836 al., 2009 Insecticide - - - 20.444 EPA, 2016; Bogner et al., 2007 Nutrient application Nitrogen 0.03 - - 9.30 EPA, 2016 (soil; volatile- zation; leaching) Nitrogen (urea) 0.2 - - 62.00 EPA, 2016 Fertilizer productio n Phosphorus 1.3 EPA, 2016 Potassium 0.71 EPA, 2016 3.2.4 Sample size The sample size for the ProEco Africa Project and OFSA databases was 398 cocoa farmers, respectively, out of which 71 were organic cocoa farmers, with 327 conventional cocoa farmers. The ProEco Africa Project and OFSA projects interviewed the same cocoa farmers for different objectives. The database for ProEco Africa project covered the period from 2015 to 2017 over four cropping seasons whiles that of OFSA covered three months period from December 2016 to February 2017. 1 100 years Global Warming Potential (1kg CO2=1kg CO2; 1kg of N2O=310kg CO2; 1kg of CH4= 21kg of CO2 76 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.3 Analysis of Data 3.3.1 Socio-demographic characteristics The sample size for each of the character states for the variables gender, marital status, and education were expressed in percentages for both organic and conventional cocoa farming systems. Descriptive statistics were performed for the variable scores, age of farmer (years), total farm size (Ha) and household members. The Microsoft excel was used for the analysis. 3.3.2 Socio-economic characteristics The average labour hours spent per activity was calculated for six activities including manual wedding, pest, and disease management, pruning, harvesting, pod breaking and fermentation. Type of inputs used, and crops grown in the cocoa farming system were expressed as percentages as well as the perception of soil fertility. The Microsoft excel was used for the analysis. 3.3.3 Comparative analyses of sustainability performance of organic with conventional cocoa farming systems 3.3.3.1 Degree of Goal Achievement (DGA) The degree of goal achievement was estimated to compare the sustainability performance of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems. Degree of goal achievement (DGA) was estimated by using the formula below, which is programmed into the SMART-Farm tool. ∑𝑁𝑛=1(𝐼𝑀𝑛𝑖×𝐼𝑆 )𝐷𝐺𝐴 𝑛𝑥𝑖𝑥 = 𝑁 X 100% ∀ 𝑖 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑥 (3.1) ∑𝑛=1(𝐼𝑀𝑛𝑖×𝐼𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑛) Where: x = farm i = sub-theme 77 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh IM ni = all indicators relevant to the sub-theme i IS nx = actual performance of a farm x with reference to an indicator n IS maxn =maximal performance with reference to n indicators The level of goal achievement scale ranged from 0% to 100%, as explained in Table 3.4. Table 3.4 Interpretation of scale for sustainability performance Scale Interpretation 0 – 20 % Unacceptable performance 21 – 40 % Limited performance 41 – 60 % Moderate performance 61 – 80 % Good performance 81 – 100 % Best performance Source: FAO, (2014) Sustainability polygons were used to show the degree of goal achievement for each theme, and sub-theme variables of the dimensions. The pie chart is divided into six (6) concentric regions. The first five (5) regions from the origin of the pie chart correspond to the five (5) levels of goal achievements on a sustainability scale. Each sub-theme is joined by a vector to the origin of the pie chart. The polygon is drawn by joining values of degree of goal achievements of the sub-themes to obtain the vertices of the polygon. A vertex will, therefore, fall within a certain sustainability scale. 3.3.3.2 Differences between organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in terms of dimensions The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test was used to test for significant differences between organic and conventional farming systems based on the four dimensions: environmental integrity, economic resilience, social well-being, and good governance. The significance level was p = 0.05 (Baarda & van Dijkum, 2019; Berbeć et al., 2018). 78 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Calculations were performed using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0. 3.3.4 Identifying trade-offs and synergies within and among the four main sustainability dimensions The Spearman’s rank correlation analysis was used to identify trade-offs and synergies within and among environmental integrity, economic resilience, social well-being, and good governance dimensions. Negatively significant Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (p <0.05) indicated trade-offs within and among the sub-themes of the dimensions, while positively significant Spearman’s correlation coefficients (p <0.05) indicated synergies (Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010). The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was also performed to identify trade-offs and synergies within and among environmental integrity, economic resilience, social well- being, and good governance dimensions following Raudsepp-Hearne et al. (2010). The factor loadings of the variables identified trade-offs and synergies. The first four-factor loadings were used. Variables with negative coefficient values indicated trade-offs, and variables with positive coefficient values indicated synergies. The Spearman Rank Correlation and Principal Component Analysis were performed using the Corrplot and FactoMineR packages in R, respectively. 3.3.5 Determination of the impact of organic and conventional cocoa practices on environmental efficiency Environmental efficiency is measured using greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from all activities undertaken over the life stages of cocoa production following Wang et al., (2015) and Dubey and Lal, (2009). Following the PAS 2050, greenhouse gas emissions were calculated as follows: 79 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 𝑮𝑯𝑮 𝒆𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 = 𝚺𝒏𝒊=𝟏𝑭𝑨𝑫𝒊 𝐱 𝑬𝒇𝒊 (𝟑. 𝟐) where: 𝑭𝑨𝑫𝒊 = Farming activity data for a farm (in kg) 𝑬𝒇𝒊 = Emission factor coefficient (kg CO2 eq) The greenhouse gases calculated were carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). The concentration of each of the gases was converted into the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq). The emission factor coefficient for the gases is presented in Table 3.3 and the farm activity data in Table 3.1. The non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test was used to test for differences between organic and conventional farming practices at significance level p = 0.05 with references to environmental efficiency (Baarda & van Dijkum, 2019; Berbeć et al., 2018). Calculations were performed using IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 25.0. 80 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS 4.0 Introduction This section presents the results of the study. Aside the specific objectives of the study, the section provides the background information of the cocoa farmers whose farming systems are studied. Next, the results on the sustainability performance of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems are presented in polygons and mean differences between the farming systems tested. The results on trade-offs and synergies between the sustainability dimensions are presented as the second objective, and lastly the results on the impact of organic and conventional cocoa Practices on Environmental Efficiency are presented. 4.1 Background of Respondents in Atwima Mponua District The background characteristics of organic and conventional cocoa farmers include their socio-demographic and economic characteristics. 4.2.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents Table 4.1 shows the results of the socio-demographic characteristics of organic and conventional cocoa farmers in the Atwima Mponua District of the Ashanti Region, Ghana. Table 4.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of farmers in Atwima Mponua District Variable Organic Conventional P-value Gender Male 36(50.7%) 186 (56.9%) 0.350 Female 35 (49.3%) 141 (43.1%) Marital status Married 58 (81.7%) 257 (78.6%) 0.549 Not married 13 (18.3%) 70 (21.4%) Education 0.835 Literate 53 (74.6%) 248 (75.8%) Illiterate 18 (25.4%) 79 (24.2%) 81 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Age of farmer (years) Mean 55 53 0.224 Minimum 25 20 Maximum 86 88 Total farm size (Ha) Mean 2.26 3.23 -0.000*** Minimum 0.33 0.15 Maximum 6.91 18.09 Household members Mean 6 5 0.006** Minimum 1 1 Maximum 18 17 ***1%, **5% and *10% significance 4.2.1.1 Gender distribution The gender distribution of the farming systems is shown in Table 4.1. From the results, the conventional farming system 43% of female farmers, compared to organic farming (49%). Fifty-seven per cent and 51% of the respondents were males. 4.2.1.2 Marital status From the results, 81.7% and 78.6% were married in the organic and conventional farming system, respectively (Table 4.1). Eighteen per cent and 21.4% were no married organic and conventional farming system, respectively. 4.2.1.3 Education of respondents The results of the education of the farmers in the farming systems are shown in (Table 4.1). The results show 74.6% and 75.8% of farmers in organic and conventional farming systems were literates. Twenty-five per cent and 24% of the farmers in organic and conventional farming systems were illiterates. 82 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.1.4 Age of respondents The mean ages for organic and conventional cocoa farmers in Table 4.1 were 55 years and 53 years, respectively. The maximum age for organic was 86 years, while conventional was 88 years. Conventional farmers had a minimum age of 20 years, while organic is 25 years. 4.2.1.5 Total farm size of respondents Results on the average farm size for the farming systems is shown in Table 4.1. The average farm size for an organic cocoa farmer is 2.3 hectares whiles that of conventional is 3.2 hectares. Conventional farmers have a maximum farm size of 18 hectares, and that of organic is 6.9 hectares. 4.2.1.6 Household members in Atwima Mponua District In cocoa farming, some of the activities are carried out by household members. The results in Table 4.1 show that organic cocoa farming households have more mean household members (6) compared to conventional (5). The maximum number of household members for an organic farming household was 18 compared to 17 of conventional. 4.2.2 Socio-economic characteristics of respondents in Atwima Mponua District The results for the economic characteristics cover the average labour hours spent per activity on-farm, types of crops grown, types of inputs used and the perception of soil fertility status of cocoa farms and are shown in Table 4.2 to Table 4.4 and Figure 4.1, respectively. 4.2.2.1 Average labour hours spent per activity in Atwima Mponua District Cocoa production comprises of a set of cultural activities undertaken before cocoa beans are obtained. The activities cocoa farmers spend time on is shown in Table 4.2. 83 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.2 Average labour hours spent per activity in Atwima Mponua District Activity Organic Conventional Mean difference P-value Manual weeding 33.69 28.55 5.14 0.000*** Pest and Disease management 3.62 4.01 -0.39 0.014* Pruning 7.68 7.25 0.43 0.296 Harvesting 6.04 5.63 0.41 0.001*** Pod breaking 6.88 5.95 0.93 0.000*** Fermentation 6.51 7.59 -1.08 0.003*** Average hours spent on cocoa 12.04 10.05 1.59 0.000*** ***1%, **5% and *10% significance From the results, organic cocoa farmers spend on the average 33.69 hours per season on manual weeding compared conventional farmers who spend less time (28.55 hours) for the same activity per season. Conversely, the results in Table 4.2 show that conventional farmers spend more time (4 hours) in pest and disease management compared to organic (3.6 hours). Organic farmers spend more time harvesting cocoa (cutting, heaping, picking) (6 hours) and pod breaking (6.9 hours) per season compared to conventional with 5.6 hours and 6 hours, respectively. The results also show that conventional cocoa farmers spend more time (7.6 hours) in fermenting their cocoa compared to organic (6.5 hours). Overall, organic cocoa farmers spend 12 hours per season on various cultural activities compared to conventional farmers (10 hours). 4.2.2.2 Types of crops grown in cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District Table 4.3 shows the types of crops grown in an organic and conventional cocoa farming system. These crops are mostly annual and perennials other than cocoa. From the results, most farmers in the organic cocoa farming system were engaged in vegetable production (okra and chillies /pepper). These crops are intercropped or grow under the cocoa trees in the farming system. In a farming system, crop counts intercropped enhances sustainability. 84 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.3 Types of crops grown in cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District Crop Organic (%) Conventional (%) P-Value Plantain 89 86 Cassava 69 71 Cocoyam 56 56 Maize/Corn 21 25 Yam 25 23 Chillies and pepper 18 11 Oil Palm 14 7 Rice 5 6 Okra 4 3 Count of crops Mean 6 6 Minimum 1 1 0.031* Maximum 17 15 *10% significance 4.2.2.3 Types of inputs used by cocoa farmers in Atwima Mponua District Cocoa farmers in the farming systems use different inputs for soil amendments (chemical/synthetic and organic fertilizers), and plant protection (insecticides and fungicides) as shown in Table 4.4. Table 4.4 Types of inputs used by cocoa farmers in Atwima Mponua District Input type Conventional (%) Organic (%) Chemical or Synthetic Fertilizer 7 0 Energy for Farming Operation 5 5 Fungicides 4 2 Herbicides or Weedicide 7 0 Insecticides 31 21 Organic Fertilizer 0 2 Planting material: Seedlings 3 5 Planting material: Seeds 11 18 Planting material: Sucker Shoots Cuttings 19 28 Planting material: Tuber/Root/ Corm/Bulb 13 19 Source: ProEco Africa (2018) 85 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.2.4 Perception of soil fertility status of cocoa farms in Atwima Mponua District The perception of the soil fertility status of the cocoa farms is shown in Figure 4.1. Low High Organic Conventional Average 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Figure 4.1 Perception of soil fertility status of cocoa farms in Atwima Mponua District The results in Figure 4.1 show that both conventional and organic farms are perceived to be averagely fertile by most of the respondents. 4.3 The Sustainability Performance of Organic and Conventional Cocoa Farming Systems in Atwima Mponua District The degree of goal achievement which reflect sustainability performance of the sub-themes for the four dimensions (environmental integrity, economic resilience, social well-being, and good governance) are presented in polygon views of radar charts and shown in Figure 4.2 to Figure 4.5. 86 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.3.1 Environmental integrity sustainability performance between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District Environmental integrity sustainability performance is illustrated in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2 Polygon view of the environmental integrity sustainability performance of cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District The five sub-themes, waste reduction and disposal, energy use, material use, genetic diversity and species diversity showed the highest sustainability performance between 60% and 80% for both organic and conventional cocoa farming systems. The lowest sustainability performance was shown by soil quality and freedom from stress for both organic and conventional farming systems that fell between the scale of 20% and 40%. Sustainability performance of greenhouse gases fell within the scales 61% - 80% and 40% - 60% for organic and conventional farming systems, respectively. 87 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Sustainability performance of animal health and land degradation fell within the scales 41% - 60% and 21% - 40% for organic and conventional farming systems, respectively. 4.3.2 Economic resilience sustainability performance between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District Economic resilience sustainability performance is illustrated in Figure 4.3. The risk management and profitability sub-themes showed the highest sustainability performance between 61% and 80% for both organic and conventional cocoa farming systems. The seven sub-themes, community investment, long-ranging investment, the stability of production, the stability of the market, product information, liquidity and value creation showed moderate sustainability performance for both organic and conventional farming systems that fell between the scale 41% and 60%. A lower sustainability performance was shown by internal investment and stability of supply for both organic and conventional farming systems that fell between the scale 21% and 40%. Food safety and local procurement showed the lowest sustainability performance between the scale 0% - 20%, for both organic and conventional farming systems. 88 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Figure 4.3 Polygon view of the economic resilience sustainability performance of cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 4.3.3 Social wellbeing sustainability performance between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District Social wellbeing sustainability performance is illustrated in Figure 4.4. Workplace safety and health provisions showed the highest sustainability performance between 60% and 80% for both organic and conventional cocoa farming systems. The lowest sustainability performance was shown by seven sub-themes, capacity development, rights of suppliers, forced labour, child labour, freedom of association and bargaining rights, non- discrimination and food sovereignty for both organic and conventional farming systems that fell between the scale 20% and 40%. 89 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Figure 4.4 Polygon view of the social wellbeing sustainability performance of cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District Sustainability performance of fair access to means of production fell within the scales 21% - 40% and 0% - 20% for organic and conventional farming systems, respectively. Sustainability performance for gender equality and support to vulnerable people fell within the scales 61% - 80% and 41% - 60% for organic and conventional farming systems, respectively. 90 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.3.4 Good governance sustainability performance between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District Good governance sustainability performance is illustrated in Figure 4.5. Stakeholder dialogue showed the highest sustainability performance between 81% and 100% for both organic and conventional cocoa farming systems. Figure 4.5 Polygon view of the good governance sustainability performance of cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District The sustainability performance for sub-themes, responsibility, conflict resolution, and full cost accounting, for both organic and conventional farming systems, fell between the scale 61% and 80%. The lowest sustainability performance was shown by sub-themes, mission 91 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh statement and, the legitimacy for both organic and conventional farming systems that fell between the scale 0% and 20%. 4.4 Mean Difference between Organic and Conventional Cocoa Farming Systems for the four Sustainability Dimensions in Atwima Mponua District Mean difference between organic and conventional cocoa farming systems for the four sustainability dimensions are presented in Table 4.5 to table 4.8. 4.4.1 Mean difference for environmental integrity between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District Mean difference between the different farming systems based on the sub-themes of Environmental Integrity is shown in Table 4.5. Table 4.5 Mean difference for environmental integrity sub-themes between organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District Themes/sub-themes Mean Mean P-value Organic Conventional difference Atmosphere Greenhouse Gases 243.8 189.9 53.9 0.000*** Air Quality 258.7 186.7 72.0 0.000*** Water Water Withdrawal 260.6 186.2 74.3 0.000*** Water Quality 242.3 190.2 52.1 0.001*** Land Soil Quality 225.5 193.9 31.6 0.035* Land Degradation 249.1 188.7 60.4 0.000*** Biodiversity Ecosystem Diversity 231.2 192.6 38.5 0.010** Species Diversity 253.9 187.7 66.2 0.000*** Genetic Diversity 247.8 189.0 58.8 0.000*** Material use and energy Material Use 234.5 191.9 42.5 0.005** Energy Use 129.0 103.2 25.8 0.041* Waste reduction & disposal 126.3 103.6 22.7 0.072 Animal welfare Animal Health 227.0 193.5 33.5 0.026* Freedom from Stress 199.0 199.6 -0.6 0.970 ***1%, **5% and *10% significance 92 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Mean scores for the organic farming system ranged between 126.3 (waste reduction and disposal) and 260.6 (water withdrawal). Mean scores for conventional farming system ranged between 103.2 (energy use) and 199.6 (freedom from stress). The two cocoa farming systems differed significantly for all the sub-themes except for waste reduction and disposal, and freedom from stress, where the p-values were above p=0.05. 4.4.2 Mean difference for economic resilience between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District Mean difference between the different farming systems based on the sub-themes of Economic resilience is shown in Table 4.6. Mean scores for the organic farming system ranged between 191.2 (stability of production) and 259.2 (liquidity). Mean scores for conventional farming system ranged between 186.6 (liquidity) and 202.0 (stability of supply). The two cocoa farming systems differed significantly for most sub-themes except for, community investment, long-ranging investment, the stability of production, the stability of supply, risk management, food safety, value creation and local procurement, where the p-values were above p=0.05. 93 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.6 Mean difference for economic resilience sub-themes between organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District Theme/sub-themes Mean Mean difference P-value Organic Conventional Investment Internal Investment 224.03 194.17 29.85 0.047* Community Investment 222.56 194.49 28.06 0.062 Long-Ranging Investment 215.04 196.13 18.91 0.208 Profitability 239.16 190.89 48.27 0.001*** Vulnerability Stability of Production 191.24 201.29 -10.05 0.504 Stability of Supply 187.80 202.04 -14.24 0.34 Stability of Market 251.56 188.20 63.36 0.000*** Liquidity 259.16 186.55 72.62 0.000*** Risk Management 213.56 196.45 17.11 0.254 Product quality and information Food Safety 199.69 199.46 0.23 0.988 Food Quality 227.46 193.43 34.04 0.023* Product Information 225.22 193.92 31.30 0.036* Local Economy Value Creation 220.19 195.01 25.18 0.094 Local Procurement 202.20 198.91 3.29 0.826 ***1%, **5% and *10% significance 4.4.3 Mean difference for social well-being between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District Mean difference between the different farming systems based on the sub-themes of social well-being is shown in Table 4.7. Mean scores for the organic farming system ranged between 189.2 (public health) and 266.2 (support to vulnerable people). Mean scores for conventional farming system ranged between 185.0 (support to vulnerable people) and 201.7 (public health). 94 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.7 Mean difference for social wellbeing sub-themes between organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District Themes/sub-themes Mean Mean P-value Organic Conventional difference Decent livelihood Quality of life 209.39 197.35 12.0 0.416 Capacity development 214.14 196.32 17.8 0.230 Fair access to means of production 214.01 196.35 17.7 0.197 Fair trading practices Responsible Buyers 212.13 196.76 15.4 0.305 Rights of Suppliers 214.32 196.28 18.0 0.208 Labour rights Employment Relations 202.14 198.93 3.2 0.692 Forced Labour 222.49 194.51 28.0 0.057 Child Labour 237.97 191.15 46.8 0.001*** Freedom of ass. and right to 238.54 191.02 47.5 0.001*** bargaining Equity Non-Discrimination 231.25 192.61 38.6 0.008** Gender equality 256.71 187.08 69.6 0.000*** Support to vulnerable people 266.19 185.02 81.2 0.000*** Human safety and health Workplace safety and health 193.58 200.79 -7.2 0.619 provision Public health 189.16 201.74 -12.6 0.399 Cultural diversity Indigenous knowledge 229.51 192.98 36.5 0.015** Food sovereignty 206.09 198.07 8.0 0.594 ***1%, **5% and *10% significance The two cocoa farming systems differed significantly for some sub-themes except for quality of life, capacity development, fair access to means of production, responsible buyers, rights of suppliers, employment relations, forced labour, workplace safety and health provision, public health and food sovereignty, where the p-values were above p=0.05. 95 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.4.4 Mean difference for good governance between the organic and conventional cocoa farming system in Atwima Mponua District Mean difference between the different farming systems based on the sub-themes of good governance is shown in Table 4.8. Mean scores for the organic farming system ranged between 187.9 (legitimacy) and 251.2 (full cost accounting). Mean scores for conventional farming system ranged between 188.3 (full cost accounting) and 202.0 (legitimacy). Table 4.8 Mean difference for good governance sub-themes between organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District Themes/sub-themes Mean Mean P-value Organic Conventional difference Corporate ethics Mission Statement 227.18 193.49 33.7 0.022* Due Diligence 205.57 198.18 7.4 0.623 Accountability Holistic audits 202.26 198.90 3.4 0.823 Responsibility 196.47 200.16 -3.7 0.805 Transparency 193.72 200.76 -7.0 0.634 Participation Stakeholder dialogue 203.67 198.59 5.1 0.724 Grievance procedures 204.64 198.38 6.3 0.675 Conflict resolution 191.47 201.24 -9.8 0.502 Rule of law Legitimacy 187.92 202.02 -14.1 0.345 Remedy,restoration & prevention 190.54 201.44 -10.9 0.466 Civic responsibility 213.15 196.54 16.6 0.269 Resource appropriation 218.75 195.32 23.4 0.108 Holistic management Sustainability management plan 225.61 193.83 31.8 0.034* Full-cost accounting 251.18 188.28 62.9 0.000*** ***1%, **5% and *10% significance The two cocoa farming systems differed significantly for three sub-themes, mission statement, sustainability management plan and full cost accounting. The remaining eleven good governance sub-themes had p-values above p=0.05. 96 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.5 Trade-offs and Synergies within and among Sustainability Dimensions of Organic and Conventional Cocoa Farming Systems in Atwima Mponua District This section explains the interactions within the sustainability dimensions and their principal components. It also explains the interaction and principal components among the sustainability dimensions. 4.5.1 Interactions within sustainability dimensions for the organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 4.5.1.1 Interactions within environmental integrity dimension The results of the interactions within the environmental integrity for the organic and conventional farming system is shown in (Table 4.9). There were 77 significant pairwise correlations within the environmental integrity dimension of organic farming system (70 positives, 7 negatives), with the strongest positive correlations between 26 sub-themes. Seven five (75) significant pairwise correlations were found in the conventional farming system (71 positives, 4 negatives), with the strongest positive correlations between 26 sub- themes. 4.5.1.2 Interactions within economic resilience dimension The results of the interactions within the economic resilience for the organic and conventional farming system is shown in (Table 4.10). Sixty-four (64) significant pairwise correlations were found within the economic resilience dimension of organic farming system (58 positives, 6 negative), with the strongest positive correlations between 7 sub- themes. For the conventional farming system, 65 significant pairwise correlations (59 positives, 6 negatives) within the economic resilience dimension were found, with the strongest positive correlations between 5 sub-themes. 97 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.9 Interactions within environmental integrity dimension Interactions in organic farming system +ve Interactions in conventional farming system -ve Coefficients Coefficients Animal health Freedom from stress 0.997 Animal health Freedom from stress 0.994 Water quality Soil quality 0.894 Water quality Soil quality 0.88 Soil quality Land degradation 0.84 Soil quality Land degradation 0.821 Ecosystem diversity Species diversity 0.761 Greenhouse gases Air quality 0.726 Air quality Species diversity 0.726 Water quality Land degradation 0.713 Material use Energy use 0.723 Material use Waste reduction & disposal 0.703 Greenhouse gases Land degradation 0.712 Soil quality Species diversity 0.687 Soil quality Species diversity 0.71 Material use Energy use 0.673 Greenhouse gases Soil quality 0.7 Land degradation Species diversity 0.647 Greenhouse gases Air quality 0.699 Greenhouse gases Energy use 0.629 Air quality Soil quality 0.686 Water quality Species diversity 0.627 Water quality Material use 0.67 Air quality Species diversity 0.623 Water quality Energy use 0.67 Greenhouse gases Land degradation 0.615 Water quality Land degradation 0.669 Greenhouse gases Soil quality 0.593 Water quality Species diversity 0.643 Air quality Energy use 0.592 Soil quality Energy use 0.641 Water quality Material use 0.574 Land degradation Species diversity 0.641 Ecosystem diversity Species diversity 0.573 Air quality Energy use 0.637 Greenhouse gases Water quality 0.569 Air quality Water quality 0.611 Water quality Energy use 0.564 Ecosystem diversity Genetic diversity 0.607 Air quality Soil quality 0.55 Air quality Land degradation 0.587 Air quality Water quality 0.549 Material use Waste Reduction & disposal 0.566 Soil quality Energy use 0.548 Soil quality Material use 0.557 Air quality Land degradation 0.516 Greenhouse gases Energy use 0.554 Genetic diversity Animal health 0.515 Greenhouse gases Water quality 0.551 Genetic diversity Freedom from stress 0.515 Species diversity Genetic diversity 0.533 Soil quality Material use 0.511 98 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Greenhouse gases Water withdrawal -0.311 Water withdrawal Land degradation -0.309 Table 4.10 Interactions within economic resilience dimension Interactions in organic farming system Coefficients Interactions in conventional farming system Coefficients Risk management Food safety 0.778 Value creation Local procurement 0.719 Value creation Local procurement 0.777 Stability of production Risk management 0.669 Internal investment Product information 0.606 Risk management Food safety 0.607 Risk management Food quality 0.582 Stability of market Risk management 0.551 Food safety Food quality 0.55 Profitability Stability of production 0.533 Profitability Liquidity 0.544 Stability of supply Liquidity -0.237 Profitability Stability of production 0.534 Stability of supply Liquidity -0.357 4.5.1.3 Interactions within social wellbeing dimension The interactions within the social wellbeing dimension for the organic and conventional farming system is shown in (Table 4.11). There were 78 significant pairwise correlations for the organic farming system (70 positives, 8 negatives), with the strongest positive correlations between 10 sub-themes. Seventy-four (74) significant pairwise correlations were found for the conventional farming system (60 positives, 14 negatives), with the strongest positive correlations between 7 sub-themes. 4.5.1.4 Interactions within good governance dimension The interaction within the good governance dimension for the organic and conventional farming system is shown in (Table 4.12). Sixty- two (62) significant pairwise correlations were found in the organic farming system (56 positives, 6 negatives), with the strongest 99 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh positive correlations between 11 sub-themes. The conventional farming system showed 76 significant pairwise correlations (73 positives, 3 negatives), with the strongest positive correlations between 17 pairwise. Table 4.11 Interactions within social wellbeing dimension Interactions in organic farming system Coefficients Interactions in conventional farming system Coefficients Non discrimination Gender equality 0.98 Non discrimination Gender equality 0.985 Forced labour Freedom of association 0.891 Forced labour Freedom of association 0.87 and right to bargaining & right to bargaining Capacity development Fair access to means of 0.736 Responsible buyers Rights of suppliers 0.728 production Responsible buyers Rights of suppliers 0.711 Non discrimination Support to vulnerable 0.656 people Non discrimination Support to vulnerable people 0.622 Capacity development Fair access to means of 0.634 production Employment relations Freedom of association 0.615 Gender equality Support to vulnerable 0.601 and right to bargaining people Workplace safety & health provisions Public health 0.584 Workplace safety & health Public health 0.526 provisions Employment relations Forced labour 0.575 Gender equality Support to vulnerable people 0.551 Rights of suppliers Forced labour 0.509 100 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.12 Interactions within good governance dimension Interactions in organic farming system Coefficients Interactions in conventional farming system Coefficients Mission statement Full-cost accounting 1 Mission statement Full-cost accounting 0.992 Mission statement Responsibility 0.618 Stakeholder Dialogue Conflict Resolution 0.895 Stakeholder dialogue Conflict resolution 0.844 Responsibility Civic Responsibility 0.768 Responsibility Civic Responsibility 0.763 Responsibility Full-cost accounting 0.652 Responsibility Full-cost accounting 0.618 Mission statement Responsibility 0.651 Conflict resolution Remedy, restoration & prevention 0.539 Mission statement Sustainability management 0.589 plan Responsibility Transparency 0.533 Sustainability Full-cost accounting 0.585 management plan Responsibility Sustainability management plan 0.507 Responsibility Transparency 0.57 Stakeholder dialogue Remedy, restoration & prevention 0.502 Holistic Audits Sustainability management 0.569 plan Mission statement Legitimacy 0.501 Remedy, Restoration & Resource Appropriation 0.552 Prevention Legitimacy Full-cost accounting 0.501 Stakeholder Dialogue Remedy, restoration & 0.541 prevention Responsibility Sustainability management 0.533 plan Holistic Audits Full-cost accounting 0.522 Mission statement Transparency 0.517 Transparency Full-cost accounting 0.517 Mission statement Holistic Audits 0.511 Stakeholder Dialogue Resource Appropriation 0.507 101 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.5.2 Principal component analysis (PCA) within sustainability dimensions for the organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District 4.5.2.1 Environmental integrity dimension The PCA for environmental integrity dimension for the organic and conventional farming system is shown in (Table 4.13). In the organic farming system, the eigenvalues of the first four (4) principal components were explained by 79.68% of the total variance. The first principal component accounted for 37.95% of the variation within the environmental integrity dimension and represented synergies for all except material use and freedom from stress. The second principal component accounted for an additional 19.56% of the variation within the environmental integrity dimension and primarily described the trade-offs in soil quality in one hand and, energy use, and waste reduction and disposal in another hand. Principal components 3 and 4 described gradients in the atmosphere (greenhouse gases and air quality) and material use and energy (energy use, and waste reduction & disposal). They accounted for 12.79% and 9.39% of the variation, respectively. Table 4.13 Eigenvalues and their contribution rates of PCA for environmental integrity dimension Component Eigenvalue Contribution rate(%) Cumulative contribution rate (%) Organic farming system PC 1 5.31 37.95 37.95 PC 2 2.74 19.56 57.51 PC 3 1.79 12.79 70.30 PC 4 1.31 9.39 79.69 Conventional farming system PC 1 4.60 32.85 32.85 PC 2 2.41 17.20 50.05 PC 3 2.00 14.30 64.35 PC 4 1.53 10.91 75.26 In the conventional farming system, the eigenvalues of the first four (4) principal components were explained by 75.26% of the total variance. About 32.85% of the variation 102 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh within the environmental integrity dimension was accounted for by the first principal component and represented synergies for all except greenhouse gases and freedom from stress. An additional 17.20% of the variation within the environmental integrity dimension was accounted for by the second principal component and explained the trade-offs in species diversity, material use and freedom from stress. Gradients in the land (soil quality and land degradation), and biodiversity (species diversity and genetic diversity) were described by principal components 3 and 4 and accounted for 14.30% and 10.91% of the variation, respectively. The intersection between PC1 and PC2 in organic farming system environmental integrity showed that air quality, water withdrawal, land degradation, water quality, genetic diversity and ecosystems diversity had the highest contribution to the explanation of the total variance (Figure 4.6). 103 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Figure 4.6 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for environmental integrity of organic farming system The intersection between PC1 and PC2 in environmental integrity of conventional farming system showed that waste reduction and disposal, energy use, land degradation, and species diversity contributed positively to the explanation of the total variance (Figure 4.7). 104 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Figure 4.7 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for environmental integrity of conventional farming system 4.5.2.2 Economic resilience dimension The PCA for economic resilience dimension for the organic and conventional farming system is shown in (Table 4.14). In the organic farming system, the eigenvalues of the first four (4) principal components were explained by 69.95% of the total variance. The first principal component accounted for 30.80% of the variation within the economic resilience dimension and represented synergies for all except liquidity. 105 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.14 Eigenvalues and their contribution rates of PCA for economic resilience dimension Component Eigenvalue Contribution rate(%) Cumulative contribution rate (%) Organic farming system PC 1 4.31 30.80 30.80 PC 2 2.45 17.46 48.27 PC 3 1.69 12.08 60.34 PC 4 1.34 9.60 69.95 Conventional farming system PC 1 4.24 30.28 30.28 PC 2 2.30 16.41 46.69 PC 3 1.59 11.33 58.02 PC 4 1.06 7.55 65.57 The second principal component accounted for an additional 17.46% of the variation within the economic resilience dimension and primarily described the trade-offs in investment (internal investment and long-ranging investment), product quality and information (food safety, product information) and local economy (value creation and local procurement). Principal components 3 and 4 described gradients in community investment and vulnerability (stability of supply and stability of the market) and accounted for 12.08% and 9.60% of the variation, respectively. In the conventional farming system, the eigenvalues of the first four (4) principal components were explained by 65.57% of the total variance. Thirty-one per cent of the variation within the economic resilience dimension was accounted for by the first principal component. It represented synergies for all except vulnerability (stability of supply, the stability of market) and product quality and information (food quality and product information). The second principal component accounted for an additional 16.41% of the variation and explained the trade-offs in the stability of production and food quality. Principal components 3 and 4 showed gradients for investment (community investment, 106 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh long-ranging investment, and profitability), food safety and local procurement and accounted for 11.33% and 7.55% of the variation, respectively. Between PC1 and PC2 for economic resilience in the organic farming system, the intersections showed that risk management, food quality, food safety and stability of production contributed the highest in explaining the total variance (Figure 4.8). Figure 4.8 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for economic resilience of organic farming system 107 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The intersection between PC1 and PC2 in economic resilience of conventional farming system showed that value creation, local procurement, the stability of production contributed the most to the total variance (Figure 4.9). Figure 4.9 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for economic resilience of conventional farming system 108 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.5.2.3 Social wellbeing dimension Table 4.15 shows the organic and conventional farming system PCAs for social wellbeing dimension. The eigenvalues of the first four (4) principal components in the organic farming system were explained by 67.94% of the total variance. Table 4.15 Eigenvalues and their contribution rates of PCA for social wellbeing dimension Component Eigenvalue Contribution rate Cumulative contribution rate (%) (%) Organic farming system PC 1 4.37 27.31 27.31 PC 2 2.73 17.06 44.38 PC 3 2.23 13.91 58.28 PC 4 1.53 9.66 67.94 Conventional farming system PC 1 3.70 23.15 23.15 PC 2 2.55 15.94 39.08 PC 3 2.32 14.51 53.59 PC 4 1.63 10.21 63.79 Twenty-seven per cent of the variation within the social wellbeing dimension is accounted for by the first principal component and represented synergies for all except freedom of association, support to vulnerable, workplace safety, and indigenous knowledge. The second principal component accounted for an additional 17.06% of the variation and shows the trade-offs in decent livelihood (capacity development and fair access to production), forced labour, public health, and food sovereignty. Gradients explained in principal components 3 and 4 are fair access to production, fair trading practices (responsible buyers, and rights of suppliers), labour rights (employment relations and forced labour) and equity (non-discrimination, gender equality, and support to vulnerable). These accounted for 13.91% and 9.66% of the variation, respectively. 109 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The eigenvalues of the first four (4) principal components for the conventional farming system in Table 4.15, were explained by 63.79% of the total variance. Twenty-three per cent of the variation was accounted for by the first principal component. It represented synergies except for freedom of association, support to vulnerable, workplace safety and indigenous knowledge. The second principal component accounted for an additional 15.93% variance and showed trade-offs in quality of life, capacity development, fair access to production, public health, and food sovereignty. Principal components 3 and 4 described the gradients in fair access to production, responsible buyers, rights of suppliers, equity (non-discrimination, and gender equality) and accounted for 14.50% and 10.21% of the variation, respectively. The intersection between PC1 and PC2 in organic farming system social wellbeing shown in (Figure 4.10). The results showed that forced labour, rights of suppliers, freedom of association, support to vulnerable, and gender equality had the highest contribution to the explanation of the total variance. 110 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Figure 4.10 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for social wellbeing of organic farming system The intersection between PC1 and PC2 in social wellbeing of conventional farming system showed that capacity development, fair access to production, child labour, non- discrimination, public health, and food sovereignty contributed positively to the explanation of the total variance (Figure 4.11). 111 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Figure 4.11 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for social wellbeing of conventional farming system 4.5.2.4 Good governance dimension The PCA for good governance dimension for the organic and conventional farming system is shown in (Table 4.16). In the organic farming system, the eigenvalues of the first four (4) principal components were explained by 71.54% of the total variance. 112 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.16 Eigenvalues and their contribution rates of PCA for good governance dimension Component Eigenvalue Contribution rate Cumulative contribution rate (%) (%) Organic farming system PC 1 4.26 30.41 30.41 PC 2 2.94 21.00 51.41 PC 3 1.53 10.96 62.36 PC 4 1.28 9.17 71.54 Conventional farming system PC 1 5.22 37.28 37.28 PC 2 2.98 21.25 58.52 PC 3 1.25 8.96 67.48 PC 4 1.12 7.98 75.46 The first principal component accounted for 30.41% of the variation within the good governance dimension and represented synergies for all except holistic audits, grievance procedures, and resource appropriation. The second principal component accounted for an additional 21.00% of the variation and described the trade-offs in legitimacy and resource appropriation. Principal components 3 and 4 explained gradients in the mission statement, stakeholder dialogue, legitimacy and full cost accounting and accounted for 10.96% and 9.17% of the variation, respectively. As shown in Table 4.16, the eigenvalues of the first four (4) principal components in the conventional farming system, were explained by 75.46% of the total variance. Thirty-seven per cent of the variation was accounted for by the first principal component and represented synergies for all except grievance procedures and resource appropriation. The second principal component accounted for an additional 21.25% of the variation and explained trade-offs in the mission statement and full cost accounting. Principal components 3 and 4 showed gradients for holistic audits, transparency, stakeholder dialogue, conflict 113 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh resolution, civic responsibility, and sustainability management plan and accounted for 8.96% and 7.98% of the variation, respectively. Between PC1 and PC2 for good governance in the organic farming system, the intersections showed that conflict resolution, stakeholder dialogue, responsibility, mission statement and full cost accounting, contributed the highest in explaining the total variance (Figure 4.12). Figure 4.12 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for good governance of organic farming system 114 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The intersection between PC1 and PC2 for conventional farming system showed that grievance procedures, conflict resolution, mission statement, full cost accounting, and responsibility contributed the most to the total variance (Figure 4.13). Figure 4.13 PCA biplot of PC1 and PC2 for good governance of conventional farming system 4.5.3 Interactions among sustainability dimensions for the organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District The interactions between the four sustainability dimensions of the organic and conventional farming system are shown in Table 4.17 and Table 4.18. 115 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.17 Interactions among sustainability dimensions for the organic farming system Key Governance Environment Economic Social Positive interactions among organic Coeff. Negative interactions among organic Coeff. Food safety Public health 0.786 Legitimacy Freedom of association and right to bargaining -0.499 Workplace safety & health Risk management provisions 0.76 Greenhouse gases Capacity development -0.485 Species diversity Public health 0.759 Greenhouse gases Freedom of association and right to bargaining -0.482 Food safety Workplace safety & health 0.731 Land degradation Capacity development -0.474 Grievance procedures Indigenous knowledge 0.676 Mission statement Freedom of association and right to bargaining -0.473 Genetic diversity Food sovereignty 0.674 Full-cost accounting Freedom of association and right to bargaining -0.473 Water quality Internal investment 0.657 Sustainability mang. plan Waste Reduction & disposal -0.468 Energy use Internal investment 0.651 Legitimacy Capacity development -0.429 Air quality Internal investment 0.621 Product information Capacity development -0.427 Soil quality Internal investment 0.619 Stakeholder dialogue Local procurement -0.422 Risk management Public health 0.613 Soil quality Capacity development -0.419 Due diligence Food safety 0.61 Ecosystem diversity Profitability -0.407 Remedy, restoration & Genetic diversity Public health 0.608 prevention Material use -0.405 Ecosystem diversity Long-ranging investment 0.604 Conflict resolution Local procurement -0.404 Due diligence Product information 0.604 Conflict resolution Internal investment -0.401 Legitimacy Greenhouse gases 0.601 Conflict resolution Air quality -0.4 Due diligence Public health 0.601 Sustainability mang. plan Freedom of association and right to bargaining -0.397 Remedy, restoration & Legitimacy Product information 0.599 prevention Internal investment -0.388 116 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Due diligence Risk management 0.594 Land degradation Freedom of association and right to bargaining -0.388 Legitimacy Water quality 0.589 Legitimacy Forced labour -0.386 Species diversity Food safety 0.587 Stakeholder dialogue Gender equality -0.378 Genetic diversity Risk management 0.582 Mission statement Rights of suppliers -0.37 Stability of supply Rights of suppliers 0.57 Full-cost accounting Rights of suppliers -0.37 Remedy, restoration & Legitimacy Soil quality 0.568 prevention Water quality -0.368 Ecosystem diversity Public health 0.563 Stakeholder dialogue Non discrimination -0.361 Resource appropriation Responsible buyers 0.561 Stakeholder dialogue Material use -0.355 Water quality Product information 0.559 Legitimacy Rights of suppliers -0.342 Remedy, restoration & Air quality Public health 0.559 prevention Energy use -0.336 Responsibility Indigenous knowledge 0.557 Conflict resolution Greenhouse gases -0.328 Water quality Public health 0.556 Energy use Capacity development -0.326 Stakeholder dialogue Stability of market 0.55 Greenhouse gases Forced labour -0.325 Ecosystem diversity Risk management 0.548 Responsibility Freedom of association and right to bargaining -0.32 Species diversity Internal investment 0.546 Mission statement Employment relations -0.319 Genetic diversity Stability of supply 0.541 Full-cost accounting Employment relations -0.319 Legitimacy Land degradation 0.539 Ecosystem diversity Liquidity -0.317 Species diversity Risk management 0.538 Material use Stability of market -0.317 Conflict resolution Responsible buyers 0.535 Conflict resolution Soil quality -0.316 Risk management Rights of suppliers 0.532 Mission statement Forced labour -0.316 Species diversity Long-ranging investment 0.53 Full-cost accounting Forced labour -0.316 Long-ranging investment Public health 0.528 Water quality Capacity development -0.307 Mission statement Greenhouse gases 0.524 Land degradation Profitability -0.305 Full-cost accounting Greenhouse gases 0.524 Species diversity Profitability -0.304 Genetic diversity Product information 0.523 Stability of market Responsible buyers 0.518 Food safety Rights of suppliers 0.515 117 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Risk management Food sovereignty 0.512 Soil quality Product information 0.51 Risk management Responsible buyers 0.509 Due diligence Workplace safety & health 0.507 Due diligence Air quality 0.505 Land degradation Product information 0.505 Species diversity Product information 0.503 The results show that 838 significant pairwise correlations were found among the dimensions for the organic farming system (616 positives, 222 negatives). Fifty-two (52) positively stronger pairwise correlations were found among the dimensions (Table 4.17) and 600 pairwise correlations (384 positives, 216 negative), the weakest among the dimensions. For the conventional farming system, there were 766 significant pairwise correlations among the four sustainability dimensions, (561 positives, 205 negatives). The strongest among the dimensions were 30 pairwise correlations (28 positives, 2 negatives) and 577 pairwise correlations (403 positives, 174 negative), the weakest (Table 4.18). Table 4.18 Interactions among sustainability dimensions for the conventional farming system Positive interactions among conventional Coeff. Negative interactions among conventional Coeff. Civic Responsibility Community investment 0.683 Remedy, Restoration & Prevention Material use -0.565 Indigenous knowledge Grievance procedures 0.667 Remedy, Restoration & Prevention Energy use -0.518 Food safety Public health 0.661 Resource Appropriation Material use -0.491 Fair access to means of Stakeholder Dialogue Stability of market 0.633 Energy use production -0.474 Workplace safety & health Risk management provisions 0.632 Sustainability management plan Waste reduction & disposal -0.473 118 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Stability of supply Rights of suppliers 0.63 Holistic Audits Waste reduction & disposal -0.395 Water quality Public health 0.626 Resource Appropriation Waste reduction & disposal -0.392 Stakeholder Dialogue Responsible buyers 0.608 Material use Fair access to means of produc. -0.383 Food safety Workplace safety & health 0.607 Waste reduction & disposal Responsible buyers -0.381 Species diversity Public health 0.594 Stakeholder Dialogue Material use -0.371 Sustainability mang. plan Risk management 0.589 Energy use Capacity development -0.368 Animal health Food quality 0.589 Remedy, Restoration & Prevention Water quality -0.367 Air quality Stability of supply 0.587 Waste reduction & disposal Risk management -0.359 Freedom from stress Food quality 0.587 Resource Appropriation Energy use -0.356 Due Diligence Quality of Life 0.58 Land degradation Capacity development -0.354 Risk management Responsible buyers 0.568 Material use Responsible buyers -0.352 Community investment Indigenous knowledge 0.565 Remedy, Restoration & Prevention Soil quality -0.349 Civic Responsibility Indigenous knowledge 0.56 Greenhouse gases Capacity development -0.343 Due Diligence Risk management 0.552 Material use Long-ranging investment -0.327 Holistic Audits Risk management 0.549 Water quality Fair access to means of produc. -0.323 Genetic diversity Food sovereignty 0.544 Land degradation Grievance procedures -0.322 Stability of market Responsible buyers 0.54 Sustainability management plan Material use -0.32 Resource Appropriation Responsible buyers 0.533 Energy use Grievance procedures -0.317 Genetic diversity Public health 0.531 Air quality Capacity development -0.314 Remedy, Restoration & Fair access to means of Prevention produc. 0.525 Ecosystem diversity Non discrimination -0.311 Sustainability mang. plan Stability of production 0.521 Water quality Capacity development -0.31 Community investment Grievance procedures 0.52 Waste reduction & disposal Stability of market -0.31 Holistic Audits Stability of market 0.518 Stakeholder Dialogue Waste reduction & disposal -0.305 Waste reduction & disposal Rights of suppliers -0.303 Material use Stability of market -0.303 Ecosystem diversity Support to vulnerable people -0.301 119 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.5.4 Principal component analysis (PCA) among sustainability dimensions for the organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District The PCA among the sustainability dimensions of organic and conventional farming system is shown in (Table 4.19). Table 4.19 Eigenvalues and their contribution rates of PCA among sustainability dimensions Component Eigenvalue Contribution rate Cumulative contribution rate (%) (%) Organic farming system PC 1 12.07 20.81 20.81 PC 2 7.45 12.84 33.65 PC 3 6.13 10.57 44.22 PC 4 4.63 7.98 52.20 Conventional farming system PC 1 11.03 19.02 19.02 PC 2 8.18 14.10 33.12 PC 3 4.92 8.49 41.60 PC 4 4.17 7.19 48.79 From the results, the eigenvalues of the first four (4) principal components were explained by 52.20% of the total variance. The first principal component accounted for 20.81% of the variation among the four sustainability dimensions. It represented synergies for all except mission statement, grievance procedures, conflict resolution, and full cost accounting for the good governance dimension. Trade-offs found in environmental integrity dimension were greenhouse gases and material use. In the economic resilience and social wellbeing dimensions, profitability and liquidity, and employment relations were the trade-offs found, respectively. The second principal component accounted for an additional 12.84% of the variation and described the trade- offs in 21 variables among the sustainability dimensions, with only one in the environmental integrity. Principal components 3 and 4 explained 32 gradients (good 120 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh governance: 5, economic resilience: 3, environmental integrity: 11 and social wellbeing: 13) among the sustainability dimensions and accounted for 10.57% and 7.98% of the variation, respectively. As shown in Table 4.19, the eigenvalues of the first four (4) principal components of the conventional farming system were explained by 48.79% of the total variance. Nineteen per cent of the variation was accounted for by the first principal component. It represented synergies for all except 3 variables in the environmental integrity dimension (material use, energy use, and waste reduction and disposal). The second principal component accounted for an additional 14.10% of the variation and explained trade-offs in 20 variables among the dimensions except, environmental integrity dimension. Principal components 3 and 4 showed 22 gradients among the sustainability dimensions except for the economic resilience dimension and accounted for 8.49% and 7.19% of the variation, respectively. Among the dimensions of sustainability in the organic farming system, the intersections between PC1 and PC2 are shown in (Figure 4.14). 121 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Figure 4.14 Principal component analysis biplot among sustainability dimensions of the organic farming system The results showed that risk management, resource appropriation, rights of suppliers, food quality, food safety, workplace safety and health, water quality, soil quality and material use, contributed the highest in explaining the total variance. 122 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The intersection between PC1 and PC2 for the conventional farming system is shown in Figure 4.15. Figure 4.15 Principal component analysis biplot among sustainability dimensions of the conventional farming system The results showed that water quality, land degradation, species diversity, public health, workplace safety and health, risk management, the stability of supply and public health, contributed the most to the total variance. 123 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.6 Impact of Organic and Conventional Cocoa Practices on Environmental Efficiency in Atwima Mponua District This section explains the impact of farming practices on environmental efficiency. It begins by showing the distribution of greenhouse gas emissions for organic and conventional practices and compares the carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional cocoa practices in Atwima Mponua District. 4.6.1 Distribution of sources of GHG emissions for organic and conventional cocoa practices The distribution of GHG emissions from different sources for organic and conventional cocoa practices is shown in Table 4.20 and represented by the unit of kg CO2eq of cocoa bean production. Table 4.20 Distribution of sources of GHG emissions for organic and conventional cocoa practices Source of GHG Organic (%) Conventional (%) Energy for farming operation (fuel) 30.44 4.52 Fungicide 4.15 6.05 Herbicide 0.00 9.74 Insecticide 65.09 39.06 Soil amendments 0.32 3.45 The highest emissions came from insecticides/pesticides (8.65 kg CO2eq of the cocoa bean, 65%) followed by fuel energy for farming operations (4.04 kg CO2eq of the cocoa bean, 30%), fungicides (0.55 kg CO2eq cocoa bean, 4.2%) and soil amendments (fertilizer) (0.04 kg CO2eq cocoa bean, 0.3%), respectively (Table 4.20). In Atwima Mponua District, the common organic soil amendments used are manure (animal dropping) and compost. Especially for the manure, very few livestock are reared; hence its use is insignificant. 124 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh GHG emissions from fossil fuel for farming operations, herbicides, soil amendments (fertilizers) and pest and disease management are represented by the unit of kg CO2eq of cocoa bean production. Insecticides/pesticides contributed the highest emissions (6.90 kg CO2eq of the cocoa bean, 39%) followed by fuel energy for farming operations (4.52 kg CO2eq of the cocoa bean, 25%), soil amendments (fertilizer) (3.47 kg CO2eq cocoa bean, 20%), herbicide (1.72 kg CO2eq cocoa bean, 10%) and fungicides (1.07 kg CO2eq cocoa bean, 6%), respectively (Table 4.20). 4.6.2 Estimates of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional cocoa practices Estimates of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 eq.) of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional cocoa practices were compared by input category, as summarized in Table 4.21. Table 4.21 Estimates of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas emissions from organic and conventional cocoa practices in Atwima Mponua District Activities/practices Organic Conventional Difference P-value (Kg CO2 eq.) (Kg CO2 eq.) Energy for farming operation 4.04 4.52 -0.48 0.156 Pest and disease management 9.20 9.69 -0.42 0.006** Fungicide 0.55 1.07 -0.52 0.003*** Herbicide 0.00 1.72 -1.72 0.000*** Insecticide 8.65 6.90 1.75 0.104 Soil amendments 0.04 3.45 -3.41 0.000*** Total GHG emissions 13.29 17.67 -4.38 0.001*** *** 1%, ** 5% and *10% significance In Atwima Mponua District, pest and disease management, and fuel accounted for more than 80% of the total GHG emissions during cocoa production. Greenhouse gas emissions from pest and disease management in Atwima Mponua District was significant for organic 125 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh cocoa compared to conventional. Compared to organic, fungicides contributed more greenhouses gas emissions in conventional cocoa production in Atwima Mponua District. Compared to organic, highly significant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions from conventional cocoa production were from synthetic chemical fertilizers used in soil amendment, and herbicides used in weed control in Atwima Mponua District. The total GHG emissions from conventional cocoa practices (17.67 kg CO2 eq /Kg) suggest that organic cocoa practices (13.29 kg CO2 eq /Kg) in Atwima Mponua are environmentally efficient (Table 4.21). 126 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSIONS 5.0 Introduction This section discusses the findings of the study. Aside discussions on the specific objectives of the study, the section discusses findings on the background information of the respondents. Next, the findings on the sustainability performance of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems are discussed. The findings on trade-offs and synergies between the sustainability dimensions are discussed and lastly discussions on the impact of organic and conventional cocoa Practices on Environmental Efficiency are conducted. 5.1 Background of Respondents in Atwima Mponua District 5.1.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents in Atwima Mponua District The socio-demographic characteristics is of paramount importance in a comparative study like this. Similar studies were carried out by such works as Iddrisu et al., (2020), Tribe & Huq, (2019) and Seufert & Ramankutty, (2017). Results from the current study showed that male dominated in cocoa production in Atwima Mponua District. Mean ages for organic and conventional cocoa production were 55 years and 53 years, respectively for the current study. In a similar study by Iddrisu et al., (2020) in Asante Bekwai cocoa district, there was male dominance in cocoa production. Their findings as the age factor were also in agreement with those of the current research. Ageing cocoa farmers reaffirms the need for deliberate youth policy in the cocoa sector to enhance sustainability. 127 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The average farm size for an organic cocoa farmer is 2.3 hectares whiles that of conventional is 3.2 hectares. Conventional cocoa production is the default practice by farmers with a maximum farm size of 18 hectors in Atwima Mponua District. In a review of farming systems by Seufert & Ramankutty, (2017), they concluded that overall farm sizes of organic production are smaller. Organic cocoa farming households have more mean household members (6) compared to conventional (5). The average household size of 6 and 5 in the farming systems is higher than the regional and national averages of 4 and 4.4, respectively. This was confirmed by Tribe & Huq, (2019) in their Ghana's New National Income Data Series. 5.1.2 Socio-economic characteristics of respondents in Atwima Mponua District From the results, organic cocoa farmers spend more time on manual weeding compared conventional farmers. The difference in the amount of time spent on manual weeding is because most conventional farmers use chemical herbicides in weed management and control. The current study is consistent with a study by Seufert & Ramankutty, (2017) who found that organic farming is labour intensive in terms of weeding. Overall, the organic cocoa farming system spends more labour hours per season on various cultural activities compared to conventional. The difference in labour hours of organic farmers in the general activities in cocoa production is statistically significant at 1%. The organic farming system requires more labour than conventional systems (Pimentel et al., 2005), especially for labour-intensive commodities, fruits, and tree crops (Seufert & Ramankutty, 2017). The results show that the types of crops grown in an organic and conventional cocoa farming system are mostly annual and perennials other than cocoa. There is a 10% significant difference in the number of crops found in an organic farming system compared 128 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh to conventional. That is, an organic farming system has more diversified crops compared to conventional. The usage of external inputs including fertilizer is low in the study area, though there was a COCOBOD programme on Cocoa Disease and Pest Control (CODAPEC) and another on free fertilizer during the period under study. This is attributed proximity to distribution centres and inadequate extension staff to provide leadership. The energy for farm operations is mostly petrol, which is used to power farm equipment during plant protection application. Synthetic fertilizer types used range from the foliar, NPK, urea, sidalco, cocofeed and asase wura. Organic farmers mostly rely on organic foliar fertilizer and animal manure. The active ingredients in the types of fungicides used by conventional farmers are mancozeb, Metalaxyl-M, metallic copper, and sulphur. Metallic copper-based fungicide is the only fungicide used by organic farmers. Organic farmers use neem and pyrethrin based insecticides. Conventional farmers in Atwima Mponua District (AMD) use herbicides with active ingredients: atrazine, glyphosate, paraquat chloride, paraquat dichloride and propanil for weed management. The planting materials used depends on whether the crop is an annual or perennial in the farming system. More respondents perceived organic farms to be highly fertile compared to conventional farms. 5.2 The Sustainability Performance of Organic and Conventional Cocoa Farming Systems in Atwima Mponua District 5.2.1 Environmental integrity between farming systems As suggested in the literature, organic can have positive effects on environmental outcomes. In Atwima Mponua District, a limited to good performance was found in the two cocoa farming systems, not only for the organic farming system. Indeed, 129 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh conventionally managed cocoa farms in Atwima Mponua district are characterized by low- input operations with low use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. The organic, on the other hand, use low or no organic inputs (Akrofi-Atitianti et al., 2018). Similarly, in Ethiopia, Winter et al. (2020) found a moderate to good performance for conventional and certified coffee systems and attributed it to the low use of external inputs. The mean difference between organic and conventional cocoa farming system showed that, the organic farming system is different in greenhouse gases emission reduction and improvement in air quality. A major driving force for an improved performance for organic in terms of greenhouse gases in Atwima Mponua District is the low use or no inputs (Akrofi-Atitianti et al., 2018). Similar studies in Ecuador by Bonisoli et al. (2019) for banana cropping system is consistent with the findings. The finding is also verified by Fess & Benedito (2018) that organic farming promotes carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Organic farming systems had better water management practices, such as the wastewater: disposal, wastewater: re-use, water storage capacity and the use of rainwater compared to the conventional farming system. Similar studies conducted by Bonisoli et al. (2019), Berbeć et al. (2018) and De Olde et al., (2016b) found a statistical difference between organic and conventional in Poland, Denmark, and Ecuador, respectively. There was significant difference between measures that reduce land degradation in organic farming systems compared to the conventional farming system. Similar studies show that organic farming contributes to soil building and soil structure by improving the cation exchange capacity of soil biotic and physical properties (Reeve et al., 2016 and Fernandez et al., 2016). 130 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh In this paragraph, more sub themes that show significant difference between organic and conventional farming system are shown. In Atwima Mponua District, organic farming systems are more diverse in terms of ecosystems, species and genetics compared to conventional. Findings of the current study is consistent with Bandanaa et al., (2016) who found high flora diversity in organic cocoa farming system compared to conventional in Atwima Mponua District. In terms of material use, energy use and waste reduction, similar studies were conducted by Bonisoli et al. (2019), Lee, Choe & Park, (2015) and Pergola et al., (2013). The current study found the organic farming system to be significantly different in terms of material and energy use compared to the conventional. The literature says organic farms tend to be more energy-efficient than conventional. The findings are corroborated by Bonisoli et al. (2019) in banana systems in Ecuador, Lee, et al., (2015) in a meta-analysis and Pergola et al., (2013) in orange systems in Italy. 5.2.2 Economic resilience between farming systems The results showed that in most sub-themes, the sustainability ranged from unacceptable to good performance for both organic and conventional cocoa farming systems. In many sub-themes such as, community investment, long-ranging investment, the stability of production, the stability of the market, product information, liquidity and value creation, the performance is not particularly high for both organic and conventional farming systems. This exposes farmers of both cocoa farming systems to market shocks in terms of cocoa prices. In Atwima Mponua District, the organic market is not well established. Some farmers sell most of their organic beans as rain forest beans (RA) or conventional. This is because the premium obtained by selling organic beans is often delayed. Winter et al. 131 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh (2020) also made similar observations for coffee farming systems in Ethiopia, as farmers sell their coffee to private buyers as conventional produce. The mean difference between organic and conventional farming systems explained that eight of the sub themes in organic were significantly different from conventional. Some empirical studies (Bonisoli et al., 2019; Berg et al. 2018; Kamali et al. 2017; Crowder & Reganold, 2015 and Panneerselvam et al., 2015) showed that organic farming is economically better than conventional in terms of investment. The organic farming system is more profitable than the conventional system due to price premiums, most especially so when the crops are grown for exports. The current study found in many subthemes, such as “Internal Investment,” “Profitability,” and “Liquidity,” that organic farming system is significantly different from conventional. Though both cocoa farming systems are exposed to market shocks, organic cocoa farmers will always receive a premium on the cocoa beans either sold as organic or RA. Also, the organic farming system enhances food quality and product information compared to the conventional due to improved traceability (Winter et al. 2020). 5.2.3 Social wellbeing between farming systems In Atwima Mponua District, the social wellbeing sustainability performance ranges from limited to good performance. The lowest sustainability performance of most sub-themes was labour related. In Atwima Mponua District, mostly family labour or hired labour is used in farm operations. Winter et al. (2020) verifies this finding in Ethiopia and attributed it to the use of casual labour and the lack of security for family or hired labour. Capacity development, forced labour, child labour, freedom of association and bargaining rights were among the lowest for both organic and conventional farming systems. 132 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The organic and conventional farming system mean scores for social wellbeing showed significant differences for mostly labour related sub themes. The Freedom of association and right to bargaining in organic farming suggest that they have access to more external labour and the workers bargaining rights (Winter et al. 2020). This finding is consistent with Giovannucci et al. (2008) study of certified coffee farming system in Kenya, Peru, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Nicaragua. With regards to gender equality, child labour, and support to vulnerable people, there is a significant trend in favour of organic farming system. Studies (Iddrisu et al., 2020, Bandanaa et al., 2016 and Pandey, & Singh, 2012) in Asante Bekwai, Atwima Mponua Districts and India have suggested that organic cocoa farming is a welfare and livelihood enhancer and promotes gender equality in the workplace and encourages full participation for vulnerable in vibrant rural communities. In Atwima Mponua District, the organic farming system was statistically significant compared to conventional in terms of indigenous knowledge since traditional and cultural knowledge used by farmers is protected. This is consistent with findings by Ssebunya et al., (2019) on coffee farming systems in Uganda and Schader et al., (2016) in Africa (Ghana and Kenya) and Europe (Switzerland, Austria, and Germany). 5.2.4 Good governance between farming systems The performance of both farming systems mostly ranges between the scale unacceptable and best performance for this dimension. The lowest sustainability performance was shown by sub-themes, mission statement and legitimacy for both organic and conventional farming systems. In Atwima Mponua District, farmers are verbally committed to sustainability topics, and the employment conditions on farms is not stable, thus the low performance in mission statement and legitimacy. Similarly, a study by Winter et al. (2020) 133 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh in Ethiopia found mission statement to score the lowest among coffee farming systems. This was explained as Ethiopian coffee farmers partial commitment to sustainability topics and their lack of evidence to show for specific planned improvements. The mean difference for good governance between organic and conventional farming systems was significant for sub themes full-cost accounting and mission statement. Mission statement for instance was significant as organic farmers were aware of their cooperative certification and what it stood for. However, similarly to Ssebunya et al. (2019) the governance dimension recorded low scores. 5.3 Trade-offs and Synergies within and among Sustainability Dimensions of Organic and Conventional Cocoa Farming Systems in Atwima Mponua District 5.3.1 Interactions within sustainability dimensions The many positive and negative associations within the different dimensions of sustainability highlight their complex interactions (Duru et al. 2015; Foran et al. 2014). For the environmental integrity dimension, the results highlighted significant negative relations between “greenhouse gases” and “water withdrawal” for the organic farming system. This suggests a trade-off between greenhouse gas reduction and water withdrawal (Sapkota et al. 2020). Mostly the trade-offs within the environmental integrity dimension for conventional farming system were weak, suggesting at least weak antagonistic relationships. The economic resilience dimension highlights stronger synergy between profitability and liquidity for the organic farming system. This reflects the price premiums farmers get for selling their beans as organic, though yields of most cash crops in Sub-Saharan Africa remain low (Morel et al.,2019). 134 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Organic farming system foster social wellbeing compared to conventional (Schader, Stolze & Niggli, 2015); thus, more synergies were recorded within the social wellbeing dimension. The interactions within the good governance dimension for the conventional farming system showed more synergies compared to the organic. In Atwima Mponua District, the default farming system for cocoa is conventional, thus the governance structures are well established compared to the organic system. 5.3.2 Principal component analysis (PCA) within sustainability dimension Principal component analysis results showed the different sub theme associations within sustainability dimensions in organic and conventional farming systems. In the environmental integrity, practices that increases greenhouse gases for organic farming system will reduce air quality. For the conventional farming system, an increased in land degradation affects soil quality (Gomiero et al., 2016). Economic resilience in the organic farming system, explains risk management, food quality, food safety and stability of production (Röös et al., 2018). However, in conventional farming system, value creation, local procurement, and the stability of production are paramount in achieving economic resilience. In organic farming system, labour related concerns (forced labour, rights of suppliers, freedom of association, support to vulnerable, and gender equality) are paramount in ensuring social wellbeing (Schader et al., 2015). The good governance dimension explained the role farming systems plays in ensuring conflict resolution, responsibility, mission statement and full cost accounting. 135 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5.3.3 Interactions among sustainability dimensions The results highlighted significant positive correlations among the sustainability dimensions. In the organic farming system, all 52 strong correlations were positive, suggesting strong synergistic relationship among the dimensions of sustainability. However, the study found that, the interactions among the sustainability dimensions in an organic farming system that were negative ranged from moderate to weak trade-offs. There were strong trade-offs between a sub theme of good governance (“remedy, restoration & prevention”) and two other environmental integrity sub themes (“material use”, and “energy use”) in the conventional farming system. The study reveals that farming systems recognises indigenous knowledge in promoting water quality, i.e., reducing the risk of water pollution, and resolving governance issues like grievances, and civic responsibility (Atoma et al., 2019). The study found that the environmental benefits of supporting vulnerable people in farming systems include ecosystem diversity, reduced land degradation, and soil quality (Jouzi et al., 2017; Makita, 2016). As has been demonstrated in previous studies (e.g., Jespersen, Baggesen, Fog, Halsnæs, Hermansen, 2017; Annunziata & Vecchio, 2016), this study found a significant positive correlation between public health, waste reduction and disposal, ecosystem diversity and energy use. In other words, reducing waste and/or disposing waste properly, with a diverse ecosystem will ensure public health in farming systems. Sustainable and renewable energy use has the potential to improve public health by improving air quality and reducing carbon emissions (Erickson & Jennings, 2017). 136 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5.3.4 Principal component analysis (PCA) among the sustainability dimensions Principal component analysis results showed the different variable associations in organic and conventional farming systems (Duru et al. 2015 and Foran et al. 2014). The sub themes among the sustainability dimensions can be divided into two groups and the category was segmented. The first group (rights of suppliers, resource appropriation, food quality, responsible buyers) was relatively unfamiliar to the organic farming system and second group (water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas, soil quality) is supported by organic farming system. In the conventional farming system, the sub themes among the sustainability dimensions were divided into three groups-one group was environmental (land degradation, greenhouse gas), other two was health related (public health, food quality, food safety) and long ranging investment, stakeholder dialogue. This shows that these two aspects of conventional farming system are crucial for environmental progress. 5.4 Impact of Organic and Conventional Cocoa Practices on Environmental Efficiency in Atwima Mponua District In Atwima Mponua District, the total GHG emission from conventional cocoa practices is 17.67 kg CO2 eq per Kg and organic practices 13.29 kg CO2 eq. per Kg Organic cocoa production is environmentally efficient compared to conventional. The cocoa production GHG emission values found in the literature vary between 0.36 and 42 kg CO2-equivalents of cocoa. This, according to Ortiz-Rodriguez et al. (2016) is due to the system's boundaries considered. Akrofi-Atitianti et al. (2018) corroborate the findings in the study which compared CSA/agroecology cocoa interventions in Atwima Mponua District to conventional. Trinh et al. (2020) also found organic coffee in Vietnam to be environmentally efficient in terms of GHG emissions compared to conventional. Zhu et al., (2018) and Longo et al. (2017) also found organic apple production in China and Italy, 137 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh respectively to have lower environmental burdens compared to conventional. Similarly, Montalba et al. (2019), found organic blueberry farms in Chile to contribute less to GHG emissions compared to conventional. Compared to organic, highly significant amounts of greenhouse gas emissions from conventional cocoa production were from synthetic chemical fertilizers used in soil amendment, and herbicides used in weed control in Atwima Mponua District. This is corroborated by other cocoa GHG emission studies by Vervuurt, (2019) in Côte d’Ivoire; Leyte et al., (2017) in the Philippines, and Schroth et al. (2016) in Brazil. Compared to organic, fungicides contributed more greenhouses gas emissions in conventional cocoa production in Atwima Mponua District. This is consistent with findings of Vervuurt, (2019); Leyte et al., (2017), and Schroth et al. (2016) on cocoa production. 138 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.0 Introduction The first part of this section provides conclusions based on the findings of the study. The second part provide recommendations based on the conclusions for policy makers and practitioners. 6.1 Conclusions of the Study This study assessed the sustainability of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Atwima Mponua District of Ghana. The study focused on the sustainability performance of the farming systems, the trade-offs, and synergies within and among the sustainability dimensions, and the environmental efficiency of organic and conventional practices. Based on the results on sustainability performance of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in the Atwima Mponua District, this study can conclude that: 1. In the environmental dimension, organic farming system performs better in terms of greenhouse gases and land degradation. Also, organic farming system was different from conventional in water management practices, biodiversity e.g., ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity, energy use, and waste reduction. 2. Regarding the economic dimension, both farming systems performed better in terms of risk management. However, organic farming system was different from conventional in terms of the profitability, liquidity, product information and food quality. 3. In the social dimension, organic farming system performed better in terms of gender equality. Also, organic farming system differed significantly from conventional in 139 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh terms of child labour, freedom of association and right to bargaining, non- discrimination, support to vulnerable people and indigenous knowledge. 4. Organic and conventional farming system were sustainable in terms of stakeholder dialogue in the governance dimension. Organic farming system differed from conventional in terms of mission statement, sustainability management plan, and full- cost accounting. Also, based on the results on the trade-offs and synergies within and among sustainability dimensions of organic and conventional farming systems in Atwima Mponua District, this study can conclude that: 1. The interactions within and among the sustainability dimensions showed strong positive relationships or synergies for organic farming system. Conventional farming system is potentially vulnerable to trade-offs, compared to organic. 2. The principal component analysis showed different sub theme associations. For the organic farming system, the gradients among the sustainability dimensions reflects environmental, economic, social, and governance dimensions. The gradients among the sustainability dimensions for conventional, does not reflect the economic dimension. 3. The role of indigenous knowledge, a social well-being indicator plays an essential role in ensuring environmental integrity and good governance objectives like improving water quality, waste reduction and disposal, energy use efficiency, biodiversity conservation, resolving grievances, and civic responsibility are met regardless of the farming system practised. Lastly, based on the results on the impact of organic and conventional cocoa practices on environmental efficiency in Atwima Mponua District, this study can conclude that: 140 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1. Organic cocoa production practices in Atwima Mponua District are environmentally efficient compared to conventional. 2. Pests and diseases control are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Atwima Mponua District for organic and conventional farming system. 6.2 Recommendations of the Study The study recommends the following based on the findings: 1. There is a need for improvement in sustainability performance of conventional cocoa farmers, Stakeholders like the cocoa health, and extension division (CHED) of COCOBOD, Local Government department of agriculture, should play a lead role. For the sustainability dimensions (he environment, economic, social and governance dimensions), stakeholders should focus on measures that will reduce land degradation, improve profitability, enhance gender equity and accountability including commitment to sustainability issues are the main driving forces to ensure farming system sustainability performance. 2. Cocoa Health and Extension Division (CHED) should adapt ways of conserving biodiversity among conventional farmers since species diversity is a significant trade- off with the quality of life in the conventional farming system. Stakeholders, including Tano Biakoye Organic Farmer cooperative, AgroEco-LBI, department of agriculture and CHED, should prioritise indigenous knowledge in the planning and implementation of cocoa sustainability programmes or projects. 3. The organic farming system is recommended as an environmentally efficient option for cocoa production. Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG) should explore more on low input demand and pest-resistant cocoa varieties to enhance the environmental 141 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh efficiency of cocoa production. Also, the practice of calendar spraying of pesticides and fungicides as well as herbicides in the conventional cocoa production should be done with precision. 142 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh REFERENCES Abson DJ, Fraser ED, Benton TG. (2013). Landscape diversity and the resilience of agricultural returns: a portfolio analysis of land-use patterns and economic returns from lowland agriculture. Agric. Food Secur.2:2 Addae-Boadu, S.; Aikins, S.; Alhassan, A.S. (2014). The Cocoa Certification Program and Its Effect on Sustainable Cocoa Production in Ghana: A Case Study in Upper Denkyira West District. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 7, 108–116. Afriyie-Kraft, L., Zabel, A., & Damnyag, L. (2020). Adaptation strategies of Ghanaian cocoa farmers under a changing climate. Forest Policy and Economics, 113, 102115. Ahoa, E., Kassahun, A., & Tekinerdogan, B. (2020). Business processes and information systems in the Ghana cocoa supply chain: A survey study. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 92, 100323. Akrofi-Atitianti, F., Ifejika Speranza, C., Bockel, L., & Asare, R. (2018). Assessing climate-smart agriculture and its determinants of practice in Ghana: A case of the cocoa production system. Land, 7(1), 30. Altieri, M. A., & Koohafkan, P. (2008). Enduring farms: climate change, smallholders, and traditional farming communities. In Environment and Development Series 6, Kuala Lumpur: Third World Network Altieri, M. A., Nicholls, C. I., & Montalba, R. (2017). Technological approaches to sustainable agriculture at a crossroads: an agroecological perspective. Sustainability, 9(3), 349. Amanor, K., Yaro, J., & Teye, J. (2020). Long-Term Change and Agricultural Commercialisation in Ghanaian Cocoa. Anglaaere, L. C., Cobbina, J., Sinclair, F. L., & McDonald, M. A. (2011). The effect of land-use systems on tree diversity: farmer preference and species composition of cocoa-based agro-ecosystems in Ghana. Agroforestry Systems, 81 (3), 249-265. Annunziata, A., & Vecchio, R. (2016). Organic farming and sustainability in food choices: an analysis of consumer preference in Southern Italy. Agriculture and agricultural science proceedure, 8, 193-200. Antunes, P., Santos, R., Cosme, I., Osann, A., Calera, A., De Ketelaere, D., & Nino, P. (2017). A holistic framework to assess the sustainability of irrigated agricultural systems. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 3(1), 1323542. Arko, A. B. (2020). Factors Influencing the Implementation of Agricultural Policy: A Case Study from Ghana’s Cocoa Diseases and Pests Control (CODAPEC) 143 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Program. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 10(1), 262288- 262288. Arulnathan, V., Heidari, M. D., Doyon, M., Li, E., & Pelletier, N. (2020). Farm-level decision support tools: A review of methodological choices and their consistency with principles of sustainability assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120410. Arvidsson, R., Tillman, A. M., Sandén, B. A., Janssen, M., Nordelöf, A., Kushnir, D., & Molander, S. (2018). Environmental assessment of emerging technologies: recommendations for prospective LCA. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 22(6), 1286-1294. Asare, R. (2006). A review on cocoa agroforestry as a means for biodiversity conservation. In the World Cocoa Foundation Partnership Conference, Brussels (Vol. 15). Atkinson, G. (2008). Sustainability, the capital approach, and the built environment. Building Research & Information, 36(3), 241-247. Atoma, C. N., Adesope, O. M., & Familusi, L. C. (2019). Organic Farming Practices Among Livestock and Fish Farmers in Southern Nigeria. IntechOpen. Audsley, E., Stacey, K., Parsons, D., & Williams, A. (2009). Estimation of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Agricultural Pesticide Manufacture and Use. Prepared for Crop Protection Association, Cranfield University: Silsoe, UK. Baarda, B., & van Dijkum, C. (2019). Introduction to Statistics with SPSS. Routledge. Bandanaa, J., Egyir, I. S., & Asante, I. (2016). Cocoa farming households in Ghana consider organic practices as climate-smart and livelihoods enhancer. Agriculture & Food Security, 5(1), 29. Bangmarigu, E., & Qineti, A. (2018). Cocoa Production and Export in Ghana. In 162nd Seminar, April 26-27, 2018, Budapest, Hungary (No. 272051). European Association of Agricultural Economists. Baradaran, S., & Barclay, S. (2011). Fairtrade and child labour. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 43, 1. Barrientos, S. (2013). Gender production networks: Sustaining cocoa-chocolate sourcing in Ghana and India. Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper, (186). Becker, B. (1997). Sustainability assessment: a review of values, concepts, and methodological approaches. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. Beckmann, M., Gerstner, K., Akin‐Fajiye, M., Ceaușu, S., Kambach, S., Kinlock, N. L., & Newbold, T. (2019). Conventional land‐use intensification reduces species richness 144 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh and increases production: A global meta‐analysis. Global Change Biology, 25(6), 1941-1956. Bélanger, V., Vanasse, A., Parent, D., Allard, G., & Pellerin, D. (2012). Development of Agri- environmental indicators to assess dairy farm sustainability in Quebec, Eastern Canada. Ecological Indicators, 23, 421-430. Berbeć, A. K., Feledyn-Szewczyk, B., Thalmann, C., Wyss, R., Grenz, J., Kopiński, J., Radzikowski, P. (2018). Assessing the sustainability performance of organic and low-input conventional farms from Eastern Poland with the RISE Indicator System. Sustainability, 10(6),1792. Berg, H., Maneas, G., & Salguero Engström, A. (2018). A comparison between organic and conventional olive farming in Messenia, Greece. Horticulturae, 4(3), 15. Berlan, A. (2013). Social sustainability in agriculture: an anthropological perspective on child labour in cocoa production in Ghana. The Journal of Development Studies, 49(8), 1088-1100. Binder, C. R., J. Hinkel, P. W. G. Bots, and C. Pahl-Wostl. (2013). Comparison of frameworks for analysing social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18(4), 26. Binta, B. A., & Barbier, B. (2015). Economic and environmental performances of the organic farming system compared to a conventional farming system: a case farm model to simulate the horticultural sector of the Niayes region in Senegal. Journal of Horticulture, 2(4), 10. Blair A, Ritz B, Wesseling C, Beane Freeman L. 2014. Pesticides and human health. Occup. Environ. Med. 72:81–82 Bocchiola, D., Nana, E., & Soncini, A. (2013). Impact of climate change scenarios on crop yield and water footprint of maize in the Po valley of Italy. Agricultural Water Management, 116 (1), 50-61. Bogner, J., Ahmed, M. A., Diaz, C., Faaij, A., Gao, Q., Hashimoto, S., & Zhang, T. (2007). Waste management in climate change mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bonisoli, L., Galdeano-Gómez, E., Piedra-Muñoz, L., & Pérez-Mesa, J. C. (2019). Benchmarking agri-food sustainability certifications: Evidence from applying SAFA in the Ecuadorian banana agri-system. Journal of Cleaner Production, 236, 117579. Bosch, O. J., Nguyen, N. C., Maeno, T., & Yasui, T. (2013). Managing complex issues through evolutionary learning laboratories. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 30(2), 116-135. 145 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Bourn D, & Prescott J. (2002). A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 42:1–34 Bragdon, S. H. (2019). Living Links Connecting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: Small-Scale Farmers and Agricultural Biodiversity. San Diego Int'l LJ, 21, 155. Brundtland, G. (1987). Our common future: Report of the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development. United Nations, Oslo, 1, 59. Clay, J. (2013). World agriculture and the environment: a commodity-by-commodity guide to impacts and practices. Island Press. COCOBOD, (2018a). Ghana Cocoa Board Financial Statements. 49th annual report 30 September 2018. Ghana Cocoa Board, Accra COCOBOD, (2018b). Draft Cocoa Sector Development Strategy II. Ghana Cocoa Board, Accra COCOBOD, (2018c). Cocoa production data. Research Unit, Ghana Cocoa Board, Accra. August 2018 Conway, G. R., & Barbie, E. B. (1988). After the green revolution: sustainable and equitable agricultural development. Futures, 20(6), 651-670. Cord, A. F., Bartkowski, B., Beckmann, M., Dittrich, A., Hermans-Neumann, K., Kaim, A., & Schwarz, N. (2017). Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade- offs and synergies: Main concepts, methods, and the road ahead. Ecosystem services, 28, 264-272. Costa, C., García-Lestón, J., Costa, S., Coelho, P., Silva, S., Pingarilho, M., & Laffon, B. (2014). Is organic farming safer to farmers' health? A comparison between organic and traditional farming. Toxicology letters, 230(2), 166-176. Crowder, D. W., & Reganold, J. P. (2015). Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on a global scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), 7611- 7616. Cruz, J. F., Mena, Y., & Rodríguez-Estévez, V. (2018). Methodologies for Assessing Sustainability in Farming Systems. Sustainability Assessment and Reporting, 33- 58 Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D., & Dedieu, B. (2012). Farming systems research: an approach to inquiry. In Farming systems research into the 21st century: The new dynamic (pp. 3-31). Springer, Dordrecht. De Olde, E. M., Bokkers, E. A., & De Boer, I. J. (2017). The choice of the sustainability assessment tool matters: differences in thematic scope and assessment results. Ecological Economics, 136 (1), 77-85. 146 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh De Olde, E. M., Oudshoorn, F. W., Sørensen, C. A., Bokkers, E. A., & De Boer, I. J. (2016a). Assessing sustainability at farm-level: Lessons learned from a comparison of tools in practice. Ecological Indicators, 66, 391-404. De Olde, E., Oudshoorn, F., Bokkers, E., Stubsgaard, A., Sørensen, C., & De Boer, I. (2016b). Assessing the sustainability performance of organic farms in Denmark. Sustainability, 8(9), 957. De-Pablos-Heredero, C., Montes-Botella, J., & García-Martínez, A. (2018). Sustainability in smart farms: its impact on performance. Sustainability, 10(6), 1713. Dietz, S., & Neumayer, E. (2007). Weak and strong sustainability in the SEEA: Concepts and measurement. Ecological Economics, 61(4), 617-626. Dillon, J. E., Hennessy, T., Buckley, C., Donnellan, T., Hanrahan, K., Moran, B., & Ryan, M. (2016). Measuring progress in agricultural sustainability to support policy- making. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 14(1), 31-44. Dormon, E. V., Van Huis, A., Leeuwis, C., Obeng-Ofori, D., & Sakyi-Dawson, O. (2004). Causes of low productivity of cocoa in Ghana: farmers' perspectives and insights from research and the socio-political establishment. NJAS-Wageningen journal of life sciences, 52(3-4), 237-259. Drury, C., Manzello, D., & Lirman, D. (2017). Genotype and local environment dynamically influence growth, disturbance response and survivorship in the threatened coral, Acropora cervicornis. PLoS One, 12(3). Dube, C., & Mitra, S. (2011). Competition Concerns in the Agriculture Sector in Select Countries of West Africa. CUTS International. Dubey, A., & Lal, R. (2009). Carbon footprint and sustainability of agricultural production systems in Punjab, India, and Ohio, USA. Journal of Crop Improvement, 23(4), 332-350. Duru, M., Therond, O., Martin, G., Martin-Clouaire, R., Magne, M. A., Justes, E., & Sarthou, J. P. (2015). How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review. Agronomy for sustainable development, 35(4), 1259- 1281. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business strategy and the environment, 11(2), 130-141. Environmental protection Agency (EPA) (2016). Ghana’s Fourth National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report for 2013–2016. National Greenhouse Gas Inventory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Environmental Protection Agency: Accra, Ghana. Erickson, L. E., & Jennings, M. (2017). Energy, transportation, air quality, climate change, health nexus: Sustainable energy is good for our health. AIMS public health, 4(1), 47. 147 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Eshun, J. F., Apori, S. O., & Oppong-Anane, K. (2011). Environmental system analysis of tomato production in Ghana. African Crop Science Journal, 19(3), 165-172. Farrell, A., & Hart, M. (1998). What does sustainability mean? The search for useful indicators. Environment: science and policy for sustainable development, 40(9), 4- 31. Fast, E., & Collin-Vézina, D. (2019). Historical trauma, race-based trauma, and resilience of indigenous peoples: A literature review. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 14(1), 166-181. Fernandez AL, Sheaffer CC, Wyse DL, Staley C, Gould TJ, Sadowsky MJ. (2016). Associations between soil bacterial community structure and nutrient cycling functions in long-term organic farm soils following cover crop and organic fertiliser amendment. Sci. Total Environ. 566:949–59 Fess, T. L., & Benedito, V. A. (2018). Organic versus conventional cropping sustainability: a comparative system analysis. Sustainability, 10(1), 272. Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) (2017). The future of food and agriculture trends and challenges. Rome. Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) (2014). Guidelines for Sustainability Assessment in Food and Agriculture (SAFA). Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations Rome (2013). Climate- Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3325e/i3325e00.htm. [Accessed on 15.01.2019] Foran, T., Butler, J. R., Williams, L. J., Wanjura, W. J., Hall, A., Carter, L., & Carberry, P. S. (2014). Taking complexity in food systems seriously: an interdisciplinary analysis. World Development, 61, 85-101. Forte, B., Cerreta, M., & De Toro, P. (2019). The human sustainable city: challenges and perspectives from the habitat agenda. Routledge. Franceschini, F., Galetto, M., & Maisano, D. (2019). Designing Performance Measurement Systems. Management for Professionals. Freibauer A, Rounsevell MDA, Smith P, Verhagen J. (2004). Carbon sequestration in the agricultural soils of Europe. Geoderma 122:1–23 Garrity, D., Dixon, J., & Boffa, J. M. (2012). Understanding African farming systems. Food Security in Africa: bridging research and Practise 1-50. 148 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Ghana Statistical Service (GSS) (2013). Ghana Living Standard Survey Round Six (6). Ghana Statistical Service, Government of Ghana. GLSS 6, 1–20. Accra. Giovannoni, E., & Fabietti, G. (2013). What is sustainability? A review of the concept and its applications. In: Busco C., Frigo M., Riccaboni A., Quattrone P. (eds) Integrated reporting (21-40). Giovannucci, D., J. Potts, B. Killian, C. Wunderlich, G. Soto, S. Schuller, F. Pinard, K. Schroeder, and I. Vagneron (2008). Seeking sustainability: COSA preliminary analysis of sustainability initiatives in the coffee sector. Committee on Sustainability Assessment, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Glin, L. C., Oosterveer, P., & Mol, A. P. (2015). Governing the Organic Cocoa Network from Ghana: Towards Hybrid Governance Arrangements? Journal of Agrarian Change, 15(1), 43-64. Glover, Y. (2010). https://yayraglover.com/. Accessed on 15.01.2019 Glover, Y. (2017). https://yayraglover.com/. Accessed on 9.02.2020 Gockowski, J., Afari-Sefa, V., Sarpong, D. B., Osei-Asare, Y. B. & Agyeman, N. F. (2013). Improving the productivity and income of Ghanaian cocoa farmers while maintaining environmental services: what role for certification? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 11(4), 331-346. Gockowski, James & Sonwa, D. (2011). Cocoa intensification scenarios and their predicted impact on CO2 emissions, biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods in the Guinea rainforest of West Africa. Environmental Management, 48 (2), 307-321 Godfray, H. C. J., & Garnett, T. (2014). Food security and sustainable intensification. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B: biological sciences, 369(1639), 20120273. Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F. & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812-818. Gomiero T, Pimentel D, Paoletti MG. (2011). Is there a need for more sustainable agriculture? Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 30:6–23 Grace, W., & Pope, J. (2015). "A systems approach to sustainability assessment". In Handbook of Sustainability Assessment, Edward Elgar, 285-320. Gray, R. (2010), “Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability, and how would we know? An exploration of the narratives of organisations and the planet”, Accounting Organisations and Society, 35 (1), 47-62. 149 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Greco, S., Ishizaka, A., Tasiou, M., & Torrisi, G. (2019). On the methodological framework of composite indices: A review of the issues of weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Social Indicators Research, 141(1), 61-94. Grenz N., Abdulai I, Jassogne L, Graefe S, Asare R, Van Asten P, Läderach P, et al. (2018). Characterisation of cocoa production, income diversification and shade tree management along a climate gradient in Ghana. PLoS ONE 13 (4), 1–17. Grenz, J., C. Thalmann, A. Stämpfli, C. Studer, and F. Häni (2009). “RISE-a method for assessing the sustainability of agricultural production at the farm level”. Rural Development News 1(2009), 5-9. Griffiths, A., & Zammuto, R. F. (2005). Institutional governance systems and variations in national competitive advantage: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 823-842. Griggs, D., Nilsson, M., Stevance, A.& McCollum, D. (2017). “A guide to SDG interactions: from science to implementation”, International Council for Science, Paris. Grippo, V., Romano, S., & Vastola, A. (2019). Multi-criteria evaluation of bran uses to promote circularity in the cereal production chain. Natural Resources Research, 28(1), 125-137. Haase, D., Schwarz, N., Strohbach, M., Kroll, F. & Seppelt, R., (2012). Synergies, trade- offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: an integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle region, Germany. Ecol. Soc., 17 (3), 22. Hayati, D., Ranjbar, Z., & Karami, E. (2011). Measuring agricultural sustainability. In: Lichtfouse E. (eds) Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, 5 (1), 73-100. Herzog F. & Gotsch N., (1998). Assessing the Sustainability of Smallholder Tree Crop Production in the Tropics: A Methodological Outline. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 11 (4), 13-37. Herzog, F., & Gotsch, N. (1998). Assessing the sustainability of smallholder tree crop production in the tropics: a methodological outline. Journal of sustainable agriculture, 11(4), 13-37. Hole, D. G., Perkins, A. J., Wilson, J. D., Alexander, I. H., Grice, P. V., & Es, A. D. (2005). Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biological Conservation, 122(1), 113- 130. Hutchins, A., Tamargo, A., Bailey, C., & Kim, Y. (2015). Assessment of climate change impacts on cocoa production and approaches to adaptation and mitigation: a contextual view of Ghana and Costa Rica. International Development Studies, 1- 22. 150 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Iddrisu, M., Aidoo, R., & Wongnaa, C. A. (2020). Participation in UTZ-RA voluntary cocoa certification scheme and its impact on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Ghana. World Development Perspectives, 20, 100244. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2006). IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K., Eds.; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Tokyo, Japan. International Cocoa Organisation (ICCO) (2012). Global Cocoa Agenda-International Cocoa Organisation.https://icco.org.about-us/international-cocoa agreements/doc_download/307 global-cocoa-agenda-english.html. Accessed on February 4, 2020 International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement (IFOAM) (2008). https://www.ifoam.bio/en/organic-landmarks/definition-organic-agriculture Jacobi J, Andres C, Schneider M, Pillco M, Calizaya P, Rist S. (2014). Carbon stocks, tree diversity, and the role of organic certification in different cocoa production systems in Alto Beni, Bolivia. Agroforestry Syst. 88:1117–32 Jacobi J, Schneider M, Bottazzi P, Pillco M, Calizaya P, Rist S. (2015). Agro-ecosystem resilience and farmers’ perceptions of climate change impacts on cocoa farms in Alto Beni, Bolivia. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 30:170–83 Jane Dillon, E., Hennessy, T., Buckley, C., Donnellan, T., Hanrahan, K., Moran, B., & Ryan, M. (2016). Measuring progress in agricultural sustainability to support policy making. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 14(1), 31-44. Jespersen, L. M., Baggesen, D. L., Fog, E., Halsnæs, K., Hermansen, J. E., Andreasen, L., & Halberg, N. (2017). Contribution of organic farming to public goods in Denmark. Organic Agriculture, 7(3), 243-266. Johansson E, Hussain A, Kuktaite R, Andersson SC, & Olsson M.E. (2014). Contribution of organically grown crops to human health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 11:3870–93 Jouzi, Z., Azadi, H., Taheri, F., Zarafshani, K., Gebrehiwot, K., Van Passel, S., & Lebailly, P. (2017). Organic farming and small-scale farmers: Main opportunities and challenges. Ecological Economics, 132, 144-154. Kamali, F. P., Meuwissen, M. P., de Boer, I. J., van Middelaar, C. E., Moreira, A., & Lansink, A. G. O. (2017). Evaluation of the environmental, economic, and social performance of soybean farming systems in southern Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 385-394. Kanter, D. R., Musumba, M., Wood, S. L., Palm, C., Antle, J., Balvanera, P., & Thornton, P. (2018). Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development. Agricultural Systems, 163, 73-88. Kassie, M., & Zikhali, P. (2009). Brief on sustainable agriculture, in Prepared for the expert Group meeting on “Sustainable Land Management and agricultural practices in Africa: bridging the gap between research and farmers” Gothenburg, Sweden (16-17). 151 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). Science and policy for sustainable development. Environment, 47(3), 8-21. Kathuria, R., Kathuria, N. N., & Kathuria, A. (2018). Mutually supportive or trade-offs: an analysis of competing priorities in the emerging economy of India. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 29(2), 227-236. Kesavan, P. C., & Swaminathan, M. S. (2008). Strategies and models for agricultural sustainability in developing Asian countries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363 (1492), 877-891 Kidd, C.V. (1992). The evolution of sustainability. Journal of Agr Environ Ethics 5(1), 1– 26 Klapwijk, C. J., Van Wijk, M. T., Rosenstock, T. S., van Asten, P. J., Thornton, P. K., & Giller, K. E. (2014). Analysis of trade-offs in agricultural systems: current status and way forward. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 6, 110-115. Klerkx, L., Van Mierlo, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2012). Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st century: The new dynamic (pp. 457-483). Springer, Dordrecht. Klümper, W., & Qaim, M. (2014). A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PloS one, 9(11), e111629. Knudsen, M.T., Meyer-Aurich, A., Olesen, J.E., Chirinda, N., Hermansen, J.E. (2014). Carbon footprints of crops from organic and conventional arable crop rotations – using a life cycle assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 64 (1), 609- 618. Kolavalli, S., & Vigneri, M. (2018). The cocoa coast: The board-managed cocoa sector in Ghana. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. Kurgat, B. K., Stöber, S., Mwonga, S., Lotze-Campen, H., & Rosenstock, T. S. (2018). Livelihood and climate trade-offs in Kenyan peri-urban vegetable production. Agricultural Systems, 160, 79-86. Lampridi, M. G., Sørensen, C. G., & Bochtis, D. (2019). Agricultural sustainability: A review of concepts and methods. Sustainability, 11(18), 5120. Lebacq, T., Baret, P. V., & Stilmant, D. (2013). Sustainability indicators for livestock farming. A review. Agronomy for sustainable development, 33(2), 311-327. Ledo, A., Heathcote, R., Hastings, A., Smith, P., & Hillier, J. (2018). Perennial-GHG: A new generic allometric model to estimate biomass accumulation and greenhouse gas emissions in perennial food and bioenergy crops. Environmental Modelling & Software, 102, 292-305. Lee DH, Steffes MW, Sjodin A, Jones RS, Needham LL, Jacobs DR. (2011). Low dose organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls predict obesity, dyslipidemia, and insulin resistance among people free of diabetes. PLOS ONE 6: e15977 152 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Lee KS, Choe YC, Park SH. (2015). Measuring the environmental effects of organic farming: a meta-analysis of structural variables in empirical research. J. Environ. Manag. 162:263–74 Lee, K. S., & Choe, Y. C. (2018). Environmental performance of organic farming: Evidence from Korean small-holder soybean production. Journal of cleaner production, 211, 742-748. Levett, R. (1998). Sustainability indicators—integrating quality of life and environmental protection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 161(3), 291-302. Leyte, J. E. D., Pacardo, E. P., Rebancos, C. M., & Protacio, C. M. (2017). Environmental Performance of Cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) Production. Philippine Journal of Crop Science (PJCS), 42(1), 51-58. Li, B., & Wang, W. (2018). Trade-offs and synergies in ecosystem services for the Yinchuan Basin in China. Ecological Indicators, 84, 837-846. Longo, S., Mistretta, M., Guarino, F., & Cellura, M. (2017). Life Cycle Assessment of organic and conventional apple supply chains in the North of Italy. Journal of cleaner production, 140, 654-663. Luukkanen, J., Vehmas, J., Panula‐Ontto, J., Allievi, F., Kaivo‐oja, J., Pasanen, T., & Auffermann, B. (2012). Synergies or Trade‐offs? A New Method to Quantify Synergy Between Different Dimensions of Sustainability. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(5), 337-349. Magni, G. (2017). Indigenous knowledge and implications for the sustainable development agenda. European Journal of Education, 52(4), 437-447. Mainali, B., Luukkanen, J., Silveira, S., & Kaivo-oja, J. (2018). Evaluating synergies and trade-offs among Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Explorative analyses of development paths in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability, 10(3), 815. Makita, R. (2016). Organic Agriculture from the Perspective of Small Farmers’ Livelihood Strategies: Two Cases from Central and South India. In Environmental Geography of South Asia (pp. 233-248). Springer, Tokyo. McShane, T. O., Hirsch, P. D., Trung, T. C., Songorwa, A. N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., & Welch-Devine, M. (2011). Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144(3), 966-972. Meier, M. S., Stoessel, F., Jungbluth, N., Juraske, R., Schader, C., & Stolze, M. (2015). Environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural products–are the differences captured by life cycle assessment? Journal of environmental management, 149, 193-208. Meuwissen, M. P., Feindt, P. H., Spiegel, A., Termeer, C. J., Mathijs, E., de Mey, Y., & Vigani, M. (2019). A framework to assess the resilience of farming systems. Agricultural Systems, 176, 102656. 153 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Mili, S., & Martínez-Vega, J. (2019). Accounting for regional heterogeneity of agricultural sustainability in Spain. Sustainability, 11(2), 299. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well‐Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Milot, E., Béchet, A., & Maris, V. (2020). The dimensions of evolutionary potential in biological conservation. Evolutionary Applications. Moldan, B., Janoušková, S., & Hák, T. (2012). How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators, 17 (1), 4-13. Mollick, A. S., Rahman, M. K., Khan, M. N. I., & Sadath, M. N. (2018). Evaluation of good governance in a participatory forestry program: A case study in Madhupur Sal forests of Bangladesh. Forest Policy and Economics, 95, 123-137. Montalba, R., Vieli, L., Spirito, F., & Muñoz, E. (2019). Environmental and productive performance of different blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) production regimes: Conventional, organic, and agroecological. Scientia Horticulturae, 256, 108592. Morel, A. C., Hirons, M., Adu Sasu, M., Quaye, M., Ashley Asare, R., Mason, J., et al. (2019). The ecological limits of poverty alleviation in an african forest-agriculture landscape. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 3:57. Morrison-Saunders, A., & Therivel, R. (2006). Sustainability integration and assessment. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 8(3), 281298. Musyoka, M. W., Adamtey, N., Muriuki, A. W., & Cadisch, G. (2017). Effect of organic and conventional farming systems on nitrogen use efficiency of potato, maise, and vegetables in the Central Highlands of Kenya. European journal of agronomy, 86, 24-36. Myers JP, Antoniou MN, Blumberg B, Carroll L, Colborn T, et al. (2016). Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement. Environ. Health 15:19 National Research Council. (2010). Toward sustainable agricultural systems in the 21st century. National Academies Press. Naturland (2016). How to Grow Organic Cocoa. An illustrated handbook on organic principles of cocoa production. Accessed on 8/2019 Neira, D. P. (2016a). The energy efficiency of cacao agroforestry under traditional and organic management. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 36(3), 49. Neira, D. P. (2016b). Energy sustainability of Ecuadorian cacao export and its contribution to climate change. A case study through product life cycle assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2560-2568. 154 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Nesheim, M. C., Oria, M., & Yih, P. T. (2015). Committee on a Framework for Assessing the Health, Environmental, and Social Effects of the Food System. Food and Nutrition Board, National-Research. Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2007). Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 60(3), 498-508. Neumayer, E. (2003). Weak versus strong sustainability: exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms. Edward Elgar Publishing. Nguyen, N. C. & Bosch, O. J. (2013). A system thinking approach to identify leverage points for sustainability: a case study in the Cat Ba Biosphere Reserve, Vietnam. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30(2), 104-115. Ntiamoah, A., & Afrane, G. (2008). Environmental impacts of cocoa production and processing in Ghana: life cycle assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(16), 1735-1740. Ntiamoah, A., & Afrane, G. (2009). Life cycle assessment of chocolate produced in Ghana. In Appropriate Technologies for Environmental Protection in the Developing World (35-41). Nunoo, I., Owusu, V., & Darko Obiri, B. (2014). Cocoa agroforestry a bridge for sustainable organic cocoa production. Building Organic Bridges, 2, 555-558. Omane-Adjepong, M. (2012). Estimating the Impact of the Cocoa Hi-Tech and Mass Spraying Programmes on Cocoa Production in Ghana: An Application of Intervention Analysis (Doctoral dissertation). Onumah, J. A., Onumah, E. E., Al-Hassan, R. M., & Bruemmer, B. (2013). Meta-frontier analysis of organic and conventional cocoa production in Ghana. Agricultural Economics (Czech), 59, 271-280 Ortiz-Rodríguez O. O, Villamizar-Gallardo, R.A., Naranjo-Merino, C.A., García-Caceres, R.G., & Castañeda-Galvís, M.T., (2016). Carbon footprint of the Colombian cocoa production. Engenharia Agricola, 36 (2), 260-270. Ostrom, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice. Theories of the policy process, 35-72. Pandey, J., & Singh, A. (2012). Opportunities and constraints in organic farming: an Indian perspective. Journal of Scientific Research, 56, 47-72. Panneerselvam P, Hermansen JE, Halberg N, & Arthanari PM. (2015). Impact of large- scale organic conversion on food production and food security in two Indian states, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 30:252–62 Papadopoulos A, Bird NRA, Whitmore AP, Mooney SJ. (2014). Does organic management lead to enhanced soil physical quality? Geoderma 213:435–43 155 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Parelho C, Bernardo F, Camarinho R, Rodrigues AS, Garcia P. (2016). Testicular damage and farming environments—an integrative ecotoxicological link. Chemosphere 155:135–41 Pergola, M., D'Amico, M., Celano, G., Palese, A., Scuderi, A., Di Vita, G., & Inglese, P. (2013). Sustainability evaluation of Sicily's lemon and orange production: energy, economic and environmental analysis. Journal of environmental management, 128, 674-682. Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., & Seidel, R. (2005). Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience, 55(7), 573-582. Plumecocq, G., Debril, T., Duru, M., Magrini, M. B., Sarthou, J. P., & r, O. (2018). The plurality of values in sustainable agriculture models. Ecology and Society, 23(1). Popp, J., Pető, K., & Nagy, J. (2013). Pesticide productivity and food security. A review. Agronomy for sustainable development, 33(1), 243-255. Pretty, J. (2008). Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1491), 447-465. Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681-695. Ramachandra, T. V., & Bachamanda, S. (2007). Environmental audit of municipal solid waste management. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 7(3-4), 369-391. Rao, C. S., Kareemulla, K., Krishnan, P., Murthy, G. R. K., Ramesh, P., Ananthan, P. S., & Joshi, P. K. (2019). Agro-ecosystem based sustainability indicators for climate- resilient agriculture in India: A conceptual framework. Ecological Indicators, 105, 621-633. Rasul, G., & Thapa, G. B. (2004). Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental, economic, and social perspectives. Agricultural Systems, 79(3), 327-351. Raudsepp-Hearne, C., Peterson, G. D., & Bennett, E. M. (2010). Ecosystem service bundles for analysing trade-offs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(11), 5242-5247. Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T., & Pennington, D. W. (2004). Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environment International, 30(5), 701-720. Reeve JR, Hoagland LA, Villalba JJ, Carr PM, Atucha A, et al. (2016). Organic farming, soil health, and food quality: considering possible links. Adv. Agron. 137:319–67 156 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Reidsma, P., & Jeuffroy, M. H. (2017). Farming systems analysis and design for sustainable intensification: New methods and assessments. European Journal of Agronomy, 82, 203-205. Reidsma, P., Bakker, M.M., Kanellopoulos, A., Alam, S.J., Paas, W., Kros, J., de Vries, W., (2015). Sustainable agricultural development in a rural area in the Netherlands? Assessing impacts of climate and socio-economic change at farm and landscape level. Agric. Syst. 141, 160–173. Reig‐Martínez, E., Gómez‐Limón, J. A., & Picazo‐Tadeo, A. J. (2011). Ranking farms with a composite indicator of sustainability. Agricultural economics, 42(5), 561-575. Rennings, K., & Wiggering, H. (1997). Steps towards indicators of sustainable development: linking economic and ecological concepts. Ecological Economics, 20(1), 25-36. Reza, M. M., Subramaniam, T., & Islam, M. R. (2018). Economic and social well-being of Asian labour migrants: a literature review. Social Indicators Research, 141 (3), 1245-1264. Riddell R., (1981). Ecodevelopment: economics, ecology, and development-an alternative to imperative growth models. Gower, London. Röös, E., Mie, A., Wivstad, M., Salomon, E., Johansson, B., Gunnarsson, S., & Watson, C. A. (2018). Risks and opportunities of increasing yields in organic farming. A review. Agronomy for sustainable development, 38(2), 14. Rosa-Schleich, J., Loos, J., Mußhoff, O., & Tscharntke, T. (2019). Ecological-economic trade-offs of diversified farming systems–a review. Ecological Economics, 160, 251-263. Roth, G. (2010). Economic, environmental, and social sustainability indicators of the Australian cotton industry. PhD, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia. Rotmans, J. (2017). Tools for integrated sustainability assessment: a two-track approach. Integrated Assessment, 6 (4), 35–5 Ruf, F. & Bini S. (2012). Cocoa and fertilisers in West-Africa. May. IDH Sustainable Trade Initiative. Accessed on 8 March 2018. SAI (2018). Who we are - SAI platform [www.Document]? URL. https://saiplatform. Accessed on 29.06.2020 Saillenfait AM, Ndiaye D, Sabate JP. (2015). Pyrethroids: exposure and health effects— an update. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 218:281–92 Sala, S., Ciuffo, B., & Nijkamp, P. (2015). A systemic framework for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 119, 314-325. 157 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Sapkota, A., Haghverdi, A., Avila, C., & Ying, S. (2020). Irrigation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Review of Field-Based Studies. Soil Systems, 4(2), 20. Schader C., Baumgart L., Landert J., Muller A., Ssebunya B., Blockeel J., Weisshaidinger R., Petrasek R., Mészáros D., Padel S., Gerrard C., Smith L., Lindenthal T., Niggli U. & Stolze M. (2016). Using the Sustainability Monitoring and Assessment Routine (SMART) for the Systematic Analysis of Trade-offs and Synergies between Sustainability Dimensions and Themes at Farm Level. Sustainability, 8 (3), 274. Schader, C., Curran, M., Heidenreich, A., Landert, J., Blockeel, J., Baumgart, L., & Niggli, U. (2019). Accounting for uncertainty in multi-criteria sustainability assessments at the farm level: Improving the robustness of the SMART-Farm Tool. Ecological Indicators, 106, 105503. Schader, C., J. Grenz, M. S. Meier, & M. Stolze, (2014). Scope and precision of sustainability assessment approach to food systems. Ecology and Society,19 (3), 42. Schader, C., Stolze, M., & Niggli, U. (2015). How the organic food system contributes to sustainability. In Assessing sustainable diets within the sustainability of food systems. Proceedings of an International Workshop, 15–16 September 2014, CREA, Rome, Italy (pp. 27-36). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Scherer, L., Behrens, P., de Koning, A., Heijungs, R., Sprecher, B., & Tukker, A. (2018). Trade-offs between social and environmentally Sustainable Development Goals. Environ Sci Policy, 90, 65-72. Scherr, S. J., & McNeely, J. A. (2008). Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of ‘eco-agriculture’ landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1491), 477-494. Schleicher, J., Schaafsma, M., & Vira, B. (2018). Will the Sustainable Development Goals address the links between poverty and the natural environment? Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 34, 43-47. Schrage, E. J., & Ewing, A. P. (2005). The cocoa industry and child labour. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 18, 99-112. Schroth, G., & Harvey, C. A. (2007). Biodiversity conservation in cocoa production landscapes: an overview. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(8), 2237-2244. Schroth, G., Jeusset, A., da Silva Gomes, A., Florence, C. T., Coelho, N. A. P., Faria, D., & Läderach, P. (2016). Climate friendliness of cocoa agroforests is compatible with productivity increase. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 21(1), 67-80. 158 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Secco, L., Da Re, R., Pettenella, D. M., & Gatto, P. (2014). Why and how to measure forest governance at the local level: A set of indicators. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 57-71. Seufert, V., & Ramankutty, N. (2017). Many shades of gray—the context-dependent performance of organic agriculture: Science Advances, 3(3), 14. Shaner, W. W. (2019). Farming systems research and development: guidelines for developing countries. Routledge. Shennan, C., Krupnik, T. J., Baird, G., Cohen, H., Forbush, K., Lovell, R. J., & Olimpi, E. M. (2017). Organic and conventional agriculture: a useful framing? Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42, 317-346. Singh, M., & Maharjan, K. L. (2017). Sustainability of Farming System: An Overview. In: Sustainability of Organic Farming in Nepal. Springer, 1-19. Sittisak, P., & Ekasingh, B. (2015). Trade-offs between the economic, social, and environmental objectives in optimal resource management in the fang watershed, Chiang Mai Province, Thailand. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 5, 38-45. Smith-Spangler C, Brandeau ML, Hunter GE, Bavinger C, Pearson M, et al. (2012). Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional alternatives: A systemic review. Ann. Intern. Med. 157:348–66 Soldi, A., Meza, M. J. A., Guareschi, M., Donati, M., & Ortiz, A. I. (2019). Sustainability assessment of agricultural systems in Paraguay: A comparative study using the SAFA framework. Sustainability, 11(13), 3745. Srinivasan, R. S., Braham, W. W., Campbell, D. E., Curcija, D. C., & Rinker, M. E. (2011). Sustainability assessment frameworks, evaluation tools and metrics for buildings and its environment–a review 2. Proceedings of the International Building Performance Simulation Association, Sydney, Australia, 14-16. Ssebunya, B. R., Schader, C., Baumgart, L., Landert, J., Altenbuchner, C., Schmid, E., & Stolze, M. (2019). Sustainability Performance of Certified and Non-certified Smallholder Coffee Farms in Uganda. Ecological economics, 156, 35-47. Stayner LT, Almberg K, Jones R, Graber J, Pedersen M, Turyk M. (2017). Atrazine and nitrate in drinking water and the risk of preterm delivery and low birth weight in four Midwestern states. Environ. Res. 152:294–303 Stern, D. I. (1997). The capital theory approach to sustainability: a critical appraisal. Journal of Economic Issues, 31(1), 145-174. Stoneham, G., Eigenraam, M., Ridley, A., & Barr, N. (2003). The application of sustainability concepts to Australian agriculture: an overview. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 43(3), 195-203. 159 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Tälle, M., Wiréhn, L., Ellström, D., Hjerpe, M., Huge-Brodin, M., Jensen, P., & Metson, G. (2019). Synergies and Trade-Offs for Sustainable Food Production in Sweden: An Integrated Approach. Sustainability, 11(3), 601. Teal, R. K., Tubana, B., Girma, K., Freeman, K. W., Arnall, D. B., Walsh, O., & Raun, W. R. (2006). In-season prediction of corn grain yield potential using the normalised difference vegetation index. Agronomy Journal, 98(6), 1488-1494. Thérivel, R. (2013). ‘Use of sustainability appraisal by English planning inspectors and judges’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, 26–34. Therond O., Duru M., Jean Roger-Estrade J., and Richard G. (2017). A new analytical framework of farming system and agriculture model diversities: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 37 (3), 21. Ton, G., Hagelaars, G., Laven, A., & Vellema, S. (2008). Chain governance, sector policies and economic sustainability in cocoa: a comparative analysis of Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, and Ecuador. Markets, Chains and Sustainable Development Strategy & Policy paper, 12. Tribe, M., & Huq, M. (2019). Ghana's New National Income Data Series: Follow-up to M Huq and M Tribe's the Economy of Ghana: 50 Years of Economic Development (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018). Trinh, L. T. K., Hu, A. H., Lan, Y. C. & Chen, Z. H. (2020). Comparative life cycle assessment for conventional and organic coffee cultivation in Vietnam. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 17(3), 1307-1324. Tuğrul, K. M. (2019). Soil Management in Sustainable Agriculture. In Soil Management and Plant Nutrition for Sustainable Crop Production. IntechOpen. Turkelboom, F., Thoonen, M., Jacobs, S., & Berry, P. (2015). Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies. Ecology and Society, 21(1), 43. UNDP (2013). Support for Development and Operation of Ghana Cocoa Platform. https://www.gh.undp.org/content/dam/ghana/docs/Doc/Susdev/UNDP_GH_SUS DEV_Ghana%20Cocoa%20Platform%20prodoc.pdf Accessed on 4/02/2019 Utomo, B., Prawoto, A. A., Bonnet, S., Bangviwat, A., & Gheewala, S. H. (2016). Environmental performance of cocoa production from monoculture and agroforestry systems in Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 583-591. Vallet, A., Locatelli, B., Levrel, H., Wunder, S., Seppelt, R., Scholes, R. J., & Oszwald, J. (2018). Relationships between ecosystem services: comparing methods for assessing trade-offs and synergies. Ecological Economics, 150, 96-106. 160 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Van Ginkel, M., Sayer, J., Sinclair, F., Aw-Hassan, A., Bossio, D., Craufurd, P., & Velarde, C. L. (2013). An integrated agro-ecosystem and livelihood systems approach for the poor and vulnerable in dry areas. Food Security, 5(6), 751-767. Van Passel, S., Nevens, F., Mathijs, E., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2007). Measuring farm sustainability and explaining differences in sustainable efficiency. Ecological Economics, 62(1), 149-161. Velten, S., Leventon, J., Jager, N., & Newig, J. (2015). What is sustainable agriculture? A systematic review. Sustainability, 7(6), 7833-7865. Verhulst, N., Govaerts, B., Verachtert, E., Castellanos-Navarrete, A., Mezzalama, M., Wall, P., & Sayre, K. D. (2010). Conservation agriculture, improving soil quality for sustainable production systems. Advances in soil science: Food security and soil quality. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 137-208. Vervuurt, W. (2019). Modelling GHG emissions of cacao production at plot level in the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire. MSc Thesis, Wageningen University. Wang, J., Chen, Z., Xiong, Z., Chen, C., Xu, X., Zhou, Q., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2015). Effects of biochar amendment on greenhouse gas emissions, net ecosystem carbon budget and properties of an acidic soil under intensive vegetable production. Soil Use and Management, 31(3), 375-383. Wessel, M., & Quist-Wessel, P. F. (2015). Cocoa production in West Africa, a review and analysis of recent developments. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 74, 1-7. Winsnes, N. (2013). Investigation of stream water quality in an agricultural and a forested watershed in Nepal (Master's thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås). https://nmbu.brage.unit.no/nmbumlui/bitstream/handle/11250/189593/Winsnes_N ina.pdf?sequence=1 Winter, E., Marton, S. M., Baumgart, L., Curran, M., Stolze, M., & Schader, C. (2020). Comparing the sustainability performance of typical conventional and certified coffee production systems in Brazil and Ethiopia using the FAO SAFA Guidelines. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 49. World Bank (2017). Ghana: Agriculture Sector Policy Note. Transforming Agriculture for Economic Growth, Job Creation and Food Security. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/336541505459269020/pdf/119753- PN-P133833-PUBLIC-Ghana-Policy-Note-Ag-Sector-Review.pdf Accessed on 19/06/2019 World Cocoa Foundation (WCF), (2020). https://www.worldcocoafoundation.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/08/CSC_AID-OAA-A-16-000024-WCF-Final-Report- 8.18.20.pdf Accessed on 23.12.2019 World Cocoa Foundation (WCF), (2016). Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus Disease: A holistic approach to control the disease in West Africa. 161 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/336541505459269020/pdf/119753- PN-P133833-PUBLIC-Ghana-Policy-Note-Ag-Sector-Review.pdf Yuwono, T. (2016). Local good governance sustainability: Roles of civil society in Surakarta city, Indonesia. Muhammadiyah University Yogyakarta. Zhu, Z., Jia, Z., Peng, L., Chen, Q., He, L., Jiang, Y., & Ge, S. (2018). Life cycle assessment of conventional and organic apple production systems in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 201, 156-168. Zougmoré, R. (2014). Climate-Smart Agriculture Integrated into Decision-Making in Ghana. Available online: https://ccafs.cgiar.org/blog/climate-smart-agriculture- integrated-decision-makingghana#.VuAuAPnnVyN (accessed on 20 December 2019). 162 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh APPENDICES Appendix 3.1: SAFA themes, sub-themes, sustainability goal and indicators used by the SMART-Farm tool Theme Sub-theme Sustainability objective of sub-theme Indicator (s) Good governance The enterprise has made its Written Commitment Sustainability commitment to all areas of Public Written Commitment Sustainability sustainability clear to the public, to Verbal Commitment Sustainability all personnel and other stakeholders Sustainability Report SAFA Mission Statement through publishing a mission Sustainability Report Publicly Available statement or other similar declaration Explicit Sustainability Plan (such as a code of conduct or vision Oral Information Sustainability Improvements statement) that is binding for management and employees or Commitment Against Discrimination Corporate Ethics members. Consideration External Environmental Social Costs Due Diligence The enterprise is pro-active in Mechanization Grade Humus Formation Humus Balance considering its external impacts Fertilizer Requirements before making decisions that have Antibiotics Livestock Fertilizer long-term impacts for any area of Harmful Substances P Fertilizer Pesticides Persistence Water sustainability. This is accomplished Pesticides Persistence Soil through the enterprise following Pesticides Knowledge appropriate procedures such as risk Plants for Energy Instead Food Usage Chemical Synthetic Seed Dressings assessment and others that ensure Usage of GMO crops Use of GMO Feedstuff Usage Nanotechnology-Based Products 163 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh that stakeholders are informed, Written Commitment Sustainability Public Written Commitment Sustainability engaged and respected. Verbal Commitment Sustainability Communication Stakeholder Negative Socio Environmental Impacts Prevention of Resource Conflicts Environmental Responsibility Procurement Social Responsibility for Procurement Peat Origin Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge Food Safety Standards Contamination Cases Measures Environmentally Certified Products Products of Social Standards Household Food Security Support of Disadvantaged Groups Commitment Against Discrimination Identification of Safety Hazards Employees Protective Gear Certification Usage Plant Protection Animal Treatment Products Accountability Holistic Audits All areas of sustainability in the Humus Formation Humus Balance Fertilizer Requirements SAFA dimensions that pertain to the Mineral K Fertilizers enterprise are monitored internally in Animal Welfare Standards Slaughter an appropriate manner, and wherever Written Commitment Sustainability Public Written Commitment Sustainability possible, are reviewed according to Sustainability Report SAFA 164 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh recognized sustainability reporting Sustainability Report Publicly Available Explicit Sustainability Plan systems. Oral Information Sustainability Improvements Environmental Responsibility Procurement Social Responsibility for Procurement Food Safety Standards Environmentally Certified Products Products of Social Standards Management System Workplace Safety Health Professional Agricultural Accounts Consideration External Environmental Social Costs Responsibility Senior management and/or owners of Written Commitment Sustainability Public Written Commitment Sustainability enterprise regularly and explicitly Verbal Commitment Sustainability evaluate the enterprise's performance Sustainability Report SAFA against its mission or code of Sustainability Report Publicly Available Explicit Sustainability Plan conduct Oral Information Sustainability Improvements Involvement in Improving Laws Regulations Communication Stakeholder Negative Socio Environmental Impacts Fair Resolution Conflicts Environmental Responsibility Procurement Social Responsibility for Procurement Costs Environmental Involvement Outside Farm Costs Social Involvement Outside Farm 165 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Consideration External Environmental Social Costs Cooperation Ethical Financial Institutions Transparency All procedures, policies, decisions or Written Commitment Sustainability Public Written Commitment Sustainability decision-making processes are Verbal Commitment Sustainability accessible where appropriate Sustainability Report SAFA publicly, and made available to Sustainability Report Publicly Available Explicit Sustainability Plan stakeholders including personnel and Oral Information Sustainability Improvements others affected by the enterprise's Communication Stakeholder activities. Traceability Bought in Farm Inputs Food Safety Standards Environmentally Certified Products Products of Social Standards Transparency Production Certification Usage Plant Protection Animal Treatment Products Management System Workplace Safety Health Consideration External Environmental Social Costs Cooperation Ethical Financial Institutions Participation Stakeholder The enterprise pro-actively identifies Involvement Improving Laws Regulations Dialogue Communication Stakeholder stakeholders, which include all those Successful Conflict Resolution affected by the activities of the Fair Resolution Conflicts enterprise (including any Conflict Water Quantity Conflict Water Quality stakeholders unable to claim their Cooperation Other Farms 166 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh rights), and ensures that all are Prevention Resource Conflicts Customer Relationship informed, engaged in critical Employees Assembly Bargaining Rights decision making, and that their input 1_EmpolyeeFreedomJoiningUnions is duly considered. Support of Disadvantaged Groups Management System Workplace Safety Health Loan Providers Problems Cooperation Ethical Financial Institutions Grievance All stakeholders (including as stated Successful Conflict Resolution Procedures above, those who cannot claim their Fair Resolution Conflicts rights, personnel, and any Prevention Resource Conflicts stakeholders in or outside of the Products of Social Standards enterprise) have access to Employees Legally Binding Contracts appropriate grievance procedures, Employees Assembly Bargaining Rights without a risk of negative 1_EmpolyeeFreedomJoiningUnions consequences Support of Disadvantaged Groups Commitment Against Discrimination Costs Social Involvement Outside Farm Conflict Conflicts between stakeholder Communication Stakeholder Resolution Negative Socio Environmental Impacts interests and the enterprise's Successful Conflict Resolution activities are resolved through Fair Resolution Conflicts collaborative dialogue (i.e. arbitrated, Conflict Water Quantity Conflict Water Quality mediated, facilitated, conciliated or Cooperation Other Farms negotiated), based on respect, mutual Prevention Resource Conflicts understanding and equal power. Customer Relationship Employees Assembly Bargaining Rights 167 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1_EmpolyeeFreedomJoiningUnions Support of Disadvantaged Groups Management System Workplace Safety Health Loan Providers Problems Rule of law Legitimacy The enterprise is compliant with all Waiting Period Animal Manure Harvest Pesticides Knowledge applicable laws, regulations and Correct Waste Disposal standards voluntarily entered into by Waste Disposal Pesticides Veterinary the enterprise (unless as part of an Medicines Waste Disposal Cadaver explicit campaign of non-violent Negative Socio Environmental Impacts civil disobedience or protest) and Infringements of Law Prevention Resource Conflicts international human rights standards Environmental Responsibility Procurement (whether legally obligated or not). Social Responsibility on Procurement Food Safety Standards Contaminated Products Employees Legally Binding Contracts Employees Work Permit Relation Paid to Minimum Salary Dispossession Smallholder Local Communities Remedy, In case of any legal infringements or Sustainability Report SAFA Restoration and any other identified breach of legal, Sustainability Report Publicly Available Prevention regulatory, international human Oral Information Sustainability Improvements rights, or voluntary standard, the Negative Socio Environmental Impacts enterprise immediately puts in place Successful Conflict Resolution an effective remedy and adequate Fair Resolution Conflicts Infringements Of Law 168 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh actions for restoration and further Prevention of Resource Conflicts prevention are taken. Contamination Cases Measures Dispossession Smallholder Local Communities Civic Within its sphere of influence, the Involvement in Improving Laws Regulations Responsibility enterprise supports the improvement Environmental Responsibility Procurement of the legal and regulatory Social Responsibility for Procurement framework on all dimensions of Costs Environmental Involvement Outside sustainability and does not seek to Farm avoid the impact of human rights, or Costs Social Involvement Outside Farm sustainability standards, or regulation Food Security Measures Local Communities through the corporate veil, Cooperation Ethical Financial Institutions relocation, or any other means. Resource Enterprises do not reduce the 1_InformationWaterAvailability Appropriation existing rights of communities to Communication Stakeholder land, water and Negative Socio Environmental Impacts resources, and operations are carried Successful Conflict Resolution after informing affected communities Conflict Water Quantity by providing information, Conflict Water Quality independent advice and building Prevention Resource Conflicts capacity to self-organize for the purposes of representation Traceability Bought In Farm Inputs Social Responsibility on Procurement Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social Condition Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge Products of Social Standards Relation Paid To Minimum Salary Dispossession Smallholder Local Communities Cooperation Ethical Financial Institutions Market Challenges 169 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Holistic Sustainability A sustainability plan for the Political Policy Challenges Management Management Plan Knowledge Climate Change Problems enterprise is developed which Climate Change Adaptation Measures provides a holistic view of Written Commitment Sustainability sustainability and considers Public Written Commitment Sustainability Verbal Commitment Sustainability synergies and trade-offs between Sustainability Report SAFA dimensions, including each of the Sustainability Report Publicly Available environmental, economic, social and Explicit Sustainability Plan Oral Information Sustainability Improvements governance dimensions. Environmental Responsibility Procurement Social Responsibility on Procurement Guaranteed Staff Replacement Farm Succession Sustainability Training Professional Agricultural Accounts Full Cost The business success of the Written Commitment Sustainability Accounting enterprise is measured and reported Verbal Commitment Sustainability taking into account direct and Sustainability Report SAFA indirect impacts on the economy, Sustainability Report Publicly Available society and physical environment Explicit Sustainability Plan (e.g. triple bottom line reporting), Oral Information Sustainability Improvements and the accounting process makes Professional Agricultural Accounts transparent both direct and indirect subsidies received, as well as direct Consideration External Environmental Social and indirect costs externalized. Costs Environmental integrity Atmosphere Greenhouse Gases The emission of GHG is contained. Permanent Grasslands Share Of Agricultural Area_Calculated Permanent Grasslands Extensively Managed 170 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Share Legumes Arable Land Share Legumes On Perennial Crop Area Measures Prevent Erosion Erosion Prevention Perennial Crops Bought Org Fert Bought Concentrated Feed Stocking Density Silage Storage Nutrients Pollutants Sources On Farm Combustion Motors Renewable Energy Production On Farm Slurry Stores Covered ArableLandErosionControlGreater15Percent ArableLandGreenCoverGreater30Percent Ecol Comensation Share Of Agric Land_Calculated Agro Forestry Systems_Calculated Wood lands Share Agricultural Land Woodlands Deforestation Arable Land Share Temporary Grassland_Calculated Share Green Cover Perennial Crop Land Production Bioenergy Crops Humus Formation Catch Crops Arable Land Share Green Cover Outside Growing Period Arable Land Share Mulching Arable Land Share Direct Seeding Arable Land Under Sown Crops 171 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Permanent Grassland Conversion Permanent Grassland Renewal Permanent Grassland Mowing Frequency Plough Less Soil Management Humus Formation Crop Residues Humus Formation Humus Balance Steaming Open Ground Steaming Greenhouse Fertilizer Requirements Mineral N Fertilizers Farmyard Manure Compost Slurry Application Drag Hose Injection Precise Fertilisation Proportion Drained Arable Land on Moorland 1_ProportionDrainedArableLandNotOnMoorla nd Proportion Drained Perm Grassland on Moorland 1_ProportionDrainedPermGrasslandNotOnMoo rland 5_AverageLactations Dual purpose Breeds Ruminants 1_DualPurposeBreedsPoultry Hybrid Livestock 5_DailyOutdoorAccess Access to Pasture Outdoor Access Pigs Outdoor Access Poultry 172 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Bought in Roughage Feed No Food Grazing Livestock Feed No Food Non Grazing Animals Transport Duration Abattoir 1_RecyclingPaper Reusable Packaging Materials Open Burning Biogas Plant Share Organic Residues Electricity Consumption Renewable Electricity Fuel From Renewable Sources Fuel From Own Production Eco Drive Plants For Energy Instead Food Renewable Heating Hot Water Insulation Heated Farm Buildings On Farm Renewable Heating Production Irrigation Low Energy Technology Pumps Use Synthetic Aggregates For Soil Substrate Peat Usage Seedling Production Peat Usage Further Growth Peat Usage in Grown Soil Peat Origin Air quality The emission of air pollutants is Permanent Grasslands Extensively Managed prevented, and ozone depleting Share Legumes Arable Land substances are eliminated. Share Legumes On Perennial Crop Area Bought Org Fert Bought Concentrated Feed 173 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Silage Storage Nutrients Pollutants Sources On Farm Emission Contamination Combustion Motors Renewable Energy Production On Farm Slurry Stores Covered Agro Forestry Systems_Calculated Wood lands Share Agricultural Land Woodlands Deforestation Arable Land Share Direct Seeding Permanent Grassland Mowing Frequency Soil Degradation Counter Measures Humus Formation Humus Balance Steaming Open Ground Steaming Greenhouse Soil Disinfection Fertilizer Requirements Mineral N Fertilizers Farmyard Manure Compost Slurry Application Drag Hose Injection Precise Fertilisation No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides 75_PesticidesAcuteToxicityInhalation Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation 174 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Dual purpose Breeds Ruminants 1_DualPurposeBreedsPoultry 5_DailyOutdoorAccess Access to Pasture Outdoor Access Pigs Outdoor Access Poultry Bought in Roughage Feed No Food Grazing Livestock Feed No Food Non Grazing Animals Transport Duration Abattoir Waste Disposal Cadaver Production Materials Usage Problematic Elements Open Burning Biogas Plant Share Organic Residues Electricity Consumption Renewable Electricity Fuel From Renewable Sources Fuel From Own Production Eco Drive Plants For Energy Instead Food Renewable Heating Hot Water Insulation Heated Farm Buildings On Farm Renewable Heating Production Irrigation Low Energy Technology Pumps Water Water withdrawal Withdrawal of ground and surface 1_InformationWaterAvailability Annual Water Consumption_Calculated water and/or use does not impair the Use Non Renewable Water Resources 175 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh functioning of natural water cycles Irrigation Water Consumption_Calculated Use Rainwater and ecosystems and human, plant Irrigation Precipitation Measurement and animal communities. Water Use Efficiency Water Saving Cleaning Harvested Products Waste water ReUse 05_WastewaterDisposal Yield Decrease Lack Of Water Water Storage Capacity Locally Adapted Livestock Breeds Reusable Packaging Materials Conflict Water Quantity Water Quality The release of water pollutants is Permanent Grasslands Extensively Managed Share Legumes On Perennial Crop Area prevented, and water quality is Measures Prevent Erosion restored Erosion Prevention Perennial Crops Silage Storage 1_PoultryVegetationCover Distance Manure Water Nutrients Pollutants Sources On Farm ArableLandGradientsGreater15Percent ArableLandErosionControlGreater15Percent ArableLandGreenCoverGreater30Percent Ecol Comensation Share Of Agric Land_Calculated Management Riparian Stripes Wood lands Share Agricultural Land Woodlands Deforestation 176 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Arable Land Share Temporary Grassland_Calculated Share Green Cover Perennial Crop Land Humus Formation Catch Crops Arable Land Share Green Cover Outside Growing Period Arable Land Share Direct Seeding Arable Land Under Sown Crops Crop Resistance Permanent Grassland Conversion Permanent Grassland Renewal Sealed Areas_Calculated Soil Degradation Counter Measures Plough Less Soil Management Contamination Test Before Bought in Fertilizers Landslides Mudslides Soil Disinfection Fertilizer Requirements Mineral N Fertilizers Mineral P Fertilizers Compost Antibiotics Livestock Fertilizer Slurry Application Drag Hose Injection Precise Fertilisation Harmful Substances P Fertilizer No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides 177 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1_PesticidesNumberActiveSubstances 2_PesticidesToxicityAquaticOrganisms Pesticides Persistence Water Pesticides Persistence Soil Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation 2_InformationWaterQuality 05_WastewaterDisposal Usage Antibiotic Drying Agents Livestock Health Hormonal Treatment Correct Waste Disposal Waste Disposal Pesticides Veterinary Medicines Recycling Waste Oil 1_RecyclingTyres 2_RecyclingBatteries 3_RecyclingPlastic 5_RecyclingGlass Waste Disposal Cadaver Production Materials Usage Problematic Elements Conflict Water Quality Livestock Health Prophylactic Treatments Land Soil quality Soil characteristics provide the best Permanent Grasslands Share Of Agricultural Area_Calculated conditions for plant growth and soil Permanent Grasslands Extensively Managed health, while chemical and biological Share Legumes Arable Land soil contamination is prevented. Share Legumes On Perennial Crop Area Measures Prevent Erosion 178 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Erosion Prevention Perennial Crops Distance Manure Water Nutrients Pollutants Sources On Farm ArableLandGradientsGreater15Percent ArableLandErosionControlGreater15Percent ArableLandGreenCoverGreater30Percent Ecol Comensation Share Of Agric Land_Calculated Number Scattered Fruit Trees_Calculated Agro Forestry Systems_Calculated Wood lands Share Agricultural Land Woodlands Deforestation Number Elements Crop Rotation Number Perennial crops Arable Land Share Temporary Grassland_Calculated Share Green Cover Perennial Crop Land Humus Formation Catch Crops Arable Land Share Green Cover Outside Growing Period Arable Land Share Mulching Arable Land Share Direct Seeding Arable Land Under Sown Crops Crop Resistance Permanent Grassland Conversion Permanent Grassland Renewal Soil degradation Share Agric Area Sealed Areas_Calculated Soil Degradation Counter Measures 179 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Soil Degradation Soil Compaction Soil Degradation Compaction Heavy Machinery Soil Improvement Plough Less Soil Management Contamination Test Before Bought in Fertilizers Soil Analyses Heavy Metals Humus Formation Crop Residues Humus Formation Humus Balance Steaming Open Ground Steaming Greenhouse Soil Disinfection Fertilizer Requirements Mineral N Fertilizers Mineral P Fertilizers Farmyard Manure Compost Antibiotics Livestock Fertilizer Precise Fertilisation Harmful Substances P Fertilizer No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides 1_PesticidesNumberActiveSubstances Pesticides Persistence Soil Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation 2_InformationWaterQuality 180 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Proportion Drained Arable Land on Moorland 1_ProportionDrainedArableLandNotOnMoorla nd Proportion Drained Perm Grassland on Moorland 1_ProportionDrainedPermGrasslandNotOnMoo rland Usage Antibiotic Drying Agents Correct Waste Disposal Waste Disposal Pesticides Veterinary Medicines Recycling Waste Oil 1_RecyclingTyres 2_RecyclingBatteries 3_RecyclingPlastic Production Materials Usage Problematic Elements Use Synthetic Aggregates For Soil Substrate Peat Usage Seedling Production Peat Usage Further Growth Peat Usage in Grown Soil 1_PesticidesNumberActiveSubstances Pesticides Persistence Soil Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation 2_InformationWaterQuality Proportion Drained Arable Land on Moorland 1_ProportionDrainedArableLandNotOnMoorla nd 181 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Proportion Drained Perm Grassland on Moorland 1_ProportionDrainedPermGrasslandNotOnMoo rland Usage Antibiotic Drying Agents Correct Waste Disposal Waste Disposal Pesticides Veterinary Medicines Recycling Waste Oil 1_RecyclingTyres 2_RecyclingBatteries 3_RecyclingPlastic Production Materials Usage Problematic Elements Use Synthetic Aggregates For Soil Substrate Peat Usage Seedling Production Peat Usage Further Growth Peat Usage in Grown Soil Land degradation No land is lost through soil Permanent Grasslands Share Of Agricultural Area_Calculated degradation and desertification and Permanent Grasslands Extensively Managed degraded land is rehabilitated Share Legumes On Perennial Crop Area Measures Prevent Erosion Erosion Prevention Perennial Crops 1_PoultryVegetationCover ArableLandGradientsGreater15Percent ArableLandErosionControlGreater15Percent ArableLandGreenCoverGreater30Percent Land Ownership 182 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Arable Land Average Plot Size Ecol Comensation Share Of Agric Land_Calculated Management Riparian Stripes Number Scattered Fruit Trees_Calculated Agro Forestry Systems_Calculated Wood lands Share Agricultural Land Woodlands Deforestation Number Elements Crop Rotation Arable Land Share Temporary Grassland_Calculated Share Green Cover Perennial Crop Land Humus Formation Catch Crops Arable Land Share Green Cover Outside Growing Period Arable Land Share Mulching Arable Land Share Direct Seeding Arable Land Under Sown Crops Permanent Grassland Conversion Permanent Grassland Renewal Soil degradation Share Agric Area Sealed Areas_Calculated Soil Degradation Counter Measures Soil Degradation Soil Compaction Soil Degradation Compaction Heavy Machinery Soil Improvement Plough Less Soil Management Landslides Mudslides Humus Formation Crop Residues 183 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Humus Formation Humus Balance Steaming Open Ground Soil Disinfection Harmful Substances P Fertilizer No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides Pesticides Persistence Soil Proportion Drained Arable Land on Moorland 1_ProportionDrainedArableLandNotOnMoorla nd Proportion Drained Perm Grassland on Moorland 1_ProportionDrainedPermGrasslandNotOnMoo rland Peat Usage Seedling Production Peat Usage Further Growth Peat Usage in Grown Soil Peat Origin Biodiversity Ecosystem The diversity, functional integrity Permanent Grasslands Share Of Agricultural Diversity Area_Calculated and connectivity of natural, semi- Permanent Grasslands Extensively Managed natural and agri-food ecosystems are Share Legumes On Perennial Crop Area conserved and improved Substrate Production ArableLandErosionControlGreater15Percent ArableLandGreenCoverGreater30Percent Arable Land Average Plot Size On Farm Biodiversity Promotion Ecol Comensation Share Of Agric Land_Calculated 184 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Ecol Comensation Valuable Landscape Elements Management Riparian Stripes Number Scattered Fruit Trees_Calculated Agro Forestry Systems_Calculated Wood lands Share Agricultural Land Woodlands Deforestation Number Elements Crop Rotation Number Perennial crops Arable Land Share Temporary Grassland_Calculated Share Green Cover Perennial Crop Land Humus Formation Catch Crops Arable Land Share Green Cover Outside Growing Period Arable Land Share Mulching Arable Land Under Sown Crops Permanent Grassland Conversion Permanent Grassland Mowing Frequency Sealed Areas_Calculated Contamination Test Before Bought in Fertilizers Humus Formation Crop Residues Soil Disinfection Mineral N Fertilizers Mineral P Fertilizers No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides 185 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2_PesticidesToxicityAquaticOrganisms 1_PesticidesToxicityBees Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation Proportion Drained Arable Land on Moorland Proportion Drained Perm Grassland on Moorland Alpine Pasturage Shepherding Access to Pasture Peat Usage Seedling Production Peat Usage Further Growth Peat Usage in Grown Soil Peat Origin Species Diversity The diversity of wild species living Permanent Grasslands Share Of Agricultural in natural and semi-natural Area_Calculated ecosystems, as well as the diversity Permanent Grasslands Extensively Managed of domesticated species living in Share Legumes On Perennial Crop Area agricultural, forestry and fisheries Measures Prevent Erosion Erosion Prevention Perennial Crops ecosystems is conserved and Substrate Production improved ArableLandErosionControlGreater15Percent ArableLandGreenCoverGreater30Percent Arable Land Average Plot Size On Farm Biodiversity Promotion Ecol Comensation Share Of Agric Land_Calculated Ecol Comensation Valuable Landscape Elements Management Riparian Stripes 186 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Number Scattered Fruit Trees_Calculated Agro Forestry Systems_Calculated Wood lands Share Agricultural Land Woodlands Deforestation Number Elements Crop Rotation Number Perennial crops Arable Land Share Temporary Grassland_Calculated Share Green Cover Perennial Crop Land Humus Formation Catch Crops Arable Land Share Green Cover Outside Growing Period Arable Land Share Mulching Arable Land Share Direct Seeding Arable Land Under Sown Crops Permanent Grassland Mowing Frequency Sealed Areas_Calculated Soil Degradation Counter Measures Plough Less Soil Management Contamination Test Before Bought in Fertilizers Humus Formation Crop Residues Humus Formation Humus Balance Steaming Open Ground Steaming Greenhouse Soil Disinfection Fertilizer Requirements Mineral N Fertilizers Mineral P Fertilizers 187 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Farmyard Manure Compost Antibiotics Livestock Fertilizer Precise Fertilisation Harmful Substances P Fertilizer No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides 1_PesticidesNumberActiveSubstances 2_PesticidesToxicityAquaticOrganisms 1_PesticidesToxicityBees Pesticides Persistence Water Pesticides Persistence Soil 5_PesticidesChronicToxicity 75_PesticidesAcuteToxicityInhalation 7_PesticidesAcuteToxicity Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation Irrigation Water Consumption_Calculated Proportion Drained Arable Land on Moorland Proportion Drained Perm Grassland on Moorland Dual purpose Breeds Ruminants 1_DualPurposeBreedsPoultry Alpine Pasturage Shepherding Access to Pasture Plants For Energy Instead Food Usage of GMO crops 188 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Use of GMO Feedstuff Use Synthetic Aggregates For Soil Substrate Peat Usage Seedling Production Peat Usage Further Growth Peat Usage in Grown Soil Peat Origin Genetic Diversity The diversity of populations of wild Permanent Grasslands Share Of Agricultural Area_Calculated species, as well as the diversity of Permanent Grasslands Extensively Managed varieties, cultivars and breeds of Ecol Comensation Share Of Agric domesticated species, is conserved Land_Calculated Ecol Comensation Valuable Landscape and improved. Elements Number Scattered Fruit Trees_Calculated Agro Forestry Systems_Calculated Wood lands Share Agricultural Land Number Elements Crop Rotation Rare Endangered Crops Hybrid Cultivars Permanent Grassland Mowing Frequency Sealed Areas_Calculated Steaming Open Ground Soil Disinfection No Use Synth Chem Fungicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides 1_PesticidesNumberActiveSubstances 1_PesticidesToxicityBees Dual purpose Breeds Ruminants 1_DualPurposeBreedsPoultry 189 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Locally Adapted Livestock Breeds Rare Livestock Breeds Hybrid Livestock Plants For Energy Instead Food Usage of GMO crops Use of GMO Feedstuff Materials and Material Use Material consumption is minimized, Permanent Grasslands Extensively Managed Energy Share Legumes Arable Land and reuse, recycling and recovery Share Legumes On Perennial Crop Area rates are maximized. Bought Org Fert Bought Concentrated Feed ArableLandErosionControlGreater15Percent ArableLandGreenCoverGreater30Percent Humus Formation Catch Crops Arable Land Share Green Cover Outside Growing Period Arable Land Share Direct Seeding Permanent Grassland Renewal Soil Degradation Counter Measures Plough Less Soil Management Humus Formation Crop Residues Humus Formation Humus Balance Fertilizer Requirements Mineral P Fertilizers Mineral K Fertilizers Precise Fertilisation No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides 190 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh No Use Synth Chem Insecticides Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation Annual Water Consumption_Calculated Use Non-Renewable Water Resources Irrigation Water Consumption_Calculated Use Rainwater Irrigation Precipitation Measurement Water Use Efficiency Water Saving Cleaning Harvested Products Water Storage Capacity Food Waste Locally Adapted Livestock Breeds Hybrid Livestock Beef Losses 1_PoultryLosses Feed No Food Grazing Livestock Feed No Food Non-Grazing Animals Correct Waste Disposal 1_RecyclingPaper Recycling Waste Oil 1_RecyclingTyres 2_RecyclingBatteries 3_RecyclingPlastic 4_RecyclingMetal 5_RecyclingGlass Reusable Packaging Materials Environmental Responsibility Procurement 191 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Use Synthetic Aggregates For Soil Substrate Peat Usage Seedling Production Peat Usage Further Growth Peat Usage in Grown Soil Peat Origin Environmentally Certified Products Energy Use Overall energy consumption is Permanent Grasslands Extensively Managed Share Legumes Arable Land minimized and use of sustainable Share Legumes On Perennial Crop Area renewable energy is maximized Bought Org Fert Bought Concentrated Feed Substrate Production Combustion Motors Renewable Energy Production On Farm ArableLandErosionControlGreater15Percent ArableLandGreenCoverGreater30Percent Arable Land Average Plot Size Ecol Comensation Share Of Agric Land_Calculated Number Scattered Fruit Trees_Calculated Woodlands Deforestation Humus Formation Catch Crops Arable Land Share Green Cover Outside Growing Period Arable Land Share Mulching Arable Land Share Direct Seeding Arable Land Under Sown Crops Crop Resistance Permanent Grassland Conversion 192 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Permanent Grassland Renewal Permanent Grassland Mowing Frequency Soil Degradation Counter Measures Soil Degradation Soil Compaction Plough Less Soil Management Steaming Open Ground Steaming Greenhouse Soil Disinfection Fertilizer Requirements Mineral N Fertilizers Mineral P Fertilizers Mineral K Fertilizers Compost Precise Fertilisation No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides 1_PesticidesNumberActiveSubstances Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation Ebb Flow System Food Waste 5_AverageLactations Locally Adapted Livestock Breeds Hybrid Livestock Beef Losses 1_PoultryLosses Bought in Roughage 193 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Feed No Food Grazing Livestock Feed No Food Non Grazing Animals 1_RecyclingPaper 4_RecyclingMetal 5_RecyclingGlass Reusable Packaging Materials Electricity Consumption Renewable Electricity Fuel From Renewable Sources Fuel From Own Production Eco Drive Plants For Energy Instead Food Renewable Heating Hot Water Insulation Heated Farm Buildings Isolation Heated Greenhouses Heating Needs Plants On Farm Renewable Heating Production Irrigation Low Energy Technology Pumps Use Synthetic Aggregates For Soil Substrate Peat Origin Direct Sales Waste Reduction Waste generation is prevented and is Silage Storage Disposal Feed Concentrate Storage disposed of in a way that does not Renewable Energy Production On Farm threaten the health of humans and Slurry Stores Covered Production Fibre Crops Crop Resistance 194 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ecosystems and food loss/waste is Contamination Test Before Bought in Fertilizers minimized. Humus Formation Crop Residues Fertilizer Requirements Farmyard Manure Compost No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides 1_PesticidesNumberActiveSubstances Pesticides Persistence Water Pesticides Persistence Soil Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation Food Waste 5_AverageLactations Usage Antibiotic Drying Agents Livestock Health Curative Treatments Correct Waste Disposal Waste Disposal Pesticides Veterinary Medicines 1_RecyclingPaper Recycling Waste Oil 1_RecyclingTyres 2_RecyclingBatteries 3_RecyclingPlastic 4_RecyclingMetal 5_RecyclingGlass Waste Disposal Cadaver 195 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Reusable Packaging Materials Biogas Plant Share Organic Residues Environmental Responsibility Procurement Use Synthetic Aggregates For Soil Substrate Contaminated Products Contamination Cases Measures Direct Sales Subsistence Farming Livestock Health Prophylactic Treatments Animal Welfare Animal Health Animals are kept free from hunger Loose Housing System Stocking Density and thirst, injury and disease Lying Area Hardness Size Lying Area Cleanness Livestock Housing Air Quality Livestock Housing Material Animal Busy Number Quality Drinking Points Light Livestock Housing Noise Livestock Housing Silage Storage Maternity Pen Quarantine Space Heat Cold Protection 1_PoultryVegetationCover Feed Concentrate Storage Injuries Pigs Pigs Quarantine 5_AverageLactations 196 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Complaints Cell Count Dual purpose Breeds Ruminants 1_DualPurposeBreedsPoultry Locally Adapted Livestock Breeds Share Dehorned Ruminants Poultry Break Trimming Mutilation Anaesthetics Analgesics Usage Antibiotic Drying Agents Livestock Health Curative Treatments Beef Losses 1_PoultryLosses Measures Hoof Care Lameness Animals Livestock Health Hormonal Treatment Pigs Nose Ring Losses Calves Buying New Animals Fattening Pigs Losses Polish Teeth Piglets Piglets Losses Alpine Pasturage Shepherding 5_DailyOutdoorAccess Access to Pasture Outdoor Access Pigs Outdoor Access Poultry Animal Welfare Standards Slaughter Transport Duration Abattoir Waste Disposal Cadaver 197 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Instruction Temporary Workers Visitors Animals Livestock Health Prophylactic Treatments Freedom from Animals are kept under species- Loose Housing System Stress Stocking Density appropriate conditions and free from Lying Area Hardness discomfort, pain, injury and disease, Size Lying Area fear and distress. Cleanness Livestock Housing Air Quality Livestock Housing Material Animal Busy Number Quality Drinking Points Light Livestock Housing Noise Livestock Housing Maternity Pen Quarantine Space Heat Cold Protection 1_PoultryVegetationCover Injuries Pigs Pigs Quarantine 5_AverageLactations Complaints Cell Count Dual purpose Breeds Ruminants 1_DualPurposeBreedsPoultry Locally Adapted Livestock Breeds Hybrid Livestock Share Dehorned Ruminants Poultry Break Trimming Mutilation Anaesthetics Analgesics 198 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Usage Antibiotic Drying Agents Livestock Health Curative Treatments Beef Losses 1_PoultryLosses Measures Hoof Care Lameness Animals Livestock Health Hormonal Treatment Pigs Nose Ring Losses Calves Buying New Animals Fattening Pigs Losses Polish Teeth Piglets Piglets Losses Alpine Pasturage Shepherding 5_DailyOutdoorAccess Access to Pasture Outdoor Access Pigs Outdoor Access Poultry Animal Welfare Standards Slaughter Transport Duration Abattoir Instruction Temporary Workers Visitors Animals Livestock Health Prophylactic Treatments Economic resilience Investment Internal Renewable Energy Production On Farm Investment ArableLandErosionControlGreater15Percent ArableLandGreenCoverGreater30Percent Land Ownership 199 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh In a continuous, foresighted manner, On Farm Biodiversity Promotion Ecol Comensation Valuable Landscape the enterprise invests into enhancing Elements its sustainability performance Arable Land Share Temporary Grassland_Calculated Share Green Cover Perennial Crop Land Humus Formation Catch Crops Arable Land Share Green Cover Outside Growing Period Arable Land Under Sown Crops Soil Degradation Counter Measures Soil Improvement Plough Less Soil Management Steaming Open Ground Compost Precise Fertilisation Harmful Substances P Fertilizer No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides Water Use Efficiency Water Saving Cleaning Harvested Products Water Storage Capacity 1_ProportionDrainedArableLandNotOnMoorla nd 1_ProportionDrainedPermGrasslandNotOnMoo rland Fuel from Own Production Plants For Energy Instead Food 200 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Insulation Heated Farm Buildings On Farm Renewable Heating Production Irrigation Low Energy Technology Pumps Farm Staff Training External Training Employees Apprenticeships Long Term Investments Farm Savings Community Through its investments, the Ecol Comensation Share of Agric Investment enterprise contributes to sustainable Land_Calculated development of a community Ecol Comensation Valuable Landscape Elements Management Riparian Stripes Number Scattered Fruit Trees_Calculated Agro Forestry Systems_Calculated Wood lands Share Agricultural Land Woodlands Deforestation Fertilizer Requirements Rare Livestock Breeds 1_RecyclingPaper Local Procurement Supplier Level Local Procurement Producer Level Local Procurement Awareness Local Procurement Policy Number Jobs Created Removed Sustainability Training Costs Environmental Involvement Outside Farm Costs Social Involvement Outside Farm 201 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Public Health Measures Food Security Measures Local Communities Long Ranging Investments into production Land Ownership Investment facilities, resources, market Ecol Comensation Share of Agric infrastructure, shares and Land_Calculated acquisitions aim at long-term Ecol Comensation Valuable Landscape sustainability rather than maximum Elements short-term profit. Number Scattered Fruit Trees_Calculated Agro Forestry Systems_Calculated Hybrid Cultivars Crop Resistance Permanent Grassland Mowing Frequency Soil Degradation Compaction Heavy Machinery Soil Improvement Humus Formation Humus Balance Steaming Open Ground Slurry Application Drag Hose Injection 2_PesticidesToxicityAquaticOrganisms 1_PesticidesToxicityBees Pesticides Persistence Water Pesticides Persistence Soil Growth Regulation 1_ProportionDrainedArableLandNotOnMoorla nd 1_ProportionDrainedPermGrasslandNotOnMoo rland Reusable Packaging Materials Local Procurement Supplier Level Local Procurement Producer Level 202 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Local Procurement Awareness Local Procurement Policy Farm Staff Training External Training Employees Apprenticeships Long Term Investments Farm Savings Profitability Through its investments and business Size Main Business Unit Measures Prevent Erosion activities, the enterprise has the Erosion Prevention Perennial Crops capacity to generate a positive net Mechanization Grade income Mechanization Milk Mechanization Harvesting Arable Land Average Plot Size Number Scattered Fruit Trees_Calculated Weed Management Arable Land Share Temporary Grassland_Calculated Usage Clean Planting Materials 1_MaintenanceCropFields Hybrid Cultivars Permanent Grassland Conversion Permanent Grassland Mowing Frequency Soil degradation Share Agric Area Soil Degradation Soil Compaction Landslides Mudslides Fertilizer Requirements Precise Fertilisation 203 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation Soil Water Harvesting Yield Decrease Lack of Water 1_YieldLevel 2_YieldTendency Yield Loss Food Waste Lameness Animals Losses Calves Fattening Pigs Losses Piglets Losses Biogas Plant Share Organic Residues Eco Drive Insulation Heated Farm Buildings Irrigation Low Energy Technology Pumps Climate Change Adaptation Measures Farm Inputs Secure Supply Harvesting Methods Storage Facilities Collective Marketing Producer Price Vs Market Price Level On Farm Processing Professional Agricultural Accounts Insurance Fire Insurance Natural Disasters 204 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Profit Stability Long Term Investments Loan Providers Problems Diversification Income Vulnerability Stability of Production (quantity and quality) is Substrate Production Production sufficiently resilient to withstand and No Use Synth Chem Herbicides be adapted to environmental, social No Use Synth Chem Fungicides and economic shocks No Use Synth Chem Insecticides Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation Permanent Grasslands Extensively Managed Size Main Business Unit Share Legumes Arable Land Share Legumes on Perennial Crop Area Measures Prevent Erosion Erosion Prevention Perennial Crops Bought Org Fert Bought Concentrated Feed Stocking Density Number Quality Drinking Points Silage Storage Feed Concentrate Storage Injuries Pigs Farm Infrastructure Condition Renewable Energy Production on Farm ArableLandErosionControlGreater15Percent ArableLandGreenCoverGreater30Percent Land Ownership 205 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh On Farm Biodiversity Promotion Number Scattered Fruit Trees_Calculated Agro Forestry Systems_Calculated Wood lands Share Agricultural Land Number Elements Crop Rotation Number Perennial crops Weed Management Arable Land Share Temporary Grassland_Calculated Share Green Cover Perennial Crop Land Usage Clean Planting Materials 1_MaintenanceCropFields Humus Formation Catch Crops Arable Land Share Green Cover Outside Growing Period Arable Land Share Direct Seeding Arable Land Under Sown Crops Crop Resistance Permanent Grassland Mowing Frequency Soil degradation Share Agric Area Soil Degradation Counter Measures Soil Degradation Soil Compaction Soil Improvement Landslides Mudslides Humus Formation Humus Balance Fertilizer Requirements Mineral K Fertilizers Precise Fertilisation Soil Water Harvesting 206 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Yield Decrease Lack of Water Water Storage Capacity 1_ProportionDrainedArableLandNotOnMoorla nd 1_ProportionDrainedPermGrasslandNotOnMoo rland 2_YieldTendency Yield Loss Food Waste 5_AverageLactations Complaints Cell Count Dual purpose Breeds Ruminants 1_DualPurposeBreedsPoultry Locally Adapted Livestock Breeds Hybrid Livestock Livestock Health Curative Treatments Beef Losses 1_PoultryLosses Losses Calves Fattening Pigs Losses Piglets Losses Fuel from Own Production On Farm Renewable Heating Production Market Challenges Political Policy Challenges Knowledge Climate Change Problems Climate Change Adaptation Measures Cooperation Other Farms Harvesting Methods 207 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Storage Facilities Customer Relationship Guaranteed Staff Replacement Farm Succession Staff Shortage Staff Turnover Replacement Farm Manager 5_PartnerProtectionDivorceDeath Management System Workplace Safety Health Access Advisory Services Insurance Fire Insurance Natural Disasters Debt Farm Savings Credit Limit Diversification Income Substrate Production No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation Permanent Grasslands Extensively Managed Size Main Business Unit Share Legumes Arable Land Share Legumes on Perennial Crop Area Measures Prevent Erosion Erosion Prevention Perennial Crops Bought Org Fert 208 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Bought Concentrated Feed Stocking Density Number Quality Drinking Points Silage Storage Feed Concentrate Storage Injuries Pigs Farm Infrastructure Condition Renewable Energy Production on Farm ArableLandErosionControlGreater15Percent ArableLandGreenCoverGreater30Percent Land Ownership On Farm Biodiversity Promotion Number Scattered Fruit Trees_Calculated Agro Forestry Systems_Calculated Wood lands Share Agricultural Land Number Elements Crop Rotation Number Perennial crops Weed Management Arable Land Share Temporary Grassland_Calculated Share Green Cover Perennial Crop Land Usage Clean Planting Materials 1_MaintenanceCropFields Humus Formation Catch Crops Arable Land Share Green Cover Outside Growing Period Arable Land Share Direct Seeding Arable Land Under Sown Crops Crop Resistance 209 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Permanent Grassland Mowing Frequency Soil degradation Share Agric Area Soil Degradation Counter Measures Soil Degradation Soil Compaction Soil Improvement Landslides Mudslides Humus Formation Humus Balance Fertilizer Requirements Mineral K Fertilizers Precise Fertilisation Soil Water Harvesting Yield Decrease Lack of Water Water Storage Capacity 1_ProportionDrainedArableLandNotOnMoorla nd 1_ProportionDrainedPermGrasslandNotOnMoo rland 2_YieldTendency Yield Loss Food Waste 5_AverageLactations Complaints Cell Count Dual purpose Breeds Ruminants 1_DualPurposeBreedsPoultry Locally Adapted Livestock Breeds Hybrid Livestock Livestock Health Curative Treatments Beef Losses 1_PoultryLosses 210 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Losses Calves Fattening Pigs Losses Piglets Losses Fuel from Own Production On Farm Renewable Heating Production Market Challenges Political Policy Challenges Knowledge Climate Change Problems Climate Change Adaptation Measures Cooperation Other Farms Harvesting Methods Storage Facilities Customer Relationship Guaranteed Staff Replacement Farm Succession Staff Shortage Staff Turnover Replacement Farm Manager 5_PartnerProtectionDivorceDeath Management System Workplace Safety Health Access Advisory Services Insurance Fire Insurance Natural Disasters Debt Farm Savings Credit Limit Diversification Income Stability of Supply Stable business relationships are Bought Org Fert maintained with a sufficient number Bought Concentrated Feed 211 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh of input suppliers and alternative Renewable Energy Production On Farm procurement channels are accessible. Hybrid Cultivars Mineral N Fertilizers Mineral P Fertilizers Mineral K Fertilizers Precise Fertilisation No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation Bought in Roughage Fuel from Own Production Plants for Energy Instead Food Insulation Heated Farm Buildings On Farm Renewable Heating Production Irrigation Low Energy Technology Pumps Cooperation Suppliers Quality Farm Inputs Secure Supply Suppliers Forced Labour Stability of Market Stable business relationships are Number Scattered Fruit Trees_Calculated Agro Forestry Systems_Calculated maintained with a sufficient number Wood lands Share Agricultural Land of buyers, income structure is Rare Endangered Crops diversified, and alternative marketing Permanent Grassland Conversion Complaints Cell Count channels are Product Returns Contaminated Products 212 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh accessible. Sales Diversification Dependency Main Customer Length Customer Relations Direct Sales Collective Marketing Availability Alternative Markets Transparency Production Customer Relationship Diversification Income Liquidity Financial liquidity, access to credits 1_YieldLevel and insurance (formal and informal) Insurance Fire against economic, environmental and Insurance Natural Disasters social risk enable the enterprise to Profit Stability withstand shortfalls in payment Debt Farm Savings Credit Limit Loan Providers Problems Diversification Income Risk management Strategies are in place to manage and Permanent Grasslands Extensively Managed mitigate the internal and external Bought Org Fert risks (i.e. price, production, market, Bought Concentrated Feed credit, workforce, social, Silage Storage environmental) that Distance Manure Water the enterprise could face to withstand Feed Concentrate Storage their negative impact. Nutrients Pollutants Sources On Farm Farm Infrastructure Condition ArableLandErosionControlGreater15Percent ArableLandGreenCoverGreater30Percent 213 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Land Ownership Management Riparian Stripes Soil Degradation Counter Measures Contamination Test Before Bought in Fertilizers Soil Analyses Heavy Metals Landslides Mudslides Humus Formation Humus Balance Fertilizer Requirements Waiting Period Animal Manure Harvest No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides 1_PesticidesNumberActiveSubstances 2_PesticidesToxicityAquaticOrganisms 1_PesticidesToxicityBees Pesticides Persistence Water Pesticides Persistence Soil Pesticides Knowledge 5_PesticidesChronicToxicity 75_PesticidesAcuteToxicityInhalation 7_PesticidesAcuteToxicity Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation Water Storage Capacity 1_ProportionDrainedArableLandNotOnMoorla nd 1_ProportionDrainedPermGrasslandNotOnMoo rland 214 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Yield Loss Complaints Cell Count Locally Adapted Livestock Breeds Milk Waiting Period Antibiotics Usage Antibiotic Drying Agents Buying New Animals Waste Disposal Cadaver Fuel from Own Production Market Challenges Political Policy Challenges Knowledge Climate Change Problems Climate Change Adaptation Measures Usage Chemical Synthetic Seed Dressings Usage of GMO crops Use of GMO Feedstuff Usage Nanotechnology Based Products Verbal Commitment Sustainability Explicit Sustainability Plan Oral Information Sustainability Improvements Cooperation Other Farms Traceability Bought In Farm Inputs Cooperation Suppliers Quality Food Safety Standards Contaminated Products Contamination Cases Measures Residues Antibiotics Milk Sales Diversification Dependency Main Customer 215 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Collective Marketing Availability Alternative Markets Customer Relationship Guaranteed Staff Replacement Farm Succession Staff Turnover Replacement Farm Manager 2_EmployeeSocialProtection Employees Average Working Hours Employees Overtime Compensation 5_PartnerProtectionDivorceDeath Identification of Safety Hazards Certification Usage Plant Protection Animal Treatment Products Training Usage Plant Protection Animal Treatment Products Absence Occupational Injuries Management System Workplace Safety Health Professional Agricultural Accounts Insurance Fire Insurance Natural Disasters Debt Farm Savings Credit Limit Diversification Income Product quality Food Safety Food hazards are systematically Number Quality Drinking Points information controlled and any contamination of Silage Storage food with potentially harmful Feed Concentrate Storage substances is avoided. Emission Contamination 216 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Contamination Test Before Bought in Fertilizers Soil Analyses Heavy Metals Fertilizer Requirements Mineral N Fertilizers Antibiotics Livestock Fertilizer Waiting Period Animal Manure Harvest Precise Fertilisation Harmful Substances P Fertilizer No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides 1_PesticidesNumberActiveSubstances Pesticides Persistence Water Pesticides Persistence Soil Pesticides Knowledge 5_PesticidesChronicToxicity 75_PesticidesAcuteToxicityInhalation 7_PesticidesAcuteToxicity Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation 2_InformationWaterQuality 05_WastewaterDisposal Complaints Cell Count Milk Waiting Period Antibiotics Usage Antibiotic Drying Agents Usage Chemical Synthetic Seed Dressings Usage of GMO crops 217 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Use of GMO Feedstuff Usage Nanotechnology Based Products Storage Facilities Food Safety Standards Contaminated Products Contamination Cases Measures Residues Antibiotics Milk Environmentally Certified Products Transparency Production Certification Usage Plant Protection Animal Treatment Products Training Usage Plant Protection Animal Treatment Products Storage Hazardous Substances Livestock Health Prophylactic Treatments Food quality The quality of food products meets Stocking Density the highest nutritional standards Injuries Pigs applicable to the respective type of Emission Contamination product. Contamination Test Before Bought in Fertilizers Soil Analyses Heavy Metals Fertilizer Requirements Antibiotics Livestock Fertilizer Waiting Period Animal Manure Harvest 5_PesticidesChronicToxicity Complaints Cell Count Locally Adapted Livestock Breeds Milk Waiting Period Antibiotics Usage Antibiotic Drying Agents 218 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Livestock Health Curative Treatments Livestock Health Hormonal Treatment Buying New Animals Alpine Pasturage Shepherding 5_DailyOutdoorAccess Access to Pasture Animal Welfare Standards Slaughter Usage of GMO crops Harvesting Methods Storage Facilities Product Returns Food Safety Standards Residues Antibiotics Milk Environmentally Certified Products Livestock Health Prophylactic Treatments Product Products bear complete information Pesticides Knowledge information that is correct, by no means Traceability Bought in Farm Inputs misleading and accessible for Environmental Responsibility Procurement consumers and all members of the Social Responsibility on Procurement food chain Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social Condition Environmentally Certified Products Products of Social Standards Direct Sales Transparency Production Local economy Value creation Enterprises benefit local economies Local Procurement Supplier Level through employment and through Local Procurement Producer Level payment of local taxes Local Procurement Awareness 219 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Local Procurement Policy Collective Marketing On Farm Processing Full Time Jobs_Calculated Number Jobs Created Removed 2_EmployeeSocialProtection Employees Average Working Hours Apprenticeships Local procurement Enterprises substantially benefit local Local Procurement Supplier Level economies through procurement Local Procurement Producer Level from local suppliers Local Procurement Awareness Local Procurement Policy Social well-being Decent livelihood Quality of Life All producers and employees in Mechanization Grade enterprises of all scales enjoy a Mechanization Milk livelihood that provides a culturally Mechanization Feeding Roughage appropriate and nutritionally Mechanization Feeding Concentrated Fodder adequate diet and allows time for Mechanization Mucking Out family, rest and culture Availability Meals Beverages Toilets Mechanization Harvesting Feed No Food Grazing Livestock Feed No Food Non-Grazing Animals Successful Conflict Resolution Prevention Resource Conflicts Social Responsibility on Procurement Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social Condition Suppliers Forced Labour 220 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Suppliers Child Labour Number Jobs Created Removed Staff Turnover Replacement Farm Manager Employees Work Permit Employees Assembly Bargaining Rights 1_EmpolyeeFreedomJoiningUnions Employees Average Working Hours Employees Overtime Compensation Work Life Balance Family Workers Employees Regular Breaks Employees Harassment Mobbing 5_PartnerProtectionDivorceDeath Relation Paid to Minimum Salary Forced Labour Access Medical Care Employees Nutritional Meals Household Food Security Child Labour School Performance Child Labour Hazardous Work Anti-Discrimination Measures Support of Disadvantaged Groups Commitment Against Discrimination Equal Pay Disabled Employees Identification of Safety Hazards Employees Protective Gear Absence Occupational Injuries 221 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Management System Workplace Safety Health Costs Environmental Involvement Outside Farm Costs Social Involvement Outside Farm Food Security Measures Local Communities Subsistence Farming Profit Stability Capacity Through training and education, all Training Usage Plant Protection Animal Development primary producers and personnel Treatment Products have opportunities to acquire the Farm Staff Training skills and knowledge necessary to Sustainability Training undertake current and future tasks External Training Employees required by the enterprise, as well as Apprenticeships the resources to provide for further Access Advisory Services training and education for themselves and members of their families. Access to Primary producers have access to the Land Ownership Production Means means of production, including Successful Conflict Resolution equipment, capital and knowledge Conflict Water Quantity Conflict Water Quality Prevention Resource Conflicts Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social Condition Farm Staff Training External Training Employees Access Advisory Services Dispossession Smallholder Local Communities Successful Conflict Resolution 222 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Fair trading Responsible The enterprise ensures that a fair Cooperation Other Farms practices Buyers price is established through Prevention Resource Conflicts negotiations with suppliers that allow Social Responsibility on Procurement them to earn and pay their own Cooperation Suppliers Quality employees a living wage, and cover Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social their costs of production, as well as Condition maintain a high level of Suppliers Forced Labour sustainability in their practices. Suppliers Child Labour Negotiations and contracts (verbal or Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge written) are transparent, based on equal power, terminated only for just Collective Marketing cause, and terms are mutually agreed upon. Right of Suppliers The enterprises negotiating a fair Successful Conflict Resolution price explicitly recognize and Social Responsibility on Procurement support in good faith suppliers' rights Cooperation Suppliers Quality to freedom of association and Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social collective bargaining for all contracts Condition and agreements Suppliers Forced Labour Successful Conflict Resolution Social Responsibility on Procurement Cooperation Suppliers Quality Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social Condition Suppliers Forced Labour Labour rights Employee Enterprises maintain legally-binding Social Responsibility on Procurement Relations transparent contracts with all Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social employees that are accessible and Condition cover the terms of work and Suppliers Child Labour employment is compliant with Staff Shortage 223 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh national laws on labour and social Number Jobs Created Removed security. Staff Turnover Employees Legally Binding Contracts 1_EmployeePermanentWorkforce 2_EmployeeSocialProtection Employees Work Permit Employees Assembly Bargaining Rights 1_EmpolyeeFreedomJoiningUnions Employees Average Working Hours Employees Overtime Compensation Employees Regular Breaks 5_PartnerProtectionDivorceDeath Relation Paid to Minimum Salary Forced Labour Child Labour School Performance Child Labour Hazardous Work Apprenticeships Forced Labour The enterprise accepts no forced, Social Responsibility on Procurement bonded or involuntary labour, neither Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social in its own operations nor those of Condition business partners Suppliers Forced Labour Products of Social Standards Employees Legally Binding Contracts 2_EmployeeSocialProtection Employees Work Permit Employees Assembly Bargaining Rights 1_EmpolyeeFreedomJoiningUnions Forced Labour 224 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Child labour The enterprise accepts no child Social Responsibility on Procurement labour that has a potential to harm Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social the physical or mental health or Condition hinder the education of minors, Suppliers Child Labour neither in its own operations nor Products of Social Standards those of business partners. Employees Legally Binding Contracts Employees Work Permit Child Labour School Performance Child Labour Hazardous Work Freedom of All persons in the enterprise can Social Responsibility on Procurement association and freely execute the rights to: negotiate Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social Bargaining Right the terms of their employment Condition individually or as a group; form or Products of Social Standards adhere to an association Employees Legally Binding Contracts defending workers' rights; and 1_EmployeePermanentWorkforce collectively bargain, without 2_EmployeeSocialProtection retribution Employees Assembly Bargaining Rights 1_EmpolyeeFreedomJoiningUnions Employees Overtime Compensation Relation Paid to Minimum Salary Forced Labour Equity Non- A strict equity and non- Social Responsibility on Procurement Discrimination discrimination policy is pursued Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social toward all stakeholders; non- Condition discrimination and equal Employees Harassment Mobbing opportunities are explicitly 5_PartnerProtectionDivorceDeath mentioned in enterprise hiring Forced Labour policies, employee or personnel Anti-Discrimination Measures policies (whether written or verbal or Commitment Against Discrimination 225 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh code of conduct) and adequate means Equal Pay for implementation and evaluation Disabled Employees are in place External Training Employees Gender equality There is no gender disparity Social Responsibility on Procurement concerning hiring, remuneration, Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social access to resources, education and Condition career opportunities. 5_PartnerProtectionDivorceDeath Anti-Discrimination Measures Support of Disadvantaged Groups Commitment Against Discrimination Equal Pay Support to Vulnerable groups, such as young or Social Responsibility on Procurement Vulnerable People elderly employees, women, the Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social disabled, minorities and socially Condition disadvantaged are proactively 5_PartnerProtectionDivorceDeath supported Anti-Discrimination Measures Support of Disadvantaged Groups Commitment Against Discrimination Equal Pay Disabled Employees Apprenticeships Human Safety and Workplace Safety The enterprise ensures that the Cleanness Livestock Housing Health and Health workplace is safe, has met all Air Quality Livestock Housing Provisions appropriate regulations, and caters to Mechanization Grade the satisfaction of human needs in Mechanization Milk the provision of Mechanization Feeding Roughage sanitary facilities, safe and Mechanization Feeding Concentrated Fodder ergonomic work environment, clean Mechanization Mucking Out Pigs Quarantine 226 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh water, healthy food, and clean Emission Contamination accommodation (if offered). Combustion Motors Availability Meals Beverages Toilets Production Noise Mechanization Harvesting Soil Disinfection Harmful Substances P Fertilizer Pesticides Knowledge 5_PesticidesChronicToxicity 75_PesticidesAcuteToxicityInhalation 7_PesticidesAcuteToxicity Waste Disposal Pesticides Veterinary Medicines Waste Disposal Cadaver Social Responsibility on Procurement Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social Condition Instruction Temporary Workers Visitors Animals Employees Regular Breaks Employees Harassment Mobbing Access Medical Care Employees Nutritional Meals Child Labour School Performance Child Labour Hazardous Work Identification of Safety Hazards Employees Protective Gear Certification Usage Plant Protection Animal Treatment Products 227 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Training Usage Plant Protection Animal Treatment Products Storage Hazardous Substances Absence Occupational Injuries Management System Workplace Safety Health Public health The enterprise ensures that Mechanization Grade operations and business activities do Distance Manure Water not limit the healthy and safe Nutrients Pollutants Sources on Farm lifestyles of the local community and Emission Contamination contributes to community health Slurry Stores Covered resources and services Management Riparian Stripes Wood lands Share Agricultural Land Crop Resistance Contamination Test Before Bought in Fertilizers Soil Analyses Heavy Metals Landslides Mudslides Soil Disinfection Antibiotics Livestock Fertilizer Slurry Application Drag Hose Injection Waiting Period Animal Manure Harvest Harmful Substances P Fertilizer No Use Synth Chem Herbicides No Use Synth Chem Fungicides No Use Synth Chem Insecticides 1_PesticidesNumberActiveSubstances 2_PesticidesToxicityAquaticOrganisms 1_PesticidesToxicityBees Pesticides Persistence Water 228 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Pesticides Persistence Soil Pesticides Knowledge 5_PesticidesChronicToxicity 75_PesticidesAcuteToxicityInhalation 7_PesticidesAcuteToxicity Growth Regulation Flowering Regulation 2_InformationWaterQuality Use Non-Renewable Water Resources 05_WastewaterDisposal Mutilation Anaesthetics Analgesics Milk Waiting Period Antibiotics Livestock Health Curative Treatments Waste Disposal Pesticides Veterinary Medicines Recycling Waste Oil 2_RecyclingBatteries 3_RecyclingPlastic Waste Disposal Cadaver Open Burning Usage Chemical Synthetic Seed Dressings Usage of GMO crops Use of GMO Feedstuff Usage Nanotechnology Based Products Conflict Water Quantity Conflict Water Quality Food Safety Standards Contaminated Products 229 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Contamination Cases Measures Residues Antibiotics Milk Employees Protective Gear Storage Hazardous Substances Public Health Measures Food Security Measures Local Communities Livestock Health Prophylactic Treatments Cultural diversity Indigenous Intellectual property rights related to Usage of GMO crops Knowledge traditional and cultural knowledge Use of GMO Feedstuff are protected and recognized Prevention Resource Conflicts Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge Costs Social Involvement Outside Farm Food Sovereignty The enterprise contributes to, and Land Ownership benefits from, exercising the right to Rare Endangered Crops choose and ownership of their Hybrid Cultivars production means, specifically in the Crop Resistance preservation and use of traditional, Locally Adapted Livestock Breeds heirloom and locally adapted Rare Livestock Breeds varieties or breeds. Hybrid Livestock Feed No Food Grazing Livestock Feed No Food Non-Grazing Animals Usage of GMO crops Use of GMO Feedstuff Farm Inputs Countries Problematic Social Condition Household Food Security Dispossession Smallholder Local Communities Food Security Measures Local Communities 230 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 231