Farmer poverty has no single fix. So why does the industry keep looking for one?

Every actor in cacao's supply chain names a different reason farmers stay poor, and most of them are right. It's the gap between what a farmer is paid and what a household actually needs to live on; it's land too small to generate a viable harvest; it's a commodity price set thousands of miles from the farm gate; it's the cost and complexity of reaching a buyer willing to pay for quality rather than volume.

Today, an estimated 13% of Ivorian and 9% of Ghanaian cacao farmers earn a living income, with average income gaps of roughly 43% and 53% below that threshold. Different actors in the trade have proposed different answers over the past two decades (fair trade, direct trade, etc.), and each has addressed a real piece of the problem while leaving others untouched. One model increasingly presented as an answer is vertical integration at origin: bringing multiple stages normally divided among farmers, post-harvest operators, processors, and exporters under one business's ownership.

Why vertical integration looks like the answer

When farming, post-harvest processing, and export sit within the same business, fewer independent companies need to take a margin along the way. The company controls fermentation and drying rather than outsourcing two of the most important stages for cacao quality, and traceability from farm to export becomes much easier to document. More of the value created before export can also remain within the same business instead of being divided among separate farmers, processors, traders and exporters.

But keeping more value inside an integrated business is not the same as guaranteeing a living income to the people growing the crop. Vertical integration tells us who owns and controls more stages of the chain; it does not tell us how the resulting revenue is distributed. What matters is whether the integrated operation is privately owned, farmer-owned, or cooperative-owned. Additional value can become higher farmer income, but it can also pay wages, processing costs, equipment, debt, expansion, reserves, or returns to other owners.

Moving more activities under producer ownership creates the possibility for producers to capture more value. What they actually receive still depends on the business's economics and governance.

Even when cacao prices are explicitly set around living income, price alone cannot guarantee the outcome. Fairtrade makes this clear with its own Living Income Reference Price: the benchmark is calculated to support a living income under defined assumptions about farm size and productivity, but paying it does not mean every household will reach that threshold. How much cacao a household produces and sells, its production costs, and other sources of income still matter.

Fair price and living income are not the same thing

A price described as “fair” is not necessarily a price established to provide a living income. In this regard, Fair Trade uses two separate pricing tools for two different purposes.

The Fairtrade Minimum Price is a safety net. From October 1, 2026, it will be set at US$3,500 per metric tonne for Ghana and €3,200 for Côte d'Ivoire at FOB level, with a Fairtrade Premium of US$275 and €250 respectively. It provides price protection when the relevant market price falls below that floor. It is not calculated from the income a farming household needs to afford a decent standard of living.

The Living Income Reference Price estimates the farmgate price cacao would need to reach for cacao production to contribute adequately to a farming household's living income, based on defined assumptions about the cost of a decent standard of living, sustainable production costs, and an attainable level of cacao production. Under Fairtrade's revised 2026 methodology, the LIRP is 45.40 GHS per kilogram in Ghana and 1,758 CFA francs per kilogram in Côte d'Ivoire.

But even when a farmer receives the LIRP, that price alone does not guarantee a living income. The calculation assumes a certain level of cacao production and accounts for production costs. A farmer with a smaller farm, lower yields, higher production costs, or who sells only part of the harvest at that price may still earn less than the household needs for a decent standard of living. This is why Fairtrade treats the LIRP as one important tool for closing the living-income gap, rather than a guarantee that every farmer receiving it will reach a living income.

Volume matters just as much as price

A buyer may pay the LIRP, or even more, but purchase only a small portion of a farmer's harvest at that price. If the rest is sold at a lower price, the impact on the farmer's annual income can still be limited.

This is why publishing a high price per kilogram is not enough. We also need to know how much cacao the farmer could sell at that price. And if a company claims that its purchasing model provides farmers with a living income, price and volume alone are still not enough: farm size, yields, production costs, and the household's other sources of income also affect whether that threshold is actually reached.

What the evidence says about ownership versus price

A 2026 peer-reviewed study of cacao purchasing practices in Côte d'Ivoire helps separate two issues that are often treated as the same:

1. who owns the supply chain;

2. and the conditions under which farmers sell their cacao. 

The study found that better prices and longer-term purchasing relationships strengthened cooperatives financially, improved their planning, and supported income diversification. These improvements occurred without farmers owning the companies that process or sell chocolate downstream.

That does not mean ownership is irrelevant. Farmer ownership can provide access to additional profits, assets, and decision-making power. The study shows that downstream ownership is not necessary for better purchasing relationships to produce meaningful economic benefits at origin. At the same time, those improvements were not enough to bring every vulnerable farming household to a living income. Better purchasing terms can reduce the income gap without necessarily eliminating it.

Therefore, bringing farming, processing, and export under the same ownership can change who controls those activities and who can capture the value they create. But it does not determine how much of that value reaches the people growing the cacao. That still depends on prices, purchasing volumes, contracts, wages, profit distribution, and the way the business is structured.

A company can own every stage of the chain and still not pay a living income.

Beyond vertical integration: other ways to redistribute value

Most chocolate companies will never own cacao farms. That does not mean they cannot improve what producers earn.  A chocolate maker can pay a price benchmarked against a LIRP, commit to buying a meaningful volume long term, and share more of the value created downstream.

Taza is one example. Its current Direct Trade standard sets a minimum cacao price of US$4,250 per metric tonne or at least US$800 above the market price, whichever is higher, and a USDA-accredited certifier independently verifies the program every year. Its 2025 report says 1,157 farmers benefited from the program; for one origin, PISA in Haiti, Taza reports an average purchase price of US$7,420 per tonne in 2025.

Insteaf Askinosie publishes its individual cacao contracts and combines the purchase price with profit sharing. According to its current transparency report, the contract price plus profit share paid to farmers has averaged 59% above the comparable farmgate price. Over the past 16 years, the company reports paying an average of 54% above the world market price and 43% above the Fairtrade price. By October 2025, it had paid farmers more than US$2.4 million in cacao purchases and profit sharing, including more than US$175,000 in shared profits.

Neither company owns the farms, but they can still set higher prices, build longer-term relationships, secure independent verification, or offer profit-sharing options.

Uncommon Cacao provides another useful comparison because its transparency data follows the price through different stages of an intermediary supply chain. For Maya Mountain Cacao in Belize, its 2024 data reports a farmgate price of US$4.72/kg, an FOB price of US$7.64/kg, and an average sales price to premium and ultra-premium chocolate makers of US$12.66/kg. The difference between those figures is important, but we are not simply talking about money removed from the farmer's share. After purchasing at FOB, Uncommon covers international freight, insurance, import, customs, domestic logistics, warehousing, and the commercial work required to make that cacao available to chocolate makers abroad.

A longer chain and a lower farmgate-to-final-buyer ratio are not, on their own, measurements of fairness. You still have to evaluate what the farmer was paid and what happened economically at every additional stage.

Processing at origin is a different question. Buying nibs or cacao liquor instead of beans leaves more processing and economic activity in the producing country. But it does not automatically increase farmer income. A privately owned factory can create jobs, build local processing capacity, and keep more economic activity within a cacao-producing country while still buying beans from farmers at prices that leave them below a living income.

Buying semi-finished cacao ingredients can shift additional stages of the value chain to origin, but it does not make the sourcing relationship inherently fairer. Conversely, buying whole beans is not inherently less beneficial to farmers if the producer pays a strong price, buys meaningful volume, and provides a stable market for the crop.

Divine Chocolate offers another model. Ghana's Kuapa Kokoo cooperative originally owned 33% of the company; that stake later increased to 45%, and Divine paid its first dividend to the cooperative after becoming profitable in 2006. More recent company reporting records Kuapa Kokoo with a 20% ownership stake, 20% of distributable profits, and 40% board-level representation. The farmers therefore participate in the economics and governance of a downstream chocolate company without owning the entire manufacturing chain.

These models solve different parts of the problem. Better purchasing terms can increase and stabilize farmer income. Processing at origin can retain more economic activity and employment in producing countries. Producer equity can extend participation further downstream. Full vertical integration can bring several of those functions under common ownership. None of them makes the others unnecessary, and none guarantees a living income on its own.

Direct trade, profit sharing, or farmer equity are not better than vertical integration. And the choice isn't between owning the entire chain and accepting the status quo. Different structures can move money, ownership, processing, and decision-making toward origin in different ways.

Understanding the vertical integration model in practice

Choco Estates is a working example of what full vertical integration actually looks like. They grow their own cacao in Ecuador, handle all post-harvest steps themselves, and manage export without any intermediary at any stage.

I professionally evaluated their selection for the 2026 Craft Chocolate Challenge. The Golden Milk and Dark Chocolate 85% is a dual-layer bar: 85% Ecuadorian dark chocolate on one side, thick and well-balanced, carrying a gentle, aromatic bitterness closer to black tea and walnut; a vegan golden milk layer on the other, made of cashew butter, coconut milk, turmeric, and cardamom, exceptionally creamy, extremely addictive in how it plays with the dark counterpart. It is my favorite, and it reminds me of southern Italian mustaccioli.

I also tried their San Dimas 70% and 85%. The 70% is the most overtly floral, with a striking jasmine note running through almond and coconut flavors before settling into a black tea finish. The 85% pulls back on the floral profile and gives you a richer, creamier, more earthy-tasting experience with only a whisper of jasmine tea left in the aftertaste. For texture and overall balance, I prefer the 85%, but if you want the notorious jasmine flavor, go for the 70%.

• 

• 

• 

I reached out afterward with a set of questions about their background.

Q: Choco Estates was born from friendship, shared values, and a major life transition. Looking back, what moment made you realize this project could become something much bigger than simply farming cacao?

Tiffany: My background is in strategic leadership, fundraising, communications, and community development. My husband, Robert, is a fourth-generation farmer with a lifetime of experience in agriculture, land stewardship, and the realities of working with the natural world. Together, we each bring something different. Kristen brings cacao knowledge and a deep understanding of cultivation, fermentation, and the relationships needed to work at origin. Robert brings agricultural experience and craftsmanship. I bring the strategic vision and organizational skills needed to connect people, create opportunities, and build something sustainable beyond the farm itself.

Kristen: I first met Tiffany and Rob in 2019 when they came to Ecuador to begin their own cacao project. We all loved farming, but it quickly became clear that spending years growing exceptional cacao only to sell sacks of beans to a local middleman for commodity prices wasn't a sustainable future. Around that time, we visited another regenerative cacao project that had transformed degraded cattle pasture into a thriving agroforestry system while making chocolate at origin. In 2020, Tiffany and Rob purchased land just up the road from my farm. We planted Nacional cacao using succession-based agroforestry. We combined the harvests from our neighboring farms into what we now call our San Dimas origin. We chose the name Choco Estates. "Choco" honors the Chocó Andino biosphere surrounding our farms, while "Estates" reflects our belief that fine cacao deserves the same respect and sense of place that's long been associated with fine wine.

Q: Both of you came from yoga and culinary backgrounds. How has that path shaped the philosophy behind Choco Estates?

Tiffany: We want our customers to know they're part of the same ecosystem as our cacao trees, our farmers, and our communities. Healthy relationships create healthy farms, and healthy farms create extraordinary chocolate. We care for the trees the way we care for the people connected to them — with consistency, honesty, and long-term relationships.

Kristen: I grew up in a big Italian-American family where cooking wasn't just about feeding people; it was how we celebrated, connected, and expressed love. My grandmother came from Puglia, and she passed down a tradition of cooking with whatever was fresh, local, and in season. That's exactly how I create chocolate today. Our vegan white chocolate infused with cardamom and turmeric came directly from spices we grow alongside our cacao. Tiffany brings that same philosophy through her own gardening and love of local ingredients. A good yoga practice teaches you to stay present when things become uncomfortable and to adapt instead of resisting. Farming demands exactly those same qualities.

Q: Your farms were transformed from barren land into thriving food forests. What were the biggest lessons or surprises during that regeneration process?

Tiffany: My husband, Kristen, and our incredible team do most of the day-to-day farming. I'm often working behind the scenes, but I make a point of learning every task so I understand exactly what goes into every harvest. The greatest surprise for me has been realizing that we're not managing the ecosystem; we're participating in it.

Kristen: When my partner Juan and I first bought our land, we were incredibly naïve. We looked at the cleared pasture and thought, "Perfect, a blank slate. We'll just plant trees." We quickly learned how hard it is and how long it takes. I remember trying to dig planting holes with a spade that simply bounced off the earth. Many of our first saplings died because the land lacked the conditions they needed to survive. Fortunately, neighboring agroforestry farmers showed us a better way. We began by planting pioneer species, bananas, native balsa, and yuca, to create shade, restore moisture, and break apart the compacted soil. Only after that did we introduce Nacional cacao, fruit trees, spices, herbs, flowers, and other companion plants. That's why it's called regenerative agroforestry. You're not simply planting crops; you're helping rebuild a damaged ecosystem.

Q: You often describe your approach as "beyond organic." What does that mean in practical terms, both environmentally and socially?

Tiffany: We chose the phrase Beyond Organic because for many small farmers in Ecuador, becoming certified organic is expensive, time-consuming, and often out of reach, not because they aren't farming responsibly, but because they don't have the financial resources or market access to navigate the certification process. Through our connections in North America, we have opportunities that many farmers don't. We wanted to use those connections to create another path that recognizes agroecology, a farming philosophy rooted in ancestral Indigenous knowledge and working with nature rather than against it.

On our farms, we don't use glyphosate or synthetic agricultural chemicals. We farm by hand, we grow cacao in diverse food forests alongside plants that support one another, and we try to build healthy ecosystems. I often say that cacao grows best with friends, much like people do. Beyond Organic is about creating a web of support for the trees, the farmers, the workers, and ultimately the people enjoying the chocolate.

Kristen: Rather than relying on synthetic herbicides or pesticides, we use natural soil amendments and manage weeds and disease through mulching, pruning, shade management, and biodiversity. We also try to produce as much fertility as possible on-site. Every couple of months we cut banana leaves to mulch around young trees, plant nitrogen-fixing species, recycle woody prunings back into the soil to feed beneficial fungi, and use compost and natural fertilizers produced on the farm. My chickens even contribute by turning kitchen scraps into nutrient-rich manure. Whenever possible, we source the ingredients for our chocolate inclusions from our own farms or neighboring producers. Our Espresso Macchiato bar, for example, combines breadnut harvested on-site, coffee grown in nearby Mindo, and panela from a local cooperative.

Q: Many consumers rely heavily on certifications when choosing chocolate. Do you think certifications sometimes oversimplify what ethical farming truly means?

Tiffany: For many consumers, certifications are one of the few tools available to help make informed choices, and they have encouraged important conversations around sustainability and fairer sourcing. For us, though, they're only the beginning of the conversation.

Our goal is to offer something even more transparent than a certification. We invite anyone to visit our farms in Ecuador. We'll introduce you to our partner farmers and see how they ferment and dry their beans. If traveling isn't possible, we share that same transparency online. We document nearly every step from the farms and harvest to fermentation, drying, roasting, shelling, and chocolate making.

Kristen:  Many Nacional cacao farmers in Ecuador may already follow practices many consumers associate with organic farming, but certification can be expensive, time-consuming, and out of reach for small producers. Even when farmers do become certified, the market may not reward that investment with a meaningful premium. The same is true of ethical sourcing more broadly. Labels can establish useful minimum standards, but they can't fully capture the quality of relationships, the health of an ecosystem, or whether farmers are building long-term economic stability. Rather than asking people to trust a sticker on a package, we'd rather show them the farms, introduce them to the growers, explain exactly how the cacao was produced, and be completely transparent about where it came from. We think that's the future of ethical chocolate.

Q: You make a strong distinction between real direct trade and "direct trade" as a marketing concept. Why was it important for you to address that openly?

Tiffany: Terms like single origin, direct trade, and traceable are used so often that they can start to lose their meaning. For example, "single origin" often refers to an entire country. For us, it means something much more specific. Our San Dimas origin comes from two neighboring farms: Kristen's farm, Sueño de Vida, and our farm, Sanctuary Farm, which are only a five-minute walk apart. The same is true for direct trade. By direct trade, we mean you're buying directly from the farmers. We are the farmers. When an order comes in, we harvest specifically for that customer, ferment the cacao to their preferred specifications, dry it in the sun while turning it every day, roast and shell it ourselves, and then Kristen personally delivers it for export.

Kristen: Direct trade is incredibly difficult. International shipping, export regulations, customs paperwork, food safety requirements, and freight logistics all make it challenging for small chocolate makers to buy directly from producers. That's one reason intermediaries exist, and they provide an important service. They're not the bad guys. Many companies that describe their sourcing as "direct trade" are actually purchasing through transparent intermediaries. They know exactly where the cacao came from and can trace every step of the supply chain. That's a meaningful improvement over anonymous commodity sourcing. But transparent trade and direct trade aren't the same. The longer the supply chain becomes, the more businesses need to earn a margin along the way. That usually means the farmer receives less while the customer pays more. Because we're both the farmers and the exporters, we've chosen to handle all that logistical work ourselves. This allows us to keep the supply chain remarkably short while maintaining complete transparency from tree to customer.

Q: Agroforestry appears to be at the heart of your project. Could you explain how biodiversity directly influences cacao quality and flavor?

We believe it does. Today, Choco Estates sources Nacional cacao from our own San Dimas farms and three neighboring producers in Ecuador's Chocó forest corridor. Every farm practices agroforestry, but each ecosystem is unique, and each produces cacao with a remarkably distinct flavor profile. Of course, genetics play a significant role. Different Nacional phenotypes express different characteristics. But after tasting cacao from each farm, I was struck by something unexpected. The aromas we've found in the chocolate were somehow present in the landscape itself. One example is Chocaple in Esmeraldas, where we source a Nacional variety known as Pincay. Chocolate makers often describe Pincay as naturally almond-like regardless of where it's grown. But Chocaple's cacao also has delicate coconut notes, gentle florals, and an exceptionally clean finish. Walking through the farm, towering coconut palms shade the cacao trees. The climate is warmer, with a longer dry season, and the fermentation area is surrounded by flowering ginger, bougainvillea, jasmine, and dwarf palms. To me, it felt as though every part of that landscape was contributing its own subtle influence. Nueva Esperanza, by contrast, feels like stepping into an old rainforest. The air is warm and humid year-round. Damp leaves cover the forest floor, threaded together by mycelium. Mushrooms emerge from fallen logs. Moss-covered cacao trees grow beneath towering citrus trees and orchids. Wild berries and bananas appear everywhere. That farm's cacao opens with bright citrus before deepening into sour cherry, ripe banana, mocha, and an earthy finish that mirrors the forest's richness. Our own San Dimas farms express yet another personality. Over the years, we've planted more than a hundred different species, letting the forest regenerate naturally around them. More than half of our plants are epiphytes, creating extraordinary layers of biodiversity. Early in the morning and again at dusk, when the humidity rises and the flowers begin releasing their fragrance, the air fills with mimosa, frangipani, and verbena, carried on an earthy aroma created by living soil and wild yeasts. When we taste our cacao, we can't help but recognize those same layered impressions.

Q: Have you noticed differences in the health of the land, wildlife, or cacao itself since implementing regenerative farming practices?

When we first began planting on degraded pasture, the soil was brutally compacted. Digging a single planting hole was exhausting because decades of cattle and heavy rain had beaten the ground hard. Today, our shovels sink easily into dark, living soil that's rich with earthworms, beneficial fungi, and organic matter. The ground holds moisture instead of shedding it, and the young trees establish themselves far more readily than they ever could before. The wildlife has changed just as dramatically. Ten years ago there were very few birds because there were very few trees. The insect life was sparse too, mostly just the species that wanted to bite us! Today we regularly see eagles, falcons, toucans, parrots, hummingbirds, and countless smaller birds, each with its own distinct song. Butterflies drift through the understory, brilliant metallic beetles catch the light, and turquoise-and-gold cicadas fill the forest with sound. Healthier soils and a more balanced ecosystem produce stronger, more resilient cacao trees.

Q: Choco Estates works with Nacional cacao genetics. From your perspective, what characteristics make Nacional cacao unique compared to other varieties?

There's really no single "Nacional flavor." People often describe Nacional as floral, fruity, elegantly balanced, and low in astringency; those are fair generalizations, but Nacional isn't one homogeneous variety. It's a broad genetic family with tremendous diversity. Nacional grown in Ecuador's Chocó Andino cloud forest tastes different from Nacional grown in the Amazon, and different again from Nacional grown on the coast. "Nacional" refers to a genetic group, and within that group are many different phenotypes. A phenotype is the expression of those genes: the shape and color of the pod, the size and form of the beans, the sweetness or acidity of the pulp, disease resistance, productivity, and ultimately the flavors that develop in the finished chocolate. Modern Ecuadorian fine-flavor cacao also results from generations of natural and intentional hybridization. Pure genetic lines no longer exist in commercial production, but that's not a weakness; it's part of what makes Ecuador's cacao so remarkable.

Here are 5 Nacional cacao phenotypes growing on a single lot at Choco Estates San Dimas farm. Two of these came from seeds from the Mashpi farm, one from Nueva Esperanza in Puerto Quito, and one from the Amazon rainforest. All are considered "Nacional," and each is different.

Nacional cacao can be very floral, or citrusy, or earthy, or spicy, or nutty, or have notes of red fruits, or what have you, but exactly how those flavors shine through depends on so many factors. And I'm pretty sure that cacao farmers in Peru and Belize feel that same way about their "Chuncho" or "Criollo," respectively. There are just way too many variables in play to put any fine-flavor cacao into one box.

Q: How much control do you maintain over post-harvest practices like fermentation and drying, and how critical are those stages in defining flavor quality?

Exceptional genetics and incredible terroir can only express themselves if the post-harvest process is handled with care. On our San Dimas farms, we personally oversee fermentation and drying. For the other producers in our network, we visit their farms as often as possible to build relationships, learn from them, and understand their processes. At Choco Estates, we strongly believe quality comes from partnership, not micromanagement. We select the producers we work with very carefully. We look for people with strong reputations, reliability, a genuine commitment to regenerative farming and ecosystem restoration, and a shared passion for Nacional cacao through more processing and value creation at origin. Many of the farmers we work with are third-, fourth-, and even fifth-generation cacaoteros.

Q: Because you work directly at origin rather than through intermediaries, what are the biggest misconceptions chocolate makers abroad tend to have about cacao production?

Many chocolate makers understand, at least intellectually, that farming cacao is difficult work. What they sometimes underestimate is the depth of knowledge and technical skill that cacao producers bring to that work. The farmers we collaborate with are researchers, experimenters, and custodians of cacao genetics. A great example is the Pincay variety of Nacional cacao from Esmeraldas. Maximillian Pincay, a farmer, developed it by spending more than twenty years carefully selecting and preserving exceptional Nacional trees from his region. He did this without a laboratory or institutional funding, just through observation, patience, and generations of farming knowledge. Today, Pincay cacao is recognized for its delicate flavor profile and disease resistance. The Kellari cooperative in Napo is another example. They have done incredible work identifying, classifying, and preserving ancestral cacao phenotypes from the Amazon region. One misconception we still encounter is the idea that cacao expertise exists primarily in consuming countries, while origin countries simply provide raw materials. In reality, many incredibly skilled producers in cacao-growing countries are also experts in fermentation, roasting, grinding, and chocolate making. Nearly every Nacional cacao farm I've visited in Ecuador has offered me chocolate made directly on-site, and it has consistently been impressive. More producers at origin are moving into value-added processing and earning international recognition for their chocolate. That's one reason Choco Estates does not focus on simply exporting raw beans. We believe the future of cacao involves creating more value at origin. When producers can process more of their own cacao, they can generate additional income, reinvest in their farms, create local employment, and strengthen their communities. At the same time, chocolate makers benefit by building closer relationships with producers and receiving cacao that has already been carefully processed at origin. We don't see this as replacing chocolate makers abroad; we see it as collaboration. The future of fine chocolate will be strongest when producers, processors, and chocolate makers work together with shared respect for each other's expertise.

Q: You emphasize transparency very heavily. Do you think the craft chocolate industry still has transparency problems despite the popularity of terms like "ethical sourcing" and "direct trade"?

Transparency and ethical sourcing are not always equivalent. Knowing where cacao comes from, who produced it, and what was paid is a huge improvement over the secrecy that has historically existed in the chocolate industry. But a supply chain can be transparent and still not provide farmers with a truly sustainable livelihood. Each year, many cacao traders serving the craft chocolate industry publish transparency reports showing the prices they pay producers. We appreciate that openness, but "are those prices allowing cacao farmers to thrive?" The reality is that many cacao farmers work on very small farms, often just one to five hectares, and produce relatively small harvests each year. Even prices that are higher than commodity market rates or certification minimums may still not provide enough income for farming families to build a secure future. There is also a growing emphasis on "giving farmers visibility" or "sharing their stories," and farmers deserve recognition for their knowledge, their history, and their contribution to chocolate. But visibility alone is not empowerment. Farmers benefit from being seen when that recognition is connected to better prices, stronger relationships, more decision-making power, and more opportunities to capture value from their own work.

Q: Your project combines cacao production with ecological restoration. Is it realistically possible for regenerative cacao farming to remain economically sustainable long-term?

Regenerative cacao farming is one of the most realistic paths forward for cacao itself. The conventional model of extractive monoculture farming has shown serious limitations. Across cacao-growing regions, we have seen depleted soils, increased disease pressure, declining productivity, vulnerability to climate change, and farming systems that often leave producers struggling to make a living. A system that depends on exhausting the land and undervaluing the people who care for it cannot be considered truly sustainable. Meanwhile, by rebuilding soil health, increasing biodiversity, and creating a more resilient ecosystem, farmers are not only protecting the environment but also creating conditions for trees to remain productive for generations. Economically, regeneration must go hand in hand with better value creation. Farmers cannot be expected to restore ecosystems while still receiving commodity-level prices for their work. At Choco Estates, we believe the future is growing better cacao and creating more value at origin.

Q: What are the biggest pressures currently threatening fine cacao production in Ecuador: climate, mining, pricing, labor, or something else?

Climate change is absolutely a looming threat. Mining and the social disruption, environmental damage, and insecurity that can accompany it are also serious concerns.

But right now, the greatest threat to fine cacao production in Ecuador is profitability. A farmer can spend years cultivating ancestral Nacional varieties, carefully fermenting and drying the beans, and still receive almost the same price as someone producing lower-quality commodity cacao. Without buyers who value quality, farmers have little financial incentive to keep growing these more delicate varieties. Significant barriers also separate producers from specialty markets. Many small farmers live in rural areas and face challenges with language, logistics, permits, export requirements, and finding reliable buyers. A major productivity challenge also exists. CCN51, the dominant bulk cacao variety in Ecuador, can produce several times as much as ancestral Nacional varieties. Nacional cacao requires more careful management and often produces lower yields, but it offers exceptional flavor and preserves important genetic heritage. At the moment, the price difference between bulk cacao and fine-flavor cacao often isn't enough to compensate farmers for the additional care and lower productivity. A modest premium may sound meaningful, but for a small farm producing a limited annual harvest, it may only translate into a few hundred dollars of additional income per year. When farmers are paid primarily for quantity rather than quality, the economic pressure naturally pushes them toward higher-yielding varieties.

Q: Since you manage production yourselves, what part of the process is the hardest to scale without compromising quality or ethics?

Growth can create opportunities to improve quality, invest in infrastructure, provide better livelihoods, and extend benefits to more people. In many craft chocolate businesses, we see incredibly passionate people doing everything themselves: creating recipes, sourcing ingredients, producing chocolate, designing packaging, managing websites, marketing, attending markets, and handling every customer interaction. That dedication is inspiring, but it can also become unsustainable. A business model that depends on people sacrificing their health and well-being indefinitely is not truly sustainable. The same applies to cacao production. Regenerative farming, careful processing, and ethical relationships all require time and investment. If a business cannot generate enough value to reinvest into its people, infrastructure, and supply chain, it becomes very difficult to maintain those commitments long-term. The issue is not scale itself. The issue is what happens when a company grows.

For Choco Estates, the challenge of scaling is not simply producing more cacao or chocolate. It is finding more producers who share our values and building relationships based on trust, respect, and shared goals. We want to build a larger network of producers, create more opportunities for value creation at origin, and develop a stable enterprise that lets us reinvest more in the farmers, communities, and ecosystems that make Choco Estates possible.

Q: Looking at the current craft chocolate market, what changes do you think are genuinely positive and which trends and/or misconceptions concern you?

There is a lot to celebrate in the growth of craft chocolate. More consumers are discovering what real chocolate can taste like. More chocolate makers are building careers around their passion. More people are visiting cacao-producing regions, creating cultural connections and deeper appreciation for where chocolate comes from. The question is: Is the industry growing in a way that strengthens the entire supply chain, from farmers to chocolate makers, or are we simply creating more brands competing within the same fragile system? One of the biggest challenges is that fine-flavor cacao is still largely affected by the same commodity system that governs bulk cacao. The result is instability for both farmers and chocolate makers. The next necessary step for craft chocolate is greater collaboration. The industry has many passionate individuals, but it also has strength in working together. Chocolate makers could create stronger purchasing networks, collaborate on logistics, and build more direct relationships with producers at origin. We also need to have a difficult conversation: fine chocolate is a luxury product, and exceptional cacao has value. Farmers cannot preserve rare genetics, regenerate ecosystems, and produce extraordinary cacao if the market does not reward that work. When consumers and chocolate makers celebrate low ingredient costs, farmers on the other side of that equation often struggle to make a living. When we ask cacao farmers what they need to keep farming and leave something meaningful for their children, the answer is a stable price. Creating a separate market for fine-flavor cacao that recognizes quality, heritage, biodiversity, and the true cost of production is part of the future. When farmers have more control over the value of their cacao, they are better positioned to protect their ecosystems, invest in their farms, and preserve important cacao genetics for future generations. The craft chocolate movement has already accomplished something extraordinary by showing people that chocolate can be more than a commodity. The next step is ensuring the entire chain, from the cacao tree to the finished bar, benefits from that transformation.

Value creation is not a zero-sum game

For decades, cacao producers have received too little recognition for the knowledge and value behind what they grow. Correcting that is necessary. But I don't think we can correct one imbalance by creating another.

One thing I would be careful about is generalization. Choco Estates works with a selected network of experienced Nacional producers in Ecuador. That experience is valuable, but it cannot describe every farmer, every origin, or every relationship between cacao producers and chocolate makers. Some farmers have generations of knowledge, while others need technical support. Some sourcing claims are superficial, while many chocolate makers buy directly from the same producers year after year, travel to origin, select cacao themselves, pay differentiated prices, and invest considerable time and money in maintaining those relationships. “Direct trade” may be an unregulated term, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Likewise, recognizing the extraordinary knowledge that can exist at origin should not require minimizing downstream expertise. Cacao producers deserve recognition as skilled professionals, not simply suppliers of a raw material. But chocolate makers deserve the same consideration. Growing and fermenting fine-flavor cacao and making chocolate from bean-to-bar are not the same expertise.

The fact that some farmers can also make chocolate does not make the work of a bean-to-bar chocolate maker redundant.

If the market increasingly moves toward nibs, cacao paste, or finished chocolate produced upstream, we are not simply "improving" the specialty industry by allowing farmers to capture more value. We are changing the market entirely, eliminating one of the most valuable downstream segments: bean-to-bar chocolate.

Furthermore, whether a company at origin sells cacao beans, semi-finished products, or its own chocolate, it still needs a market for that product, and much of that market and purchasing power exists downstream.

That is why I find it difficult to accept a picture in which chocolate makers (and consumers) are mainly expected to pay more, recognize farmers better, cooperate more, and leave more value at origin, while their expertise, craftsmanship, investment, risk, and economic viability matter less.

Craft chocolate has not solved farmer poverty, and direct trade is not proof of fair payment. But neither "failure" justifies treating direct relationships, specialty sourcing, and downstream expertise as structurally inadequate unless progressively more of the chain moves to origin.

Chocolate makers are part of the solution, not a problem within the commodity sector.

Full vertical integration is one model. It can keep more activities and revenue at origin and create valuable opportunities for producers who want to move into processing, exporting, or chocolate making. But it is not a sourcing prescription for the entire craft chocolate industry, nor is the amount of processing retained at origin a measure of how fair a supply chain is.

A farmer should not have to become a processor, exporter, or chocolate maker before cacao farming can provide an adequate return. Nor should a chocolate maker have to give up part of their rightful expertise for the relationship with the farmer to qualify as "fair."

Cacao farmers should be able to make farming economically viable. Chocolate makers should be able to build viable chocolate businesses. Producers who want to process further, export, manufacture chocolate, or build their own brands should have the opportunity to do so because those activities make sense for them—not because taking over the next activity in the chain has become the condition for earning enough living income.

Value addition at origin should be an opportunity for producers who want and can pursue it, not another requirement placed on farmers before their work becomes economically viable.

Now let me ask you again: if farmer poverty has no single fix, why does the industry keep looking for one?

References

1. Fairtrade International. Living Income Reference Price (methodology, farmgate pricing, living-income limitations and partial-volume purchasing).

2. Fairtrade International. 2026 Cocoa Living Income Reference Prices: Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. 

3. Fairtrade International. 2026 Minimum Cocoa Price and Premium Changes. 

4. World Cocoa Foundation. Cocoa Household Income Study Methodology. 

5. IDH. Cocoa Program. — Living income, sustainable procurement and shared responsibility.

6. FAO / BASIC. Comparative Study on the Distribution of Value in European Chocolate Chains. 

7. VOICE Network. Good Purchasing Practices.

8. VOICE Network. Cocoa Barometer 2025. 

9. Bugmann et al. (2026). Tracing the Effects of Good Purchasing Practices on Income Diversification by Cocoa Farmers in Ivory Coast. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems.

10. Boegman et al. Seeing Through Transparency in the Craft Chocolate Industry. 

11. Grumiller. The Ivorian and Ghanaian Cocoa Processing Sectors.

12. Ingram et al. The Impacts of Cocoa Sustainability Initiatives in West Africa. 

13. Prazeres et al. Organic Cocoa Value Chain Sustainability: The Perception of São Tomé and Príncipe's Smallholders. 

14. Wang et al. Review of life-cycle assessment research in chocolate production.

15. Divine Chocolate / Kuapa Kokoo. Official documentation.

16. Taza Chocolate. 2024 Transparency Report. 

17. Askinosie Chocolate. Transparency Report. 

18. Uncommon Cacao / Maya Mountain Cacao. Transparency data.

19. Martin, M. A., & Sampeck, K. E. Towards ethical chocolate: multicriterial identifiers, pricing structures, and the role of the specialty cacao industry in sustainable development. SN Business & Economics, 1, 44 (2021). (The study analyzed 280 pricing observations and found specialty cacao farmgate prices averaged about 95% above the commodity producer-price comparison used in the study, while also emphasizing considerable variation and limitations in specialty-cacao standards).

20. Martin, M. A. et al. Breaking the mold: Craft chocolate makers prioritize quality, ethical and direct sourcing, and environmental welfare. 

21. Martin, M. A. et al. Seeing through transparency in the craft chocolate industry: The what, how, and why of cacao sourcing. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research (2023). (The study found that 75% of surveyed respondents reported purchasing cacao without importers through what they described as direct trade, while interviewees also recognized specialty importers as necessary and valuable for many smaller makers. That supports a much more nuanced distinction than “intermediary = not direct.”)

22. Center for the Promotion of Imports from Developing Countries (CBI). Entering the European market for certified cocoa.