Critical industry research has revealed findings that at least one in four cocoa traceability audits in an Ivory Coast study contained data manipulated to achieve sustainability goals, reports Neill Barston.

The major study from ETH Zurich university affiliates found concerning results in a deep analysis of crop planting and management, as it examined just over 400 West African farms to establish how its data monitoring and auditing systems were being conducted.

Significantly, the findings come just months ahead of the planned introduction of long-delayed EUDR regulations on deforestation that have been put back by two years due to political, as well as industrial-scale lobbying. 

As the researchers asserted, while independent auditors of farming mapping and practices are not reportedly paid for their work, they are not completely impartial, given the need to maintain relations with communities they work with, and noted that they may indirectly benefit from making positive assessments that are not entirely accurate in tracking farm performance in relation to agricultural procedures on individual plantations.

According to ETH Zurich, the cocoa farm studies in Ivory Coast found that one in for entries for sustainability monitoring contained manipulated data, with changes being ‘substantially higher” when farmers or auditors had been aware of the target value required for certification standards.

Furthermore, the university explained that researchers monitored a total of 407 cocoa farms that were all attached to an un-named international cocoa buyer and exporter. Smallholders were invited to plant shade trees for their crops to improve their respective yields.

The data manipulation reportedly came to light through the smartphone based information gathering process – in which it was found that auditors could make retrospective corrections or additions.

Federico Cammelli, a postdoctoral research, who is reportedly spent several years evaluating the topic of cocoa sustainability made a stark assessment of the validity of how accurately farms are being monitored.

He said: “There are conflicts of interest throughout the entire value chain, and there is a lack of incentives to ensure that the data collected on cocoa farms is independently verified.”

As ETHZ also noted, there were further experiments on whether false reports could be reduced through simple data collection – which was done through dividing farms into two groups. The first being pre-warned of figures being used for assessment, while the second group saw the information being withheld.

Significantly, research Cammelli then noted that the rate of of manipulated data fell from 25% to 11% if farmers were in fact not told of the specific criteria thresholds to meet certification standards.

EUDR compliance
The emergence of such data alteration could potentially have significant impact for the implementation of EUDR traceability schemes, with related standards promoted by Faritrade and Rainforest Alliance also potentially affected by such inaccuracies.

Indeed, the topic of just how prepared farmers in West Africa have been for the changes has come under the spotlight, with Confectionery Production reporting over the past year that on a localised level, many farmers had simply been left wondering how any such certification and data collection methodology would be applied in practice.

Moreover, as market analysts have further pointed out, farmers themselves stand to gain relatively little directly from EUDR compliant cocoa – there are no bonus structures built into the programme, with the main beneficiaries being the major cocoa processors and chocolate companies that are then potentially able to claim sustainability certification standards.