Article
Economic Profitability of Carbon Sequestration of Fine-Aroma
Cacao Agroforestry Systems in Amazonas, Peru
Malluri Goñas 1,2,* , Nilton B. Rojas-Briceño 1,3 , Darwin Gómez Fernández 1,2 , Daniel Iliquín Trigoso 1 ,
Nilton Atalaya Marin 1,2 , Verónica Cajas Bravo 4 , Jorge R. Díaz-Valderrama 1 , Jorge L. Maicelo-Quintana 1
and Manuel Oliva-Cruz 1,*
1 Instituto de Investigación para el Desarrollo Sustentable de Ceja de Selva, Universidad Nacional Toribio
Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amazonas, Chachapoyas 01001, Peru; nrojas@indes-ces.edu.pe (N.B.R.-B.)
2 Centro Experimental Yanayacu, Dirección de Supervisión y Monitoreo en las Estaciones Experimentales
Agrarias, Instituto Nacional de Innovación Agraria (INIA), Carretera Jaén San Ignacio KM 23.7,
Jaén 06801, Peru
3 Grupo de Investigación en Ciencia de la Información Geoespacial, Escuela Profesional de Ingeniería
Ambiental, Facultad de Ingeniería y Arquitectura, Universidad Nacional de Moquegua, Pacocha 18610, Peru
4 Escuela de Turismo y Hotelería, Facultad de Ciencias Administrativas y Turismo, Universidad Nacional
Hermilio Valdizán, Huánuco 10003, Peru
* Correspondence: malluri.gonas@untrm.edu.pe (M.G.); manuel.oliva@untrm.edu.pe (M.O.-C.)
Abstract: Currently, the economic profitability of cocoa is being affected by the increasing incidence of
pests, low selling prices, high production costs, and the presence of cadmium in cocoa farms, posing a
potential risk of crop abandonment. Therefore, the objective of the present research was to evaluate the
economic profitability of carbon sequestration of fine-aroma cacao agroforestry systems in Amazonas,
Peru, using the economic indicators of NPV, EIRR, and the benefit–cost ratio. For this purpose,
53 small cocoa producers of the APROCAM cooperative were involved, from which data were
obtained on the general characteristics of the production system, production and maintenance costs,
Citation: Goñas, M.; Rojas-Briceño, indirect costs, and administrative costs; in addition, the costs of implementation and maintenance
N.B.; Gómez Fernández, D.; Iliquín of an environmental services project were calculated to finally make a cash flow projected over
Trigoso, D.; Atalaya Marin, N.; Bravo, 5 years. As part of the results, the economic analysis was carried out on 104.25 hectares of cocoa
V.C.; Díaz-Valderrama, J.R.; belonging to the total number of farmers evaluated, who reported an average yield of 957.32 kg of
Maicelo-Quintana, J.L.; Oliva-Cruz, M. dry cocoa per he. In addition, it was found that the production cost is PEN 3.91/kg of dry cocoa,
Economic Profitability of Carbon and the average selling price is PEN 7.38/kg of dry cocoa. After the economic analysis, it was found
Sequestration of Fine-Aroma Cacao that the implementation of an environmental services project is profitable (NPV = PEN 1,454,547.8;
Agroforestry Systems in Amazonas, EIRR = 44% and B/C = 1.86). These results open up an opportunity for cocoa farmers to diversify
Peru. Forests 2024, 15, 500. https:// and increase their income by contributing to climate change mitigation.
doi.org/10.3390/f15030500
Academic Editors: Sean Thomas, Keywords: environmental services; production costs; cocoa; NPV; EIRR; B/C; sensitivity analysis
Zhibin Sun and Yixiang Wang
Received: 18 December 2023
Revised: 21 February 2024
1. Introduction
Accepted: 3 March 2024
Published: 8 March 2024 In Peru, 89,749 producers depend directly on cocoa cultivation, with 11,666 producers
located in Amazonas. Cocoa represents 3.4% of the total national agricultural produc-
tion of Peru and ranks eighth among the main export products (Free on Board (FOB)
USD 154,094.92) [1]. In Amazonas, at the end of 2023, cocoa became the third highest-
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. exported product (FOB USD 420,682) after coffee and tara, reporting a negative variation
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. (−21.4%) compared to exports in 2022 [2]. On the other hand, cocoa production in the
This article is an open access article Amazon region has experienced variations in the last three years. From 2021 to 2022, there
distributed under the terms and
was an increase of 26%, from 3085.50 tons to 5887.60 tons. However, in 2023, production
conditions of the Creative Commons
fell by 14.18% compared to the previous year, to 3085.50 tons [1].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ The decline in production and yields may be attributed to farms being affected by
4.0/). the increasing incidence of pests, which results in crop migration. Additionally, other
Forests 2024, 15, 500. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15030500 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/forests
Forests 2024, 15, 500 2 of 17
factors impacting yield and therefore profitability include the high cost of inputs required
for production, limited access to credit, and low selling prices of fine-aroma cocoa [3].
In addition to the above, there are current limitations in the market due to the presence
of cadmium in cocoa beans [4], which hinders the entry of cocoa to all markets, making
economic profitability one of the most important weaknesses of cocoa production [5].
If we analyze the profitability of cocoa according to the benefit–cost ratio and yield,
it is said that cocoa cultivation becomes profitable if it reaches a minimum production
of 770 kg of dry cocoa per hectare [6]. However, cocoa farms that are associated under
an agroforestry system can be more beneficial as they can contribute up to 12% of gross
income [7] and can diversify economic income; this diversification of income also serves as
an alternative to mitigate the impacts of climate change [8], thereby seeking to minimize
the negative effect of market price and production fluctuation on household income [9].
On the other hand, reducing tax obligations for producers, companies, and/or organi-
zations by employing more efficient energy in their activities is a mitigation alternative that
has gained more prominence in recent years, known as the carbon tax [10]. These actions
are necessary, as unsustainable energy use and land use change are the main drivers for
the ongoing increase in greenhouse gas emissions, collectively representing 47% of total
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Latin America and the Caribbean [11,12]. Despite
the persistent issue, a few countries such as Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, and Uruguay
have presented and/or are implementing strategies to address this problem. Therefore, the
IPCC, in its sixth assessment report, mentions that there are options in all areas to reduce
emissions by at least half by 2030 [11].
Furthermore, the Kyoto Protocol details regulations for the operation of the inter-
national carbon emissions market, where developed countries have a commitment to
reducing the level of GHG emissions and not exceeding the permissible level. To achieve
this, through the Clean Development Mechanism, the World Bank finances carbon seques-
tration [13]. The adoption of this mechanism involves transactions between developed and
developing countries through projects aimed at mitigating and/or capturing GHGs [14].
Therefore, Peru, a developing country, currently has potential for implementing these types
of projects, which facilitate the sale or issuance of certificates for reduced GHG emissions.
Under this context, recent trends show that carbon market opportunities continue to
expand. For example, the total value of global markets grew by 11%, from USD 159,210 million
in 2010 to USD 176,027 million in 2011. The volume has also increased from 88,835 to
101,189 tons of CO2 equivalent per year [15]. By 2021, the increase in global emissions
of more than 2 billion tons was the largest in absolute terms ever, as energy demand in
this year recovered compared to the previous year [16]. Additionally, global revenues
from carbon pricing increased by almost 60% in 2021 compared to 2020 levels, reaching
approximately USD 84 billion [17]. Therefore, more than two-thirds of countries now plan
to use carbon markets to meet their nationally determined contributions stipulated in the
Paris Agreement [18], a document in which all developing countries commit to reducing
their GHG emissions to limit warming to below 1.5 ◦C by 2030.
In this context, cocoa production faces significant challenges to improve its profitability.
Efforts should focus on increasing production, combating phytosanitary problems, and
addressing the effects of climate change. The implementation of agroforestry systems in
cocoa cultivation emerges as a strategy to diversify income, conserve biodiversity, and
provide ecosystem services, among others. Therefore, the implementation of research and
programs that quantify the amount of CO2 sequestered by cocoa agroforestry systems
and their economic evaluation in the region are vital to improve profitability and develop
climate change mitigation strategies.
Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the economic profitability
of carbon sequestration of native fine-aroma cacao agroforestry systems in Amazonas,
Peru. The specific objectives of this study were (i) to calculate the dry cocoa yield per
hectare and CO2 sequestration of agroforestry systems (tons of CO2 per hectare per year),
(ii) to calculate the income and expenditures of cocoa production, and (iii) to calculate
Forests 2024, 15, 500 3 of 17
the economic evaluation (Economic Net Present Value (NPV), Economic Internal Rate of
Return (EIRR), and benefit–cost ratio (B/C)) of carbon sequestration in the agroforestry
systems through the implementation of an environmental services project.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
The study was conducted in the cocoa agroforestry systems of the Multiple Service
Cooperative APROCAM. The cooperative is composed of 235 small cocoa producers
distributed across 4 districts of the province of Bagua (Aramango, Copallín, La Peca, and
Imaza), 2 districts of the province of Utcubamba (Cajaruro and El Parco), and 1 district of the
province of Santa María de Nieva (Nieva) in the Amazonas region [19]. APROCAM leads
cocoa exports in whole or broken beans, raw except for sowing (Tariff item: 1801001900),
with an FOB of USD 428,962 for 2022 and USD 366,020 for November 2023, with Spain and
Italy as its main markets [2].
2.2. Sample Selection and Sampling Criteria
The sample was calculated from a population of 235 cocoa producers from the AP-
ROCAM cooperative. It consisted of 53 cocoa producers (at 90% reliability), which was
calculated by the finite population random sampling technique (Equation (1)) [20,21], with
an average of 2.97 hectares each, totaling 104 hectares involved in the study. This sam-
ple was obtained using simple random sampling technique for finite populations [21].
Utilizing stratified sampling by proportional allocation, the sample was divided into the
4 intervention districts, obtaining separate sub-samples for each district (Equation (2) and
Table 1). This approach allowed for increased accuracy of the survey results [22].
n = Z
2PQN
E2(N−1)+Z2PQ (1)
Np = nN n1
where the following are defined:
n: Sample size;
N: target population: 235 cocoa producers from APROCAM;
P: Proportion of units having the characteristics: 50% or 0.5;
Q: Proportion of units that do not have the characteristics: 50% or 0.5;
E = Error = 10% or 0.1. n
p = n1 (2)
N
where the following are defined:
Np = Sample size per district;
N = Sample size (53);
n1 = Population size per district;
N = Target population (235).
Table 1. Distribution of cocoa producers by district for information collection.
District n1 n/N Np Np *
Aramango 4 0.23 0.90 1
Cajaruro 26 0.23 5.88 6
Copallin 55 0.23 12.44 12
El Parco 5 0.23 1.13 1
Imaza 83 0.23 18.77 19
La Peca 57 0.23 12.89 13
Nieva 5 0.23 1.13 1
Total 235 53.14 53
* Real number of producers considered.
Forests 2024, 15, 500 4 of 17
2.3. Assessing the Economic Importance of Carbon Sequestration in Cocoa Agroforestry Systems
To evaluate the importance of carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems of fine-
aroma cocoa, a 5-year cash flow projection was made, which considered the implementation
of a project for the sale of environmental services through the sale of carbon credits at the
cooperative level financed with non-refundable resources. To determine the feasibility
of implementing the project, three economic profitability indicators were considered: the
Net Present Economic Value (NPV), the Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR), and the
benefit–cost ratio (B/C).
The economic profitability analysis was divided into two phases: (i) the field phase, in
which the producers were responsible for providing information through the administration
of surveys, which comprised qualitative or quantitative questions (Table 2), (ii) and the
office phase, during which tabulations were utilized to calculate the total production of
dry cocoa in kg/year, investment costs for cocoa installation, direct management and
maintenance costs for cocoa, indirect costs such as tools and machinery, and administrative
expenses for cocoa production.
Table 2. Components of the survey for field data collection.
Component Quantitative Variables Qualitative Variables
Hectares of cocoa in production, dry
cocoa yield in kg/ha, cocoa planting General data of theGeneral characteristics density, cocoa selling price (PEN/kg), producer, Main
daily wage price (PEN). activity
Variables for determining Number of labor days for pruning,
maintenance and harvesting, weeding, fertilizer
production costs application, pest and disease control, andtransportation cost (PEN/bag of 50 kg).
2.3.1. Application of Surveys
For the collection of field information, surveys were applied to 53 producers; the
surveys consisted of 11 questions of qualitative and quantitative variables directly related
to the information useful for the economic analysis (Table 2).
2.3.2. General Characteristics of Evaluated Agroforestry Systems (AFS)
To describe the general characteristics of cocoa farms under AFS, the following vari-
ables were considered: planting density (plants/ha), cocoa AFS in production (ha), cocoa
AFS evaluated (ha), dry cocoa yield (kg/ha), and selling price (PEN per kg/dry cocoa).
These values were calculated based on the results obtained from the surveys. Each sur-
veyed producer was responsible for providing this data during the survey administration.
Planting density was determined by the spacing of cocoa plants (plant and row), from
which the number of cocoa plants per hectare per producer was calculated. For economic
analysis purposes, the average number of plants per hectare from all evaluated farms was
calculated. The same criterion was used to calculate the yield of dry cocoa, selling price of
dry cocoa, and total area of cocoa under AFS in production. The only difference is that for
the total area of cocoa under AFS in production used for economic analysis, it was the sum
of all areas reported by the producers.
2.3.3. Total Cocoa Production in kg per Year
Annual cocoa production was calculated by multiplying the average yield per hectare
by the total number of hectares of cocoa production in AFS evaluated, which was de-
termined by summing the total AFS cocoa production per producer. Additionally, a 5%
allowance for self-consumption and waste was accounted for.
The total production in kg/ha per year was projected for 5 years, without considering
an increase, as the implementation of the project (environmental services for carbon sales)
does not directly impact cocoa production. For economic analysis, it was decided to
Forests 2024, 15, 500 5 of 17
exclude this percentage of production, as there are inherent losses in cocoa cultivation due
to various post-harvest management factors, environmental conditions, or other external
factors directly affecting yield. Additionally, within this percentage, there is cocoa that may
be allocated for the producer’s self-consumption during their daily activities.
2.3.4. CO2 Sequestration of Cocoa Agroforestry Systems
To calculate the CO2 sequestration of the agroforestry systems in tons per hectare per
year, the CO2 values reported by Goñas et al. 2022 [19] were utilized. These values were
obtained from 15 cocoa agroforestry systems divided into three age strata ranging from 8
to 40 years. A scatter plot was generated to illustrate the amount of CO2 retained by each
farm of different ages. The age range of farms where CO2 shows an increase (12 to 20 years
of age) was identified, and a linear projection was conducted to determine the trend of
CO2 sequestration increase per year, supported by the application of the r2 formula. This
procedure allowed us to find the value of CO2 sequestered per hectare per year, which was
used consistently for the 5 years of economic evaluation.
2.3.5. Investment Costs for Cocoa Production
Within the investment costs of cocoa production, we considered the value of the land
for cocoa planting, the price of the seedlings needed to install one hectare of cocoa, the cost
of transporting the seedlings from the nursery to the final field, and the cost of installation
(planting) of one hectare of cocoa. These data were projected based on the total number of
hectares in the study area.
2.3.6. Direct, Indirect, and Administrative Costs Evaluated
The direct costs for cocoa management and maintenance were calculated considering
the general characteristics of the evaluated agroforestry systems and the total cocoa pro-
duction in the study area. To calculate the total direct costs per year, we aggregated the
labor costs for farm management (pruning, weed control, shade management, fertilizer
application, pest and disease control) and harvesting, along with the costs of inputs. Subse-
quently, these data facilitated the calculation of the unit cost per kg of cocoa produced by
dividing the total direct costs by the total productivity in kg of dry cocoa per year.
Indirect costs encompassed the acquisition of tools and machinery necessary for crop
management, such as machetes, picks, shovels, motorized harvesters, etc.
Administrative costs included the minimum expenses required by the APROCAM
cooperative to carry out its activities, as well as payments for basic services such as water,
electricity, internet, and telephone.
2.3.7. Costs for Implementation of the Environmental Service Project—Sale of
Carbon Credits
To calculate the cost of implementing environmental services—sale of carbon credits
in the cooperative—we considered the fees of the internationally recognized certifier
VERRA (https://verra.org/about-verra/who-we-are/, accessed on 3 November 2022).
Additionally, costs were accounted for the implementation of consultancy services for
project implementation, along with an allocation for maintenance and monitoring expenses
to oversee the project once it has been implemented.
2.3.8. Cash Flow with 5-Year Projection and Economic Evaluation
Based on all the previously calculated data, a 5-year cash flow projection was con-
ducted. Among the assumptions, income and expenses were considered both with and
without the implementation of the environmental service project—sale of carbon credits. It
was assumed that there would be no intervention of a financing source directly impacting
crop yields in the next 5 years. Therefore, it was considered that cocoa yields in kg/ha,
farm management and maintenance costs, and the selling price of cocoa would remain
constant for all years evaluated. The assumptions with and without the sale of carbon
Forests 2024, 15, 500 6 of 17
credits were distinguished by including the sale of carbon credits as part of the economic
income for the producer.
These assumptions allowed for the calculation of the net present economic value
(NPEV), economic internal rate of return (EIRR), and the benefit–cost (B/C) ratio, as shown
in Equations (3)–(5), respectively.
The NPEV represents the present value of the net cash flows of a proposal, where net
cash flows are defined as the difference between periodic income and periodic expenses [23].
B
NPEV ∑ t
− Ct
= 2 (3)(1 + r)
where the following are defined:
B = Profit in year t; C = Costs in year t; r = discount rate applied.
In an economic analysis, if the NPV value is positive, it indicates that the project will
achieve a positive return on the initial investment of the project. If the opposite happens and
this value is negative, it indicates losses on the initial investment of the project. Therefore,
if the NPV is greater than or equal to 0, the project is accepted; if it is not, the project is
rejected [23].
On the other hand, the EIRR is that relative value that equates the present value
of the income stream with the present value of the estimated expenditure stream. In
other words, it involves updating an income stream (expected net flows) at the zero or
initial moment of the investment, and comparing it with the present value of a stream of
expenditures (volume of investment at that time) at a rate K or i, referred to as the cost of
capital or opportunity cost of a project, within a suitable framework, which is determined
beforehand [24] (Equation (3)).
n Qi
0 = −A + ∑ (4)
i=1 (1 + EIRR)
i
where the following are defined:
A = initial investment;
Qi = net cash flow for period i (from time one to time n);
EIRR = Economic Internal Rate of Return;
N = time in years.
The following criteria will be used to make the decision: If EIRR < 1 (the proposal is
profitable); EIRR = 1 (the proposal is not profitable) and if EIRR > 1 (the proposal is not
profitable) [25].
Additionally, the benefit–cost ratio was calculated according to Equation (4). This
analysis consists of comparing the benefits and costs of a project; if the benefits exceed the
costs, it provides data for decision making and tends to the acceptance of a project [26].
A B/C relationship greater than 1 indicates that the benefits outweigh the costs; if the
opposite occurs, it is suggested that the project lacks economic profitability.
Tbe
B/C = (5)
Tcd
where the following are defined:
B/C = Benefit–cost ratio.
Tbe = Total benefits found.
Tcd = Total costs encountered.
Finally, the sensitivity analysis was conducted by affecting the key variables that could
impact the profitability of the project with their possible variations. Different scenarios
of negative variation were considered in cocoa production (−10% to −47.49%), carbon
sequestration (−30% to −80%), sales cost per kg of dry cocoa (−15% to 47.79%), and selling
cost per ton of carbon (−20% to −80%). Additionally, scenarios of increased costs for the
implementation of environmental services were considered (20% to 100%).
Forests 2024, 15, 500 7 of 17
3. Results
3.1. General Characteristics of Evaluated Agroforestry Systems
The 53 farmers evaluated had cocoa farms under agroforestry systems, with the level
of cocoa in production under these systems ranging from 0.25 ha to 5 ha, totaling 104.25 ha
of cocoa in production, this amount being part of the economic evaluation; in addition,
the average yield of these systems is 957 kg of dry cocoa per hectare, which is sold at an
average price of 7.30 PEN per kg (Table 3).
Table 3. General characteristics of cocoa agroforestry systems evaluated.
Concept Unit of Measure Value
Number of agroforestry systems AFS 53
Planting density Plants/ha 897
AFS cocoa in production ha 104.25
AFS cocoa in evaluated ha 104.25
Dry cocoa yield kg/ha 957.32
Selling price PEN/kg 7.38
3.2. Total Cocoa Production in the Study Area
According to the average yield of dry cocoa in kg/ha, it was found that cocoa pro-
duction for the 104.25 hectares evaluated is 99,800.95 kg; considering 5% of losses and
self-consumption, the total production would be 94,810.90 kg. The values projected for the
next 5 years are equal to the base year, since the economic analysis of the sale of carbon
credits was carried out without considering the intervention in cocoa production (Table 4).
Table 4. Total cocoa production in the study area.
Description Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Hectares 104.25 104.25 104.25 104.25 104.25 104.25
Productivity (kg/ha) 957.32 957.32 957.32 957.32 957.32 957.32
Total production (kg) 99,800.95 99,800.95 99,800.95 99,800.95 99,800.95 99,800.95
Losses and
self-consumption % 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Total kg 94,810.90 94,810.90 94,810.90 94,810.90 94,810.90 94,810.90
3.3. Investment, Management and Maintenance Costs for Cocoa Production in the Study Area
The investment cost for the installation of the cocoa crop amounts to PEN. 2,298,048.50,
including the cost of the land, the number of plants per hectare, transportation of the
seedlings and the total cost to install one hectare of cocoa (Table 5).
Table 5. Investment costs for cocoa production in the study area.
Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
Total land area (Ha) Hectare 104.25 20,000.00 2,085,000.00
Planting density (Seedling/ha) Seedling 827 5.00 4135.00
Seedling transportation cost (PEN) Seedling 827 0.50 413.50
Planting installation cost—sowing (PEN) Hectare 104.25 2000.00 208,500.00
Total PEN 2,298,048.50
Within the costs of management and maintenance for cocoa production considered as
direct costs, labor costs for weed control, shade management, fertilizer application, pest and
disease control, and cocoa harvesting amounted to PEN 258,520.33. Additionally, the costs
for the purchase of inputs amounted to PEN 112,590.00. Therefore, adding the two items
together, the total production cost amounts to PEN 371,110.33. Finally, the cost per unit of
kg of dry cocoa is PEN 3.91 (Supplementary Table S1)
Forests 2024, 15, 500 8 of 17
Indirect costs for cocoa production can vary between the base year and the 5 years
projected for the economic evaluation. The highest indirect cost is reported in year 2 of
project implementation, amounting to PEN 102,290.00. This increase is due to the purchase
of a motorized scythe for each of the producers. Additionally, it was projected that field
tools should be purchased in the base year and 3 years after project implementation,
and personal protection equipment should be purchased once a year because they are
accessories with a short useful life (Supplementary Table S2).
Finally, the basic administrative costs for cocoa production are PEN 92,560.00 per year,
starting in year 1 and for the next 4 years of project evaluation. The items considered are the
basics that the cooperative needs to be able to develop its activities (Supplementary Table S3).
3.4. CO2 Sequestration in Cocoa Agroforestry Systems
The carbon sequestration of cocoa AFS is variable, the younger systems, ranging from
8 to 9 years, sequester less carbon (465 and 441 Tn/ha, respectively) compared to the
systems aged 10 to 20 years. However, there is a decline in carbon sequestration at 30 years,
with older systems (40 years) capable of retaining only 332 t of CO2/ha (Figure 1). This
decline in carbon sequestration for systems with cocoa trees older than 30 years may be
due to the harvesting of the associated timber shade trees in the system and the cocoa trees
reaching the end of their life cycle, resulting in plant death. Consequently, as the age of
the systems advances, there is a likelihood of a lower plant density within the systems,
Forests 2024, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
 re
 flected in the reduction in carbon sequestration. Therefore, this behavior serves9a osf a1n8 
indicator to consider the renovation of a cocoa farm.
900
798.74
800
700 664.86
572.56 590.14
600 506.35 515.47
500 465.38 441.74 578.28
400
300 332.11
200
100
00
8 years 9 years 10 years 12 years 16 years 17 years 20 years 30 years 35 years 40 years
Age of agroforestry systems  
FFiigguurree 11.. CCOO2 sseeqquueessttrraatti2 i
oonn aaccccoorrddiinngg ttoo tthhee aaggee ooff ccooccooaa.. 
Fi9g0u0re 1 also demonstrates that the CO2 sequestration in7c9re8a.7s4es in the 12- to 20-year-old
system8s0(0506 and 798 Tn/ha, respectively) remain constant (highlighted in the red rectangle).664.86
Conseq7u00ently, these data were utilized to create a linear trend projection of the increase in
CO2 se6q0u0estratio5n06(.F3i5gure 2). A5s1t5h.4e7system ages over the years, the linear equation applied
to the p5r0o0jection exhibited an R2 = 0.9117 (Figurye =2 )1.0T2h.6e6xv a+l 3u6e4s.7o2f carbon sequestered from
system4s00older than 30 years were not used for thisR²p =r o0j.e91c1ti7on because at that age, cocoa
produc3t0io0n begins to decline.
Af2t0e0r the application of the linear equation for the projection of the carbon sequestra-
tion of1t0h0e systems, the calculation of the CO2 retained in Tn/ha year was made. Taking
the 12-ye0ar systems as a base year, it was found that the CO2 retained was 103 Tn/ha year,
these data were12u syeedarsto perfo1rm6 ytehaerseconom1i7c yaenaarslysis of 2th0 eyesaarlse of carbon credits of the
evaluated systems (Table 6).
Age of cocoa Agroforestry System
 
Figure 2. Linear trend of carbon sequestration increases per year. 
Table 6. Projected CO2 sequestration per year of agroforestry systems. 
Total, of CO2 Retained CO2 Sequestered Tn/ha 
Period System Age in Years Tn/ha Year 
Year 0 12 506.35  
Year 1 13 1597 1090 
Year 2 14 1699 103 
Year 3 15 1802 103 
Year 4 16 1905 103 
Year 5 17 2007 103 
Year 6 18 2110 103 
3.5. Costs for Implementation of the Environmental Service Project—Sale of Carbon Credits 
According to the calculation of the costs for the implementation of the environmental 
service project—sale of carbon credits—in the base year, it amounts to PEN 152,608.45. If 
the maintenance and monitoring expenses of the project are added, the total cost of im-
plementation amounts to PEN 212,608.45. Additionally, from year 1 to year 5, the costs 
decrease to PEN 69,645.00 per year (Table 7). On the other hand, the maintenance and 
 
Total CO2 retained Tn/ha
Total CO2 retained Tn/ ha
Forests 2024, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18 
 
900
798.74
800
700 664.86
572.56 590.14
600 506.35 515.47
500 465.38 441.74 578.28
400
300 332.11
200
100
00
8 years 9 years 10 years 12 years 16 years 17 years 20 years 30 years 35 years 40 years
Forests 2024, 15, 500 Age of agroforestry systems 9 of 17  
Figure 1. CO2 sequestration according to the age of cocoa. 
900 798.74
800 664.86
700
600 506.35 515.47
500 y = 102.66x + 364.72
400 R² = 0.9117
300
200
100
0
12 years 16 years 17 years 20 years
Age of cocoa Agroforestry System
 
FFigiguurere2 .2L. iLnienaeratrr etnrednodf coafr cbaornbsoenq useqsturaetsitornatiinocnre ianscersepaesresy epaerr.  year. 
TTaabblele6 .6P. rPorjoecjetecdteCdO C2Ose qsueqesutreasttiroantipoenr pyeera ryoefaar gorfo faogrreostfroyressytsrtyem sys.2 stems. 
Period System Age in Years Total,T oofta Cl, Oof CO CO Sequestered2 Re2tained CO2 2 Sequestered Tn/ha 
Period System Age in Years Retained Tn/ha Tn/ha YearTn/ha Year 
Year 0 12 506.35
YeYaera 0r 1 12 13 510569.735 1090  
YeYaera 1r 2 13 14 156997 103 1090 
YeYaera 2r 3 14 15 11680929 103 103 
Year 4 16 1905 103
YeYaera 3r 5 15 17 12800072 103 103 
YeYaera 4r 6 16 18 12911005 103 103 
Year 5 17 2007 103 
3.5. CoYsetsafro r6 Implementation o1f8t he Environmental Service21P1ro0j ect—Sale of Carbon Credi1ts03 
According to the calculation of the costs for the implementation of the environmental
s3e.r5v.i cCeosptrso fjoerc tI—mspalelemoenf tcaatribono nofc trheed iEtsn—viirnonthmeenbtaasle Syeeravri,cei tParmojoecutn—tsStaoleP oEf NCa1r5b2o,n6 0C8r.4e5d.its 
If the m
implemAec
a
nc
iontetartd
nance and monitoring expense
ioinnga mtoo tuhnet scatolcPuElaNtio21n2 o,6f0 t8h.4e5 c.o
s
Ast
osf ftohre thpero iject are addditionallym, fprolmemyeenat
daed, the total cost ofr 1titoony oeaf rth5e,  tehnevciorsotns mental 
dseecrrveiacsee ptoroPjeEcNt—6s9a,6l4e5 o.0f0 caprebroyne acrre(Tdaitbsl—e 7i)n. tOhne bthaeseo tyheearrh, iatn adm, tohuenmtsa tinot PenEaNnc 1e5a2n,6d08.45. If 
mthoen imtoariinngtecnoasntscea manoudn mt toontihteorsiunmg oexf pPEenNse6s0 ,o00f 0t.h0e0 apnrnoujeacltl ya,rseta ardtindgedfr,o tmhey teoatra0l aconsdt of im-
rpemleamineinntgatcioonns taamntouunntitlsy teoa rP5E. N 212,608.45. Additionally, from year 1 to year 5, the costs 
decrease to PEN 69,645.00 per year (Table 7). On the other hand, the maintenance and 
Table 7. Costs for the implementation of the environmental service—sale of carbon credits in PEN *.
Concept Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
A. IMPLEMENTATION COSTS (A1 + A2) (PEN) 152,608.45 9645.00 9645.00 9645.00 9645.00 9645.00
 
A1 consulting services for the implementation of the sale of
carbon credits (PEN) 80,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Consulting services for the implementation of the sale of
carbon credits (PEN) 80,000.00
A2 Project certification (PEN) 72,608.45 9645.00 9645.00 9645.00 9645.00 9645.00
Account opening and registration (PEN) 6057.95 - - - - -
Account opening fee (PEN) 1929.00
Enrollment fee (PEN) 4128.95
Methodology approval process 66,550.50 9645.00 9645.00 9645.00 9645.00 9645.00
Methodology concept note application fee (PEN) 7716.00
Processing fee when methodology element is
accepted (PEN) 50,154.00
Methodology concept note application fee (PEN) 5787.00
Total CO2 retained Tn/ha
Total CO2 retained Tn/ ha
Forests 2024, 15, 500 10 of 17
Table 7. Cont.
Concept Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Expert application fee—AFOLU Experts—Agriculture
Forestry and Land Use (PEN) 1446.75
Expert application fee—Methodology Experts (PEN) 1446.75
Validation/Verification Bodies Annual Fee (PEN) 9645.00 9645.00 9645.00 9645.00 9645.00
- - - - - -
B. MAINTENANCE COST (PEN) 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00
B1 Project maintenance and monitoring costs
Field Specialist (PEN) 36,000.00 36,000.00 36,000.00 36,000.00 36,000.00 36,000.00
Field Technician (PEN) 24,000.00 24,000.00 24,000.00 24,000.00 24,000.00 24,000.00
TOTAL (A + B) (PEN) 212,608.45 69,645.00 69,645.00 69,645.00 69,645.00 69,645.00
* Reference costs extracted from VERRA, 2013 [27].
3.6. Cash Flow to Calculate the Economic Profitability of the Implementation of an Environmental
Services Project
To perform the cash flow and calculate the economic profitability of implementing
an environmental services project, assumptions were considered, as they are the basic
and necessary criteria for performing the 5-year projected cash flow (Table 8). The matrix
was created with all the values of direct costs, indirect costs, administrative costs of cocoa
production, total production of dry cocoa (kg), unit cost of dry cocoa production (PEN/kg),
selling price of cocoa (PEN/kg), and loss due to self-consumption (5%). These costs were
grouped into the following criteria: income and expenses without the sale of carbon credits,
and income and expenses with the sale of carbon credits. To the latter, the production of
carbon dioxide per hectare (Tn/ha) per year, the implementation cost of the project, and
the selling price in PEN/Ton of CO2 were added within the assumptions.
Table 8. Assumption for project implementation.
Supposes Cocoa Production Projection
Without the Sale of Carbon Credits Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Dry cocoa production in kg 99,801.00 99,801.00 99,801.00 99,801.00 99,801.00 99,801.00
Production cost per kg dry cocoa 3.91
Sales cost per kg dry cocoa (PEN/kg) 7.38
Loss due to self-consumption 5%. 5%
With the sale of carbon credits Cocoa production projection
Dry cocoa production in kg 99,801.00 99,801.00 99,801.00 99,801.00 99,801.00 99,801.00
Production cost per kg dry cocoa 3.91
Sales cost per kg dry cocoa (PEN/kg) 7.38
Loss due to self-consumption 5%
Projected CO2 sequestration Tn/ha per year
Production (sequestration) of carbon dioxide (Tn/ha) 103 10,738.00 10,738.00 10,738.00 10,738.00 10,738.00
Cost for implementation of environmental service (PEN) 212,608.45 69,645.00 69,645.00 69,645.00 69,645.00
Selling cost per ton of carbon in USD 7.17
Exchange rate * 3.859
* https://www.sbs.gob.pe/app/pp/sistip_portal/paginas/publicacion/tipocambiopromedio.aspx, accessed on 2
March 2024.
The projected CO2 sequestration was 10,738.00 Tn/ha per year in the 104.25 hectares
of cocoa AFS evaluated. The selling price per ton of CO2 was USD 7.17, a social price
established by the Ministry of Economy and Finance for its application in projects [28]
(Table 8).
The cash flow for the economic profitability analysis is presented in Table 9, and the
economic analysis metrics are displayed in Table 10. The implementation of an environmen-
tal service project for the sale of carbon credits records an NPV of PEN 1,365,432.31. This
Forests 2024, 15, 500 11 of 17
means that, after discounting the investment and production costs over a period of 5 years,
the cooperative will have a profit or gain of PEN 1,365,432.31. Based on this indicator, it
can be suggested to invest in the implementation of the project.
Table 9. Cash flow of the implementation of the carbon credits sales project.
Items Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
I. Investment module (Expressed
in “negative”) (PEN) −2,297,548.5 0 0 0 0 0
Plot installation −2,297,548.5
II. Operating module (A - B) (PEN) 486,667.00 926,733.00 963,537.00 963,537.00 963,537.00 963,537.00
A. Incremental revenues (a - b)
(PEN) 0 297,103.13 297,103.13 297,103.13 297,103.13 297,103.13
(a) Revenues from sale of carbon
credits 699,275.13 996,378.26 996,378.26 996,378.26 996,378.26 996,378.26
Sale of dry cocoa in PEN 699,275.13 699,275.13 736,079.09 736,079.09 736,079.09 736,079.09
Sale of retained C02 in PEN 0 297,103.13 297,103.13 297,103.13 297,103.13 297,103.13
(b) Revenues without sale of
carbon credits (PEN) 699,275.13 699,275.13 699,275.13 699,275.13 699,275.13 699,275.13
Sale of dry cocoa in PEN 699,275.13 699,275.13 699,275.13 699,275.13 699,275.13 699,275.13
B. Incremental operating expenses
(c - d) (PEN) 212,608.45 69,645.00 69,645.00 69,645.00 69,645.00 69,645.00
(c) Operating costs and expenses
with carbon credits (PEN) 663,080.60 556,007.15 651,407.15 564.222,15 556,007.15 556,007.15
The cost of production involves all
costs generated by production and 663,080.60 556,007.15 651,407.15 564,222.15 556,007.15 556,007.15
sale (PEN)
(d) Operational costs and expenses
without carbon credits (PEN) 450,472.15 486,362.15 581,762.15 494,577.15 486,362.15 486,362.15
Cost of production includes all costs
generated by production and sale 450,472.15 486,362.15 581,762.15 494,577.15 486,362.15 486,362.15
(PEN)
Nominal cash flow (I + II) (PEN) −1,811,381.81 926,733.26 926,733.26 926,733.26 926,733.26 926,733.26
Cumulative cash flow (PEN) −1,811,381.81 −884,648.55 1,853,466.52 1,853,466.52 1,853,466.52 1,853,466.52
Table 10. Metrics of the economic analysis.
Metric Valor
Economic net present value in PEN 1,365,432.3
Economic internal rate of return 42.43%
Minimum interest rate 12%
Benefit–cost ratio (B/C) 1.79
Similarly, the project records an EIRR of 42.43%, indicating the profitability that the
organization will achieve with the project’s implementation. Regarding the benefit–cost
ratio (B/C) indicator, the cash flow reports a value of 1.79 (Table 10). The economic indica-
tors used in this research are the same as those used to determine the economic viability
of public investment projects, research projects, business plans, and/or ventures. Under
this scenario, considering the assumptions and scenarios presented in this research, the
economic indicators suggest that implementing an Environmental Services Project through
the sale of carbon credits is profitable and therefore viable for the APROCAM cooperative.
The sensitivity analysis scenarios revealed that as cocoa production decreases, the
project’s profitability also decreases. Based on the scenarios of a decrease in cocoa pro-
duction (kg/year), it is observed that if production falls by 20%, the project would still be
profitable, as the ENPV would reach a value of PEN 790,431.33, with an EIRR of 29.07% and
a benefit–cost ratio of 1.54; this suggests that for every sol invested, you would still earn
PEN 0.54. However, if production decreased by 47.49%, the project would be at the limit
of its profitability. Although the ENPV still remains above zero with a value of PEN 92.48
Forests 2024, 15, 500 12 of 17
and the benefit–cost ratio is 1.19, the EIRR would reach 12%, indicating that the project
has reached its minimum expected profitability limit. Furthermore, when analyzing sce-
narios of carbon sequestration decrease (Tn/ha), it is deduced that if carbon sequestration
decreases by up to 80% (20.60/ha), the project would still be profitable. In this case, the
ENPV would be PEN 64,441.53, with an EIRR of 28.36% and a benefit–cost ratio of 1.36.
This implies that for every sol invested, you would still earn PEN 0.36 (Table 11).
Table 11. Sensitivity analysis of the determining variables of economic analysis.
Results
Affected Variable Variation Value
ENPV EIRR B/C
0.00% 94,810.90 1,365,432.31 42.43% 1.79
Cocoa production (kg/year) −10.00% 85,329.81 1,077,931.82 35.61% 1.67−20.00% 75,848.72 790,431.33 29.07% 1.54
−47.490% 49,785.21 92.48 12.00% 1.19
0.00% 103.00 64.441.53 28.36% 1.79
Carbon sequestration Tn/ha −30.00% 72.10 64.441.53 28.36% 1.63−50.00% 51.50 64.441.53 28.36% 1.52
−80.00% 20.60 64.441.53 28.36% 1.36
0.00% 7.38 1,365,432.31 42.43% 1.79
Sales cost per kg dry cocoa −15.00% 6.27 934,181.58 32.31% 1.60
(PEN/kg) −30.00% 5.16 502,930.84 22.74% 1.41
−47.49% 3.87 92.48 12.00% 1.19
0.00% 27.67 1,365,432.31 42.43% 1.79
Selling cost of carbon −20.00% 22.14 1,174,184.05 38.48% 1.69
(PEN/Tn) −40.00% 16.60 982,935.79 34.45% 1.58
−80.00% 5.53 600,439.26 26.12% 1.36
0.00% 212,608.45 1,365,432.31 42.43% 1.79
Cost for implementation of 20.00% 255,130.14 1,282,635.33 40.12% 1.75
environmental service (PEN) 50.00% 318,912.67 1,158,439.86 36.80% 1.69
100.00% 425,216.90 951,447.41 31.63% 1.59
On the other hand, concerning a scenario of cocoa selling price decrease (PEN/kg), the
project’s profitability behaves similarly to the cocoa production decrease (kg/year). This
suggests a positive relationship between both variables. For instance, if the selling price
drops by 47.49% (3.87 PEN/kg), the project would reach profitability limits, with an EIRR
of 12%. This indicates that the project has reached its lowest expected profitability point.
Regarding the decrease in carbon selling price (PEN/Tn), the analysis shows that even
with an 80% drop (5.53 PEN/Th), the project remains profitable. In this scenario, the NPV
would be PEN 600,439.26, the EIRR would be 26.12%, and the benefit–cost ratio would be
1.36, suggesting that for every sol invested, you would still earn PEN 0.36. However, the
risk would increase if the selling price decrease continues to decline (Table 11).
Regarding the increase in implementation costs of the environmental services project,
it is deduced that even if implementation costs increase by up to 100% (PEN 425,216.90),
the project would still be profitable. The NPV would have a value of PEN 951,447.41, the
EIRR would be 31.63%, and the benefit–cost ratio would be 1.59, implying that for every
sol invested, you would still earn PEN 0.59 (Table 11).
According to the sensitivity analysis, the critical points the project must handle are
the decrease in cocoa production and the decrease in selling price. When either of these
variables decreases, the project risks losing profitability, as the EIRR reaches its lowest point
at 12% to the profitability limits.
Forests 2024, 15, 500 13 of 17
4. Discussion
The study reported that the producers involved own farms ranging from 0.25 ha to
5 ha, which may explain why 95% of Peru’s annual cocoa production comes from small
producers with a planted area of between one and five hectares [29].
The average yield of the APROCAM cooperative’s AFS is 957 kg of dry cocoa per
hectare, which is above the national average (850 kg/ha) [30]. This could support the
consistent projection of production over the 5-year evaluation period of the study. The
possibility that cocoa yields will increase and be higher is as the producer’s experience and
access to credit is greater [31]. In addition, the producer’s membership in an association
increases the probability of improving crop yields [31]. This positive relationship is due to
the fact that farmers with greater experience in cultivation can more confidently understand
appropriate agronomic practices, soil management, pest and disease control, as well as the
selection of suitable varieties, as these are the factors directly impacting cocoa profitability.
Additionally, access to credit allows the producer to invest in agricultural inputs and the
adoption of improved practices in cocoa agroforestry systems. Finally, producer association
will be reflected in the improvement of opportunities for access to competitive and broader
markets. Associated producers can offer volume and product quality, which leads to
improved selling prices.
In 2022, the national farm-gate selling price was reported to be PEN 7.17/kg dry
cocoa, and in 2023, the farm-gate selling price was reported to be PEN 8.08/kg dry cocoa,
evidencing an increase in PEN 0.91 in one year [1]. These prices are within the sales range
of APROCAM cooperative producers, who in 2022 sold their dry cocoa at an average
price of 7.30 soles per kg at the farm gate, exceeding the national price that year. The
higher selling price compared to the national average price may be due to cooperative
members growing fine-flavor cocoas, which command a premium price in specialty markets.
However, these data may be affected by external factors such as possible extreme weather
events affecting production, market fluctuations, regulations, policies, and fluctuations
in the dollar exchange rates, among others. However, in the economic analysis, a selling
price of PEN 7.30/kg of dry cocoa was used because it was assumed that these external
factors could be compensated for by the advancement of technological innovations, sales
to differentiated markets, and the application of sustainable farm management.
The criterion to keep the yield and selling price of cocoa constant over the 5 years of
evaluation is conservative, as the analysis of implementing environmental services does not
directly intervene in cocoa production. Although the statistics show that from 2019 to 2022,
cocoa yield has experienced a slight increase, from 5107.58 tons in 2019 to 5887.60 tons of
dry cocoa harvested at the regional level, it does not guarantee that in 2023 the yield will
decrease by 14% [1].
Therefore, the instability of production in each year can affect its profitability. This is
compounded by the high production costs, which, by being elevated, decrease the return
on investment, making it difficult to cover and finance the future growth of the production
unit [32]. To address this issue, stakeholders in the chain are seeking alternatives to im-
prove cocoa profitability. Recent international climate documents highlight the significant
importance of afforestation of agricultural lands, which has a positive impact on CO2 levels,
not only through carbon absorption by trees that can be economically valued but also
through the substitution of fossil fuels with biomass [33]. Therefore, valuing the ecosystem
systems of multifunctional agroforestry would result in a change in land use [34], which
directly favors producers. Exploiting these opportunities is made effective through the
implementation of environmental service projects that sell carbon credits, allowing cocoa
producers to diversify their income and obtain a carbon-neutral certification in the future.
In Latin America, to evaluate the profitability of the implementation of a project, the
NPV and EIRR values are evaluated [35]. These indicators are essential tools for assessing
the feasibility and profitability of various ventures, aiding in decision making related to
resource allocation [36]. Their use is based on the close relationship between both indicators;
Forests 2024, 15, 500 14 of 17
NPV is a popular metric used to assess the economic performance of a project and is also
used to calculate the value of EIRR [37].
Therefore, NPV, EIRR, and the benefit–cost ratio are the most common and reliable
indicators for investment decision making. According to these economic profitability
indicators, the implementation of an environmental services project selling carbon credits
in the study area would be profitable, yielding a profit of PEN 1,454,994.2 after 5 years of
investment, with an EIRR of 44%, affirming the project’s viability.
In Colombia, a study determined that payments for ecosystem services exceeding
453.6 USD/ha/year are considered highly profitable in terms of NPV. Additionally, agro-
forestry systems with cocoa can receive payments of up to 36 USD/Tn CO2 [38], in
this context, the cocoa agroforestry systems in this study can generate an NPV of PEN
13,956.78/ha/year, a value similar to that reported in previous research. Analyzing these
payments for environmental services is important as they have become a means to promote
biodiversity conservation and rural development, particularly in tropical and subtropical
regions [39,40].
The results do not include a financial profitability analysis, because the analysis
did not consider access to a loan for the project implementation, and thus, the financial
profitability is the same as the economic one. APROCAM did not consider acquiring a loan,
as a cooperative has the opportunity to acquire non-repayable funds from local, regional
governments, NGOs, and other national and international funding sources. Access to credit
for project implementation could raise production costs, and the return on investment
might be slower. Regarding the benefit–cost ratio, the results indicate a positive ratio
greater than 1. This value suggests that the project is economically viable, as the expected
benefits of the project are 1.86 times greater than the implementation costs. In a different
scenario, if the costs were to exceed the benefits, the project would not be economically
viable and therefore would not be accepted for financing [26].
When exploring the impact of carbon income on the profitability of agroforestry
systems compared to monoculture, it was found that there is a possibility to increase
profitability minimally by 0.5% when the carbon price ranges between 8 USD/Tn CO2e
and a maximum of 70% when considering the highest carbon price (40 USD/Tn CO2e) and
the highest carbon discount rate (17.2 Tn C/ha for year) [41]. The present study conducted
in the APROCAM cooperative demonstrates that, when considering a selling price of
7 USD/Tn CO2e, cocoa agroforestry systems that include the carbon price are economically
profitable, thus reinforcing the theory that the economic values of associated ecosystem
services always have to increase the profitability of the system [34]. Additionally, the
sensitivity analysis of project implementation suggests that the decline in cocoa production
(kg/ha) and the selling price of dry cocoa (PEN/ha) may jeopardize the project’s prof-
itability, as a decrease of 47.49% in both leads to the EIRR value reaching the minimum
profitability threshold (12%). Conversely, in a scenario where carbon selling prices and
sequestration decrease by 80%, the project remains profitable. Therefore, the implementa-
tion of an environmental services project can significantly support the profitability of cocoa
production under agroforestry systems. This is because the proper integration of trees into
cultivated lands can provide greater welfare benefits for society as a whole, a case that does
not occur with treeless agriculture or forest systems alone [42].
Therefore, the implementation of agroforestry systems must be accompanied by prin-
ciples related to land use planning and biodiversity, which will allow for a greater positive
social and environmental impact [43]. The social impacts will be reflected in the improve-
ment of the quality of life of producers, as there will be greater opportunities to access
basic services, especially education and health, job creation, community support through
associativity, among others.
Therefore, the efficient use of agricultural lands is an alternative to contribute to the
fulfillment of the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement objectives, which were created
to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Agricultural lands are an important poten-
tial sink and could absorb large amounts of carbon. It is important to reintroduce trees
Forests 2024, 15, 500 15 of 17
into systems and manage them wisely along with the main crops and/or animals [44].
These carbon-sequestering agricultural production systems have the potential to gener-
ate income for producing families [45]. Peru, being a developing country, also has the
commitment to adopt technologies, processes, and programs to limit global warming to
below 1.5 ◦C by 2030; implementing a carbon tax and carbon bond sales can be carried out
to counteract emissions from developed countries. To implement these strategies, cocoa
agroforestry systems play a very important role, as it has been explained that their benefits
are wide-ranging, involving economic, environmental, and social factors. The success of
the implementation of these strategies will depend on the support of local and regional
governments involved in the sector through the implementation and execution of political
and environmental regulations.
Therefore, the economic analysis of this study serves as a precedent for local, regional,
and national governments to implement environmental payment programs, either through
fiscal incentives and/or subsidies. The coordination that governments can establish be-
tween environmental certifiers and cocoa producer organizations is the basis for developing
environmental certification and labeling standards. These actions should be accompanied
by continuous education and training for cocoa producers on the proper management of
agroforestry systems and the benefits that carbon capture within these systems provides.
5. Conclusions
The results of the economic evaluation suggest that the implementation of a project
focused on selling carbon credits could be economically viable. With an NPV of PEN
1,454,547.8, an EIRR of 44%, and a benefit–cost ratio of 1.86, the economic viability of the
proposed project is evident.
These findings highlight the potential of carbon sequestration and emissions trading
as innovative approaches for rural economic development and environmental conservation.
According to the economic indicators evaluated, a promising alternative exists for national,
regional, local governments, and/or peasant organizations to implement and promote
ecosystem service programs. These programs can not only contribute to cocoa production
income but also have the potential to mitigate climate change by promoting sustainable
agricultural practices.
For future research, in addition to studying the socioeconomic characteristics of cocoa
producers, should focus on validating the methodology for quantifying carbon seques-
tration in agroforestry systems. It is essential to subject this methodology to rigorous
evaluation by an environmental services certifier, especially regarding the accurate quan-
tification of carbon sequestration per hectare per year.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://
www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/f15030500/s1, Table S1: Direct costs for cocoa management and
maintenance in the area of research intervention. Table S2: Indirect costs for cocoa production.
Table S3: Administrative costs for cocoa production.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.G., M.O.-C. and N.B.R.-B.; formal analysis, M.G.,
D.G.F., D.I.T. and N.B.R.-B.; acquisition of funds, M.O.-C., J.L.M.-Q. and J.R.D.-V.; research, M.G.,
N.A.M., D.G.F. and D.I.T.; methodology, M.G., N.B.R.-B., N.A.M., D.G.F. and D.I.T.; resources,
M.O.-C., J.L.M.-Q. and J.R.D.-V.; writing—original draft, M.G., N.B.R.-B., J.R.D.-V. and V.C.B.;
writing—revision and editing, M.G., N.B.R.-B., J.R.D.-V., V.C.B. and M.O-C. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico, Tecnológico y
de Innovación Tecnológica (FONDECYT) through the Project Contract N◦ 026-2016 “Círculo de
Investigación para la Innovación y el fortalecimiento de la cadena de valor del cacao nativo fino de
aroma en la zona nor oriental del Perú”—CINCACAO executed by the Instituto de Investigación
para el Desarrollo Sustentable de Ceja de Selva (INDES–CES), the Proyect SNIP N◦ 352650 “Con-
strucción del centro de investigación en forestería y agrosilvopastura del INDES-CES”—CEINFOR,
and the Vice Rectorate for Research of the Universidad Nacional Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de
Amazonas (UNTRM).
Forests 2024, 15, 500 16 of 17
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge and appreciate the support of the Instituto de Investi-
gación para el Desarrollo Sustentable de Ceja de Selva (INDES-CES) of the Universidad Nacional
Toribio Rodríguez de Mendoza de Amazonas (UNTRM).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. MIDAGRI (Ministerio de Desarrollo Agrario y Riego). Perfil Productivo y Competitivo de Los Principales Cultivos Del Sector
Agrario. Available online: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiMWZmNDY2NTEtODg4NC00ZmQxLTk1NjItNWRiYmE4
OGY2MDA4IiwidCI6IjdmMDg0NjI3LTdmNDAtNDg3OS04OTE3LTk0Yjg2ZmQzNWYzZiJ9 (accessed on 2 March 2024).
2. PROMPERU. Exportaciones Regionales Por Partidas: Amazonas. Available online: https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=
eyJrIjoiYzU3MjViOGMtMDk0MC00OGZmLWI5NTItMGQ1Y2JjMzE3NmNiIiwidCI6Ijk2YTM3OTA5LTljOTktNDAyNS0
5NWE1LTlmMDgwNWY1M2QyOCIsImMiOjR9 (accessed on 2 March 2024).
3. Antolinez-Sandoval, E.Y.; Almanza-Merchán, P.J.; Barona-Rodriguez, A.F.; Polanco-Díaz, E.; Serrano-Cely, P.A. Estado Actual de
La Cacaocultura: Una Revisión de Sus Principales Limitantes. Cienc. Y Agric. 2020, 17, 1–11. [CrossRef]
4. Gramlich, A.; Tandy, S.; Gauggel, C.; López, M.; Perla, D.; Gonzalez, V.; Schulin, R. Soil Cadmium Uptake by Cocoa in Honduras.
Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 612, 370–378. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Caicedo-Vargas, C.; Pérez-Neira, D.; Abad-González, J.; Gallar, D. Assessment of the Environmental Impact and Economic
Performance of Cacao Agroforestry Systems in the Ecuadorian Amazon Region: An LCA Approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2022,
849, 157795. [CrossRef]
6. Espinosa-García, J.A.; Uresti-Gil, J.; Vélez, I.A.; Moctezuma, L.G.; Inurreta, A.H.D.; Gongora, G.S.F. Productividad y Rentabilidad
Potencial Del Cacao (Theobroma cacao L.) En El Trópico Mexicano. Rev. Mex. Ciencias Agrícolas 2015, 6, 1051–1063. [CrossRef]
7. Magne, A.N.; Nonga, N.E.; Yemefack, M.; Robiglio, V. Profitability and Implications of Cocoa Intensification on Carbon Emissions
in Southern Cameroun. Agrofor. Syst. 2014, 88, 1133–1142. [CrossRef]
8. Amfo, B.; Ali, E.B. Climate Change Coping and Adaptation Strategies: How Do Cocoa Farmers in Ghana Diversify Farm Income?
For. Policy Econ. 2020, 119, 102265. [CrossRef]
9. Viteri-Salazar, O.; Ramos-Martín, J.; Lomas, P.L. Livelihood Sustainability Assessment of Coffee and Cocoa Producers in the
Amazon Region of Ecuador Using Household Types. J. Rural Stud. 2018, 62, 1–9. [CrossRef]
10. García-Rebollo, I.J. El Impuesto Al Carbono Como Medida de Mitigación Del Cambio Climático; Universidad de País Vasco: Bilbao,
Spain, 2023.
11. IPCC (Intergobernmental Panel on Climate Change). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report.
Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; The Core
Writing Team, Lee, H., Romero, J., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. [CrossRef]
12. Banco Mundial. Hoja de Ruta Para La Acción Climática En América Latina y El Caribe (2021–2025); Oficina Regional de América
Latina y el Caribe del Banco Mundial: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
13. Fernández Simón, L. El Banco Mundial y La Financiación Del Carbono; Universidad de León: Léon, Spain, 2018.
14. Torres, N. Mercados de Carbono: Alcances y Desafíos Para Afrontar El Cambio Climático. Derecho Público Económico 2023, 3,
89–102. [CrossRef]
15. Seeberg-Elverfeldt, C.; Gordes, A. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Mitigation Project Database: Second Assessment of the
Current Status of Land-Based Sectors in the Carbon Markets; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013; ISBN 9789251074640.
16. ONU. Las Emisiones Mundiales de CO2 Repuntaron En 2021 Hasta Su Nivel Más Alto de La Historia. Available online:
https://unfccc.int/es/news/las-emisiones-mundiales-de-co2-repuntaron-en-2021-hasta-su-nivel-mas-alto-de-la-historia#:~:
text=Las%20emisiones%20mundiales%20de%20di%C3%B3xido,del%20carb%C3%B3n%20para%20impulsar%20ese (accessed
on 2 March 2024).
17. World Bank. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2021; Bank World, Ed.; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2021;
ISBN 978-1-4648-1728-1.
18. World Bank. Países En La Cima de Los Mercados de Carbono. Available online: https://www.bancomundial.org/es/news/
feature/2022/05/24/countries-on-the-cusp-of-carbon-markets#:~:text=Pa%C3%ADses%20como%20Chile,%20Ghana,%2
0Jordania,los%20mercados%20internacionales%20de%20carbono (accessed on 2 March 2024).
19. Goñas, M.; Rojas-Briceño, N.B.; Culqui-Gaslac, C.; Arce-Inga, M.; Marlo, G.; Pariente-Mondragón, E.; Oliva-Cruz, M. Carbon
Sequestration in Fine Aroma Cocoa Agroforestry Systems in Amazonas, Peru. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9739. [CrossRef]
20. Di Rienzo, J.; Balzarini, M.; Robledo, C.; Casanoves, F.; Gonzales, L.; Tablada, E. InfoStat, Versión 2008. Manual Del Usuario; FCA
Universidad Nacional de Córdoba: Córdoba, Argentina, 2008.
21. Balzarini, M.G.; Gonzalez, L.A.; Tablada, E.M.; Casanoves, F.; Di Rienzo, J.A.; Robledo, C.W. InfoStat Manual Del Usuario; Brujas
Editorial: Cordoba, Argentina, 2008.
22. Lavrakas, P. Proportional Allocation to Strata. In Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods; 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks
California 91320 United States of America; Sage Publications, Inc.: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 2013; ISBN 9781412963947.
Forests 2024, 15, 500 17 of 17
23. Mete, M.R. Valor Actual Neto Y Tasa De Retorno: Su Utilidad Como Herramientas Para El Análisis Y Evaluación De Proyectos
De Inversión. Fides Ratio Rev. Difusión Cult. Científica Univ. La Salle Boliv. 2014, 7, 67–85.
24. Altuve, J.G. El Uso Del Valor Actual Neto y La Tasa Interna de Retorno Para La Valoración de Las Decisiones de Inversión. Actual.
Contab. Faces 2004, 7, 7–17.
25. Vásquez, A.; Matus, J.A.; Cetina, V.M.; Sangerman, J.; Rendón, G.; Caamal, I. Análisis de Rentabilidad de Una Empresa
Integradora de Aprovechamiento de Madera de Pino * Profitability Analysis of an Integrating Company of Pine Wood Utilization
Resumen Introducción. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agrícolas 2017, 8, 649–659.
26. Arévalo Briones, K.; Pastrano Quintana, E.; Armijos Jumbo, V. Relación Beneficio—Costo Por Tratamiento En La Producción
Orgánica de Las Hortalizas (Cilantro, Lechuga, Cebolla Roja, Cebolla de Rama) En El Cantón Santo Domingo de Los Colorados.
Rev. Publicando 2016, 3, 503–528.
27. VERRA. VCS AFOLU Requirements: Crediting GHG Emission Reductions for Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use.
Available online: https://verra.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/FactSheet-AFOLU-2013-UPDATED.pdf (accessed on 2
March 2024).
28. MEF (Ministerio de Economía y Finanzas). Nota Técnica Para El Uso Del Precio Social Del Carbomo En La Evaluación Social de
Proyectos de Inversión; MEF: Lima, Peru, 2021.
29. MINAGRI (Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego). Estudio Del Cacao En El Perú y El Mundo: Un Análisis de La Producción y El Comercio;
Dirección de Estudios Económicos e Información Agraria, Ed.; Primera: Madrid, Spain, 2016.
30. Portilla, A. Análisis Causa-Raíz de Los Problemas Que Afectan a La Cadena Productiva de Cacao-Chocolate; MIDAGRI: Lima, Peru, 2020.
31. Monealegre-Bustos, F.; Rojas-Molina, J.; Jaimes-Suárez, Y. Factores Agronómicos y Socioeconómicos Que Inciden En El
Rendimiento Productivo Del Cultivo de Cacao. Un Estudio de Cacao En Colombia. Rev. FAVE Ciencias Agrar. 2021, 20, 59–73.
32. Saldarriaga-Ramirez, B.J. Precio En Chacra, Rendimineto y Costo Deproducción Como Factores de Rentabilidad En La Producción de Cacao
En La Provincia de Leoncio Prado Campaña 2012–2013; Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizán: Huánuco, Peru, 2016.
33. Korneeva, E.A. Economic Assessment and Management of Agroforestry Productivity from the Perspective of Sustainable Land
Use in the South of the Russian Plain. Forests 2022, 13, 172. [CrossRef]
34. Kay, S.; Graves, A.; Palma, J.H.N.; Moreno, G.; Roces-Díaz, J.V.; Aviron, S.; Chouvardas, D.; Crous-Duran, J.; Ferreiro-Domínguez,
N.; García de Jalón, S.; et al. Agroforestry Is Paying off—Economic Evaluation of Ecosystem Services in European Landscapes
with and without Agroforestry Systems. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 36, 100896. [CrossRef]
35. Valencia, W. Indicador de Rentabilidad de Proyectos: El Valor Actual Neto (VAN) o El Valor Económico Agregado (EVA). Ind.
Data 2011, 14, 15–18. [CrossRef]
36. Rodrigues, B.F.F.; Amaral, A.R.; Assunção, F.P.C.; Bernar, L.P.; Santos, M.C.; Mendonça, N.M.; Pereira, J.A.R.; de Castro, D.A.R.;
Duvoisin, S.; Oliveira, P.H.A.; et al. Economic Feasibility Study of the Production of Biogas, Coke and Biofuels from the Organic
Fraction of Municipal Waste Using Pyrolysis. Energies 2024, 17, 269. [CrossRef]
37. Jarunglumlert, T.; Chantanuson, R.; Hayashi, R.; Katano, Y.; Kusakari, T.; Nagamine, S.; Matsumiya, K.; Kobayashi, T.; Nakagawa,
K. Techno-Economic Assessment of Plant-Based Meat Analogue Produced by the Freeze Alignment Technique. Futur. Foods 2023,
8, 100269. [CrossRef]
38. Mena-Mosquera, V.E.; Andrade, H.J. Valuation of Carbon Sequestration and Storage Ecosystem Services in a Tropical Moist
Forest of Chocó, Colombia. Floresta Ambient. 2021, 28, 1–11. [CrossRef]
39. Gutman, P. Ecosystem Services: Foundations for a New Rural–Urban Compact. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 62, 383–387. [CrossRef]
40. Calvet-Mir, L.; Corbera, E.; Martin, A.; Fisher, J.; Gross-Camp, N. Payments for Ecosystem Services in the Tropics: A Closer Look
at Effectiveness and Equity. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 150–162. [CrossRef]
41. Waldén, P.; Ollikainen, M.; Kahiluoto, H. Carbon Revenue in the Profitability of Agroforestry Relative to Monocultures. Agrofor.
Syst. 2020, 94, 15–28. [CrossRef]
42. García de Jalón, S.; Graves, A.; Palma, J.H.N.; Williams, A.; Upson, M.; Burgess, P.J. Modelling and Valuing the Environmental
Impacts of Arable, Forestry and Agroforestry Systems: A Case Study. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 92, 1059–1073. [CrossRef]
43. Murguerito, R.E. Sistemas Agroforestales Para La Producción Ganadera En Colombia. Pastos Forrajes 2000, 3, 1–11.
44. Albrecht, A.; Kandji, S.T. Carbon Sequestration in Tropical Agroforestry Systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 99, 15–27.
[CrossRef]
45. Rügnitz, M.; Chacón, M.; Porro, R. Guía Para La Determinación de Carbono En Pequeñas Propiedades Rurales, 1st ed.; Centro Mundial
Agroflorestal (ICRAF)/Consórcio Iniciativa Amazônica (IA): Lima, Peru, 2009; ISBN 9789290592549.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.