Chocoa Conference 2026

I attended the two-day Chocoa Conference in Amsterdam last week and sampled a record number of chocolates made from cocoa beans with various countries of origin. I am amazed at how the tastes can be so different for chocolates that look seemingly the same. I have always liked chocolate, but now I really appreciate the art and science of it.

The conference, of course, was not “just” about tasting chocolates.

When I signed up for the conference, I expected to see companies and organisations presenting their latest state-of-the-art in cocoa farming and chocolate making, with a focus on methods and tools they are using for sustainability and sustainability-related regulations compliance. Whilst there were indeed some traders showcasing their chocolate-making machinery in the exhibition hall, I was under the impression that many companies do not yet have any deployed solutions that can work across the value chain. Throughout the conference, I sensed that there were a lot of conflicts between different stakeholders and organisations. The narrative of the panel discussions on stage was often challenged by the audience. Given that this is an important conference that brings together the world leaders in the cocoa and chocolate industry, and no one seems to have a unified answer to the uncertainty and conflicts of interests presented. I left the conference feeling slightly unsatisfied and, if I may, a little concerned.

Here is a summary of the key highlights I observed (with a bias towards the mentioning of technology and data-driven approaches).

Farmforce and Meridia’s “First Mile Traceability Barometer” 2026 report launch

On day 1, the first session I went to was hosted by Farmforce and Meridia, when they presented the key findings from their latest First Mile Traceability Barometer report. I learnt that there has been a significant increase in farm-level data visibility, from 15%-25% in 2023 to 77% in 2026. However, this visibility mainly applies to farmer ID data, but not the farms. 52% of producers reported zero or less than 25% of their supply base mapped (geotagged), and 45% of producers are still relying on papers for data records. The problem goes beyond just the data availability. Lots of farmers are “informal”. They don’t have the official paper to prove their land ownership. The panel speculate that as more and more data becomes available, deforestation and legality analysis follow, bringing out long-standing problems with hidden systems.

There is hope that the uptake in traceability is less of a challenge than before, as farmers don’t want to be excluded from the market and want to get paid. In 2023, the barrier was “access” to data; now, in 2026, it is the costs and resources for operating and managing the accessible data. The panel also discussed the longer-term benefits the data could bring to the farmers, and therefore the industry. EUDR is far away from the farmers, but with the data and digital systems in place, they could get useful advice on agri-forestry (e.g. when to prune, how to get better compost, etc.).

The panel also mentioned the importance of creating a single source of truth. Today, there are so many different players on the value chain, each has different systems that don’t integrate with the others. There are many databases with incomplete data. They claimed that they want a standard data format and a system that allows data to be collected only once. It would be cheaper on the whole for the industry.

EUDR, Silos, and Legality

EUDR was very much a focus at the conference. Evidently, this new regulation drove a lot of changes. Some companies claim that they have more data than they know how to process because of the new regulations. However, it was mentioned that EUDR is forcing a binary outcome - traders simply go to alternative markets. West African countries are still the biggest cocoa-producing countries; however, international traders do not create local business opportunities. Research is typically conducted outside of the African countries. As a result, many sustainability approaches and methods benefit to the cocoa buyers more, but the producers continue to face the same challenges with poverty, climate change, labour precarity, etc.

It was mentioned multiple times at the conference that collecting data is only half the battle; operations and management of the data are still immature today. Therefore, further investment is required for education and information science, as well as transparency in the cocoa value chain. This leads to the question of data ownership. Currently, data-driven systems are controlled and managed by downstream actors, while costs and risks are pushed upstream to farmers and cooperatives. Farmers also don’t have advanced technology, and devices tend not to be in their native language. With missing data, cocoa goes to countries that are as strict on deforestation regulations. Data ownership has become a market power problem; it affects how traders choose buyers.

At the same time, there are many proprietary applications used by different companies and organisations, causing redundant efforts for the cooperatives and farmers. It is also a concern that even if farmers produce deforestation-free cocoa, when data is incomplete (e.g. in an indirect chain) or there are holes in the pipeline, the beans will get rejected and farmers don’t get paid. Equally, multiple farmers have been claiming the same land, making it impossible to truly tell where the beans came from.

There has been a push for producer countries to adopt a national traceability system, with the hope that a standardised single traceability system could benefit all in the industry. Unfortunately, those who have tried to work with existing national systems were not able to get any data out as they are not shared. This reminds me of the xkcd comic strip on “Standards”.

Pricing and Farmers’ Living Income

Pricing was mentioned a lot at this conference; “put farmers first” was also mentioned a lot. Market changes always affect the farmers in a negative way. If the price is super high, the sale of cocoa drops, and farmers cannot sell their beans. If the price is super low, farmers’ income drops. During harvest season, procurements are made in two weeks. Farmers have no income for the rest of the year until the next harvest season. It is a big problem that farmers are not getting a living income in West Africa. It is a vicious circle - when farmers have low productivity, they cannot earn as much, so they cannot afford food with high nutritional value and medicine, which leads to ill health and therefore low productivity.

At the “Forward Thinking Farming Models” panel session, one of the presenters shared their study on Vietnam vs West Central Africa (WCA). Vietnam has a yield level over 300% of that in WCA, and poverty prevalence is lower in Vietnam, despite the farms in Vietnam being a factor of 4 smaller. There were multiple reasons given, but the main one seems to be due to the much higher investment in farming, labour, fertilisers, etc. in Vietnam. Regulated vs non-regulated biases could also be a factor, such that fertilisers are more accessible and cheaper to farmers in Vietnam. Local research in agriculture is also lagging behind in WCA.

Carbon credits and biodiversity were also discussed. They could potentially improve farming and lead to better yields, but the knowledge doesn’t reach farmers. Farmers also need financial incentives to make changes towards more sustainable farming.

An “Urgent Crisis”?

The closing session of the conference left the audience with some strong remarks - cocoa in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire is in an urgent crisis. Climate change has affected yield, and chaos in prices has affected the sale of beans. There is a decline in the consumption of cocoa products, which drives lower demand. Procurements are under the control of large trading companies, and the regulatory burden is being pushed down to farmers. The farming population is ageing, and the younger generation does not want to work on the farm. The presenter remarked, “AI disruption is nowhere near the disruption caused by climate change and regulations”.

The panellists (representatives from private chocolate makers and traders) at the closing session were each asked if they wanted systematic change, and they all answered yes. They acknowledged that there have been lots of talks about the symptoms, but no clear articulations on the causes behind those symptoms. The private sector is well aware of the living income problem, and it can always do better. Stability of price is needed, but it is not the only thing that needs to be changed. Farmers need to have access to the help and support they need for better and more professional farming.

The conference concluded with the message: “Human rights and environmental protection need to be built into the system, everyone needs to be aware of the current crisis, and the solutions need to be way more ambitious.”

Side Conversations

The conversations I had during lunch and coffee breaks were as interesting as the main talks. I met someone who works for an NGO who helps underserved communities globally to have their eyesight tested and get glasses and other treatments they need. I sat down with a few people and listened to their experience and insight about how and why some technology failed to improve traceability in the cocoa value chain. Blockchain was a popular proposal a few years ago, but it has never taken off and made the claimed impact. Fundamentally, the problem with blockchain is that the cost is too high for the little benefit it can bring. Open source software for tracing did not work either for the organisations who tried; the lack of expertise plus the high costs of commercial software means that these non-profit organisations cannot make fast and scalable progress.

I have learnt much more at this conference than I anticipated. I am glad that I went, even though the opportunity to taste a lot of chocolates alone would be enough to convince me.