Identifying Agribusiness Institutions and their Role in Increasing Cocoa Production: Evidence from Polewali Mandar, Indonesia Zulkifli Basri 1,2 , Sitti Bulkis 3 , Muhammad Arsyad 3* , Muhammad Farid Bdr 4 1 Agriculture Science Program, Graduate School, Hasanuddin University, Jl. Perintis Kemerdekaan Km.10, Makassar, South Sulawesi 90245, Indonesia 2 Department of Agricultural Socio-Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Al Asyariah Mandar, Jl. Budi Utomo No.2, Polewali Mandar, West Sulawesi 90245, Indonesia 3 Department of Agrotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Hasanuddin, Jl. Perintis Kemerdekaan Km.10, Makassar, South Sulawesi 90245, Indonesia 4 Department of Agricultural Socio-Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Hasanuddin, Jl. Perintis Kemerdekaan Km.10, Makassar, South Sulawesi 90245, Indonesia Corresponding Author Email: arsyad@unhas.ac.id https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180105 ABSTRACT Received: 19 September 2022 Accepted: 2 December 2022 Polewali Mandar Regency is one of the cocoa producers in West Sulawesi Province whose production has tended to decline in the last five years. The study aims to identify agribusiness institutions and their role in increasing cocoa production. The study employed the Interpretative Structural Modeling (ISM) method. The results showed that there were 12 institutions that played a role in the development of cocoa agribusiness. The key institutions could be expected to improve cocoa production were corporate institutions, non-governmental organizations and farmer groups. Therefore, government responsible and private institutions must carry out their respective roles in order to increase farmers' interest in developing their cocoa production. Keywords: agribusiness institutions, cocoa, ISM analysis 1. INTRODUCTION Cocoa is one of the leading commodities in the plantation sector which plays an important role in the Indonesian economy. Cocoa production is a means of providing employment in agricultural development programs. In addition, cocoa is the country's largest foreign exchange earner after palm oil and rubber. Indonesia is ranked third in the world with a production volume of 659.7 thousand tons in 2020 [1]. On the other hand, consumption of cocoa products in Indonesia is still relatively low with an average of 0.6 kg per capita per year. This value is much lower than the consumption of people in European countries, namely 8 kg per capita per year. Low consumption coupled with the region's high potential for cocoa cultivation and the large demand for cocoa on the international market have made Indonesia a potential cocoa exporting country [2]. The condition of smallholder cocoa plantations is still facing various challenges, including: most of them are managed not in accordance with technical guidelines with low levels of production, productivity and quality, high attacks by Plant Pest Organisms (OPT), limited business capital, access to inadequate information and market resulting in low competitiveness of farmers [3]. The problems with cocoa commodities are not only production and post-harvest problems, but also problems with cocoa agribusiness institutions that are still weak [4]. It is felt that the existing cocoa agribusiness institutions are not functioning properly. Cocoa agribusiness problems can be grouped into six aspects, namely production, diversification, post-harvest, waste utilization, facilities and infrastructure, and institutions. According to the studies [5-7], several things that cause cocoa agribusiness institutions to not work, namely: (1) Institutions are usually formed based on technical interests to facilitate coordination if there are programs or activities from the government, so they are not program oriented and do not guarantee institutional independence; (2) Institutional formation and development does not use local social capital base, with the principle of local self-reliance formed through the principle of empowerment; (3) The formation and development of farmer institutions are generally based on a top down approach, so that community participation does not grow well; (4) Institutions built are limited to strengthening horizontal ties, and not vertical ties; (5) Participation and cohesiveness of group members in institutional activities is still low, and is usually reflected in the low level of attendance of group members in institutional meetings; (6) The farmer's institution as a joint activity forum has not been able to become a unifying forum for members' activities and bind the needs of members together; (7) The introduction of institutions from outside pays little attention to the existing local institutional structures and networks, as well as the current economic, social, and political characteristics; (8) The coaching that is carried out in general tends to be individual in nature, that is, only to administrators, so that a social learning approach does not occur; (9) Institutional development always uses a structural path, and is weak from the development of its cultural aspects. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning Vol. 18, No. 1, January, 2023, pp. 53-59 Journal homepage: http://iieta.org/journals/ijsdp 53