Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods: A Review and Synthesis of Ten Years of...
-
Upload
hms-harvard -
Category
Documents
-
view
1 -
download
0
Transcript of Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods: A Review and Synthesis of Ten Years of...
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of theAssociation of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer]On: 21 June 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 789737545]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Professional GeographerPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t788352615
Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods: A Review andSynthesis of Ten Years of Research in Central AmericaV. Ernesto Méndeza; Christopher M. Baconb; Meryl Olsona; Katlyn S. Morrisa; Annie Shattuckc
a University of Vermont, b University of California, Berkeley c Institute for Food and DevelopmentPolicy (Food First),
First published on: 01 June 2010
To cite this Article Méndez, V. Ernesto , Bacon, Christopher M. , Olson, Meryl , Morris, Katlyn S. and Shattuck,Annie(2010) 'Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods: A Review and Synthesis of Ten Years ofResearch in Central America', The Professional Geographer, 62: 3, 357 — 376, First published on: 01 June 2010 (iFirst)To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2010.483638URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2010.483638
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder
Livelihoods: A Review and Synthesis of Ten Years of
Research in Central America∗
V. Ernesto MendezUniversity of Vermont
Christopher M. BaconUniversity of California, Berkeley
Meryl Olson and Katlyn S. MorrisUniversity of Vermont
Annie ShattuckInstitute for Food and Development Policy (Food First)
We used households as the primary unit of analysis to synthesize agrobiodiversity research in small-scalecoffee farms and cooperatives of Nicaragua and El Salvador. Surveys, focus groups, and plant inventorieswere used to analyze agrobiodiversity and its contribution to livelihoods. Households managed high levelsof agrobiodiversity, including 100 shade tree and epiphyte species, food crops, and medicinals. Small farmscontained higher levels of agrobiodiversity than larger, collectively managed cooperatives. Households bene-fited from agrobiodiversity through consumption and sales. To better support agrobiodiversity conservation,our analysis calls for a hybrid approach integrating bottom-up initiatives with the resources from top-downprojects. Key Words: agroecology, biodiversity conservation, farmer cooperatives, participatory actionresearch.
Utilizamos los hogares como unidad basica de analisis para sintetizar la investigacion sobre agrobiodiversidaden fincas pequenas y cooperativas cafeteras de Nicaragua y El Salvador. Se utilizaron estudios de campo,grupos focales e inventario de plantas para analizar la agrobiodiversidad y su contribucion al medio de vidade la gente. Los hogares manejan niveles altos de agrobiodiversidad, lo cual incluye 100 especies de arbolesde sombrıo y epıfitas, cultivos alimentarios y plantas medicinales. Las fincas pequenas contienen niveles mas
∗We would like to thank the farmers and their cooperatives for their long-term participation in this research process. We are grateful to Bill Morrisfor his help in developing Figures 1 and 2. Funding for V. Ernesto Mendez, Meryl Olson, and Katlyn S. Morris was provided by the Universityof Vermont. Meryl Olson also received support from Annie’s Homegrown Sustainable Agriculture Scholarship. Christopher M. Bacon thanksthe S.V. Ciriacy-Wintrup Postdoctoral Fellowship for support and Raul Dıaz, Maria Eugenia Flores Gomez, Pedro H. Mendoza, and Byron forproviding assistance in Nicaragua. Stephen R. Gliessman and three anonymous reviewers provided useful comments that helped improve thequality of the article.
The Professional Geographer, 62(3) 2010, pages 357–376 C© Copyright 2010 by Association of American Geographers.Initial submission, November 2008; revised submission, August 2009; final acceptance, October 2009.
Published by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
358 Volume 62, Number 3, August 2010
altos de agrobiodiversidad que las cooperativas, mas grandes y de manejo colectivo. Las unidades familiares sebenefician de la agrobiodiversidad por consumo y ventas. Para apoyar de mejor manera la conservacion de laagrobiodiversidad, nuestro analisis es partidario de un enfoque hıbrido que integre iniciativas de abajo haciaarriba con los recursos de proyectos que operan de arriba abajo. Palabras clave: agroecologıa, conservacionde la biodiversidad, cooperativas de agricultores, investigacion de accion participativa.
T he last two decades have seen a prolifera-tion of studies on the biodiversity conser-
vation potential of shade coffee agroecosystems(Perfecto et al. 1996; Perfecto and Vandermeer2008). The evidence shows that coffee planta-tions with a diversified shade tree canopy havehigher biodiversity conservation potential thanplantations under full sun or simplified shade(Perfecto et al. 1996; Moguel and Toledo 1999;Somarriba et al. 2004; Philpott et al. 2008).Most of this research has focused on the coffeeplantation and does not take into account otheragricultural plots that are managed by coffeefarmers (Somarriba et al. 2004; Philpott et al.2008).
Although the notion of agrobiodiversityis implicit in most of the ecological researchon shade coffee, no studies have explicitlyused the concept to analyze these agroecosys-tems. Previous studies have focused on whatVandermeer and Perfecto (1995) define asassociated biodiversity, which refers to plantsand animals that colonize an agroecosystemwithout direct intervention from farmers. Thisperspective stems from an interest in shadecoffee plantations to act as extended habitat forwild biodiversity, such as birds (Komar 2006),insects (Armbrecht, Perfecto, and Silverman2006; Perfecto et al. 1997), mammals (Gallina,Mandujano, and Gonzalez-Romero 1996),and orchids (Solis-Montero, Flores-Palacios,and Cruz-Angon 2005), among others. Thisleaves an information gap regarding plannedbiodiversity, which refers to organisms directlyincorporated into agroecosystems by farmers(Altieri 1999; Vandermeer and Perfecto 1995).The lines between associated and plannedagrobiodiversity can be unclear (Phillipsand Stolton 2008), and both are ultimatelyaffected by farmer management. Both typesof biodiversity have an effect on ecosystemfunction and dynamics (Vandermeer et al.2002) and on the products and benefits thatgrowers obtain (Mendez 2008). We focused onthe useful plant agrobiodiversity of smallholderfarmers and their cooperatives, who tend tomanage coffee plantations with diversified
shade canopies, and low-input management(Moguel and Toledo 1999; Gliessman 2008).
Agrobiodiversity has been defined in differ-ent ways (Qualset, McGuire, and Warbur-ton 1995; Wood and Lenne 1997; Love andSpaner 2007) and can be synonymous with theterms agricultural biodiversity and agrodiversity(Brookfield and Padoch 1994). We consideragrobiodiversity to encompass the diversity ofplants, practices, and knowledge that farmersmanage and use within their farms and in thebroader landscape (Food and Agriculture Or-ganization [FAO] 1999; Brookfield and Padoch2007).
Household Agrobiodiversity
Management at Multiple Scales
To fully account for the agrobiodiversity man-aged by coffee farmers, it is necessary to stepoutside of the coffee plantation and observethe additional plots where they maintain plants.These include parcels for annual crops, trees,live fences, and homegardens surroundinghouseholds (Coelli and Fleming 2004; Ponette-Gonzalez 2007). We propose that to examinethe entirety of agrobiodiversity present, it isnecessary to use the household as the unit ofanalysis, rather than the coffee plantation. Thisallows us to capture the agrobiodiversity man-aged by a household unit, which might includeplots separate from the coffee plantation, oftencared for by different family members.
Although agrobiodiversity is mostly man-aged at the plot and farm scales, ecologicaland social factors at the landscape scale influ-ence its composition and diversity (Brookfieldand Padoch 2007; Phillips and Stolton 2008).These can include the distance a farmer walksto reach a field; seed sources; plant arrange-ments within fields, farms, or landscapes; anddifferent types of support networks (e.g., tech-nical, financial, etc.; Mendez, Lok, and Somar-riba 2001; Bacon 2005a; Mendez 2008). Thereis also a growing interest in assessing agro-biodiversity at the landscape scale and its po-tential role in ecosystem services conservation
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods 359
(Brookfield and Padoch 2007; Jackson, Pascual,and Hodgkin 2007).
A focus on coffee smallholder agrobiodi-versity management is timely because theyare facing globally driven challenges, such asunstable international coffee prices and threatsto food security1 (FAO 2008; Petchers andHarris 2008). We use the livelihoods conceptto analyze the contributions of agrobiodiversityto farm households. A livelihood “comprisesthe capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claimsand access) and activities required for a meansof living” (Chambers and Conway 1992, 6).Understanding the linkages between agrobio-diversity and household livelihoods can provideinsight on how these resources can be usedto support both conservation and livelihoodstrategies (Bacon, Mendez, and Fox 2008).
Initiatives to Support Biodiversity
Conservation in Central American
Shade Coffee
Many studies have highlighted the importanceof agrobiodiversity, for both livelihood andconservation, yet farmers have received mini-mal support for on-farm conservation (Jackson,Pascual, and Hodgkin 2007; Jarvis, Padoch, andCooper 2007; Amend et al. 2008).
In Central America, several initiatives haveattempted to assist shade coffee farmers to con-serve biodiversity. We discuss four initiativesthat have directly or indirectly reached the ruralcommunities we have collaborated with for thisarticle. The first initiative is Rainforest Alliancecertification (Gobbi 2000; Perfecto et al. 2005;Philpott et al. 2007), which pays a premiumto coffee farms that meet biodiversity-friendlyand social criteria (e.g., number of shade trees,limited agrochemical use and dignified hous-ing for workers; Mas and Dietsch 2004). Thiscertification was initiated through the Coffeeand Biodiversity Project, implemented in ElSalvador between 1997 and 2001. Workingwith the Rainforest Alliance, this project devel-oped the criteria for the ECO-OK label, whichlater became Rainforest Alliance (Herrador andDimas 2000; Perfecto and Ambrecht 2003).
Second, we focus on payment or compen-sation for ecosystem services (PES or CES),which argues for rewarding land owners whomanage their properties in a way that will con-serve ecosystem services. Ecosystem services
can be defined as the benefits that humans ob-tain from ecosystems (Costanza et al. 1997;Daily et al. 1997; Wunder 2007). There isgrowing interest in utilizing PES to conserveecosystem services in agricultural landscapes(Pagiola et al. 2004; Robertson and Swinton2005). If managed adequately, shade coffee hasthe potential to conserve several ecosystem ser-vices (Blackman, Avalos-Sartorio, and Chow2007), including biodiversity, soil and waterconservation, and carbon sequestration (Ataroffand Monasterio 1997; Montagnini and Nair2004; Dossa et al. 2008; Philpott et al. 2008;Mendez, Shapiro, and Gilbert 2009). The ex-plicit value of agrobiodiversity to ecosystemservices conservation has recently begun tobe recognized (Hajjar, Jarvis, and Gemmill-Herren 2008).
Agroecotourism is the third initiative we ad-dressed. It is well established in coffee plan-tations of Central America and has provensuccessful mostly for medium to large planta-tion owners (Mendez 2005). Agroecotourismuses the beauty of the coffee landscape, the cul-tural heritage associated with coffee productionand processing, and the planned (e.g., shadetrees) and associated (e.g., birds) agrobiodiver-sity as attractions for visitors (Mendez, 2005).
Finally, we assessed participatory action re-search (PAR), an approach that brings to-gether researchers and other stakeholders ina process that integrates research and ac-tion objectives (Fals-Borda and Rahman 1991;Selener 1997). In agriculture and natural re-sources management, PAR will ideally yield in-teresting research products (e.g., publications)and also support the livelihoods, natural re-sources management capacities, and conserva-tion efforts of community partners (for farmers,this could mean implementing sustainable agri-culture practices, or accessing better markets;Castellanet and Jordan 2002; Fortmann 2008).
This article synthesizes ten years ofagrobiodiversity-related research in coffeecommunities of Nicaragua and El Salvador.We focused on the interactions between agro-biodiversity and household livelihoods and onthe challenges and opportunities to supporton-farm conservation. The specific objectivesof our analysis were to (1) assess the typesand levels of plant agrobiodiversity managedby smallholder coffee households; (2) exam-ine how agrobiodiversity contributed to house-hold livelihoods; and (3) discuss challenges
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
360 Volume 62, Number 3, August 2010
and opportunities of selected initiatives to sup-port agrobiodiversity conservation in small-scale coffee farms and cooperatives of CentralAmerica.
Study Sites
The landscapes we studied contained a pro-tected area surrounded by an agriculturalmatrix (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2002)composed of larger patches of shade coffeeand smaller areas of annual crops (Figure 1).We selected farmers who grew coffee as their
main agricultural and economic occupation,most of whom were members of cooperativesexclusively devoted to coffee activities.
Western El SalvadorIn El Salvador, we worked in the municipal-ity of Tacuba in the western part of the coun-try, with average elevations of 897 m abovesea level (Figure 2). The climate is subtropicalhumid with average rainfall of 1,500 mm peryear (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recur-sos Naturales [MARN] 2002). The natural veg-etation in the area is humid, subtropical forest,
Figure 1 Satellite image of the agricultural landscape where cooperative ES2 is located in Tacuba, ElSalvador. High-resolution imagery by DigitalGlobe Inc., acquired on 27 October 2004.
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods 361
Figure 2 Location of Tacuba, El Salvador, andMatagalpa, Nicaragua.
and soils are predominantly volcanic Andisols(MARN 2003). The cooperatives were locatedin or near the buffer zone of El Imposible Na-tional Park, one of the largest protected naturalforests in the country.
The PAR process has been carried out withfour different types of cooperatives. Coopera-tives ES1 and ES2 were collectively managedcoffee farms, of 195 and 35 ha, respectively.Cooperative ES3 consisted of twenty-eight in-dependently owned and managed farms, withaverage farm sizes of 0.94 ha, including res-idential and subsistence crop areas, and shadecoffee (Mendez 2004). Cooperative 4 (ES4) wasa union between organic farmers from coopera-tives ES2 and ES3, which organized to improvetheir production and marketing efforts.
Northern NicaraguaIn Nicaragua, the research was conducted inthe municipality of San Ramon, Matagalpa, andthe surrounding communities of Yasika Sur and
Yucul (Bacon 2005b; Figure 1). The naturalvegetation in this area is humid, subtropicalforest, and farm elevations ranged between 700and 1,150 m above sea level. Annual precip-itation ranges between 1,600 and 1,800 mm(Gonda and Siadou 2002). The farms borderthe biological reserves of Yucul and El Saltoin Yasika, which are private protected areas.In Nicaragua we worked with the followingtypes of farmers: (1) agrarian reform cooper-atives that were collectively managed duringthe early 1980s (N1, N3, N4, and N5); (2)marketing and service cooperatives thatgrouped individual farmers in an effort to ac-cess credit, markets, and support networks; and(3) farmers unaffiliated with a cooperative.
Institutions and Policies Affecting theCooperative Coffee Sectors in El Salvadorand NicaraguaThe farmers in this research have been in-fluenced by the changing roles of the state,local cooperatives, different types of supportnetworks, and access to organic and fair trademarkets (Bacon, Mendez, and Fox 2008). Inthe 1980s there was a regulated internationalcoffee market with strong domestic agenciesand private exporters. In the 1990s, this shiftedto market deregulation and the privatiza-tion of technical assistance and marketing(Bacon, Mendez, Gliessman, et al. 2008; Bray,Plaza-Sanchez, and Contreras-Murphy 2002).State-led agrarian reforms enabled access toland for all but two of the cooperatives (N2and ES3), but many of these collapsed duringthe 1990s. Some of those that survived formedcooperative unions to gain better access to mar-kets, credit, and development projects. Afterthe retreat of the state and cooperative failures,transnational corporations gained more controlover coffee exports. In El Salvador, the statenever played a dominant role in coffee process-ing and exporting, as these largely remainedin control of an agro-industrial elite (Paige1997). In both countries, cooperatives used fairtrade and organic markets to build relation-ships with coffee roasters and, in Nicaragua,this allowed them to become independentexporters (Bacon 2005b). Most cooperativesalso developed relationships with nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs) and solidarityand farmer organizations, both nationally and
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
362 Volume 62, Number 3, August 2010
internationally (Mendez 2004; Bacon, Mendez,and Fox 2008).
Technical assistance in both countries wasprovided by state agencies and programs de-voted to coffee until the 1990s (PROCAFE inEl Salvador and CONARCA and UNICAFE inNicaragua), focusing mostly on increasing pro-duction through intensification (i.e., high useof inputs and decreased shade levels) in largerplantations (Mendez 2008; Westphal 2008).After the 1990s, these agencies were consider-ably weakened, allowing for NGOs (e.g. Oxfamand TechnoServe) and farmer cooperatives(e.g., CafeNica) to take over technical assis-tance to coffee farmers (Mendez 2004). Thisresulted in a diversification of the content oftechnological offerings (e.g., organic produc-tion and value added) and a stronger focus onsmallholders.
Research Approach and
Methodology
Research in the two sites has been conductedthrough a PAR approach, which started in 1999(Bacon, Mendez, and Brown 2005). Through-out this period we have carried out numerousdata collection efforts from which we draw se-lected information for this article. Key partnersin these activities have included professors andstudents from U.S. universities, different typesof coffee farmer cooperatives in both countries,and national and international NGOs.
Household Livelihood Surveys and FocusGroupsHousehold surveys consisting of open- andclosed-ended questions were conducted in2000, 2002, and 2008. In the first roundswe surveyed fifty-two households in El Sal-vador and 105 households in Nicaragua. In2008, sample sizes were twenty-nine house-holds in El Salvador and seventy-nine house-holds in Nicaragua. Data were collected on thefollowing factors: (1) household demograph-ics (age, gender, occupation, etc.); (2) house-hold livelihoods (income sources, savings, debt,agricultural products, education, and supportnetworks); (3) farmer’s perceptions of biodiver-sity conservation; (4) agricultural management(crops, number of plots, and management prac-
tices); and (5) the functions, benefits, and chal-lenges of cooperative membership.
Shade Tree and Epiphyte Biodiversity inCoffee PlantationsShade tree biodiversity data were collectedin forty-nine and fifty-one plots within cof-fee plantations of Nicaragua and El Salvador,respectively (Mendez and Bacon 2005). Treespecies richness, abundance, and size (diam-eter at breast height and tree height) weremeasured in 1,000 m2 plots. In the two col-lectively managed coffee cooperatives of ElSalvador we established twenty (ES1) and four-teen (ES2) plots through a stratified randomdesign. Stratification was based on shade typesas described by Moguel and Toledo (1999).Seventeen farms were randomly selected incooperative ES3, and plots were placed inthe middle of the coffee parcels of each farm(see Mendez, Gliessman, and Gilbert 2007for details). Nicaraguan inventories followeda similar sampling methodology. Tree specieswere identified by the National Herbarium inNicaragua and La Laguna Botanical Garden inEl Salvador.
Epiphyte surveys were conducted within thesame thirty-seven plots used for tree inven-tories. Data collected included epiphyte pres-ence on trees (orchids, bromeliads, mosses, andferns). We were only able to identify orchidsdue to the availability of a specialist affiliatedwith the National Herbarium in Managua.
Medicinal Plant Surveys in El SalvadorResearch was conducted between October andDecember 2005 and consisted of semistruc-tured interviews and plant inventories on thir-teen farms from cooperatives ES2 and ES3(Shattuck 2005). Information collected also in-cluded perceptions and management of medic-inals and a list of remedies. Common and scien-tific names were matched using Mendez (2004)and Ayala (1994).
Results
Types and Uses of AgrobiodiversityShade coffee households managed four distincttypes of plant agrobiodiversity, including shadetrees, agricultural crops, medicinal plants,and epiphytes (Table 1). Agrobiodiversity was
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
Tab
le1
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofag
robi
odiv
ersi
tyfo
und
insh
ade
coffe
eho
useh
olds
ofEl
Salv
ador
and
Nic
arag
ua
Ag
rob
iod
ivers
ity
typ
eG
row
thh
ab
itLo
cati
on
No
.o
fsp
ecie
sU
ses
rep
ort
ed
Sam
plin
geff
ort
an
dm
eth
od
Refe
ren
ce(s
)
ElS
alva
dor
Tree
sW
oody
pere
nnia
lS
CP
123
S,FW
,Fr,
M,T
Com
plet
etr
eein
vent
orie
sin
fifty
-one
1,00
0m
2pl
ots,
and
52ho
useh
old
surv
eys
inth
ree
coffe
eco
oper
ativ
es
Men
dez,
Glie
ssm
an,
and
Gilb
ert
(200
7)
Agr
icul
tura
lcro
psH
erba
ceou
sA
P7
F,M
Sem
istr
uctu
red
inte
rvie
ws
and
part
icip
ator
ym
aps
with
29ho
useh
olds
Ols
on(fo
rthc
omin
g;
data
colle
cted
in20
08)
Med
icin
alpl
ants
Woo
dype
renn
ial,
shru
bs,h
erba
ceou
sS
CP,
AP,
HG
119
F,M
,FW
Sem
istr
uctu
red
inte
rvie
ws
and
field
iden
tifica
tion
in13
hous
ehol
ds;i
nfor
mal
inte
rvie
ws,
dire
ctob
serv
atio
n
Sha
ttuck
(200
5)
Nic
arag
uaTr
ees
Woo
dype
renn
ial
SC
P10
6S,
FW,F
r,M
,TC
ompl
ete
tree
inve
ntor
ies
inth
irty-
seve
n1,
000
m2
plot
s,an
d34
hous
ehol
dsu
rvey
sin
four
coffe
eco
oper
ativ
es
Bac
on(2
005b
)
Agr
icul
tura
lcro
psH
erba
ceou
sA
P7
F,M
Hou
seho
ldle
vels
urve
ysin
82ho
useh
olds
Bac
onet
al.
(fort
hcom
ing)
Orc
hids
Prim
arily
epyp
hite
sS
CP,
HG
96O
Orc
hid
inve
ntor
ies
ontr
ees
inan
dar
ound
thirt
y-se
ven
1,00
0-m
2pl
ots
on34
farm
sM
arce
ll-Ve
lasq
uez
(200
8)
Not
e:Fo
rlo
catio
n,A
P=
agric
ultu
ralp
lot;
LF=
live
fenc
e;H
G=
hom
ega
rden
;SC
P=
shad
eco
ffee
plan
tatio
n.Fo
rus
es,
F=
food
;Fr
=fr
uit;
FW=
firew
ood;
M=
med
icin
al;
S=
shad
e;T
=tim
ber;
O=
orna
men
tal.
363
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
364 Volume 62, Number 3, August 2010
found in four locations, including shade coffeeplantations, homegardens, agricultural plots,and live fences. Shade trees, medicinals, andepiphytes were found in several locations,whereas crops were only found in agriculturalplots (Table 1). Trees were the most species-rich group, with a total of 123 and 106 species inEl Salvador and Nicaragua, respectively. Agri-cultural crop species diversity was similar inboth countries, but differences were observedin the types of crops grown and the numberof varieties. Nicaraguan households managedthirteen varieties of corn and nine varieties ofbeans. These numbers are higher than thoseobserved in El Salvador (Table 2), but this couldbe due to a larger sample size in Nicaragua.The number of coffee varieties was also higherin Nicaragua (eight), compared to El Salvador(two). Medicinals in El Salvador were a verydiverse group, both in terms of species andgrowth habit (119 species of trees, shrubs, andherbs).
The most frequent tree species were similarin Nicaragua and El Salvador (Table 2). Treesof the genus Inga were common in both coun-tries, as they have desirable characteristics forshade, including nitrogen fixation, pruning tol-erance, nondeciduousness, and fruit (Beer et al.1998). The native timber tree Laurel (Cordia al-liodora) was also common in both countries. Sal-vadorans planted a greater variety of vegetables(tomatoes, peppers, and cabbage), which weremostly used for sales. Nicaraguan householdsmost frequently grew locally valued crops, suchas cacao (Theobroma cacao) and passion fruit(Passiflora spp.) for sale. Most medicinal speciesreported in El Salvador had multiple uses, ex-cept for Epazote (Chenopodium amrosoides) andSavila (Aloe barbadensis), which were exclusivelymedicinal.
Comparison of Agrobiodiversity BetweenCooperative TypesOur previous studies demonstrated that typeof cooperative management (i.e., collectiveor individual) is an important factor affect-ing shade tree biodiversity (Mendez, Gliess-man, and Gilbert 2007; Mendez, Shapiro, andGilbert 2009). In El Salvador, individuallymanaged farms contained significantly higherlevels of tree richness and abundance comparedto collectively managed cooperatives (Table 3;
Mendez, Gliessman, and Gilbert 2007), buttrees in individual farms tended to be smaller.The findings from Nicaragua show a simi-lar pattern, suggesting that farms with collec-tive management practices have lower shadetree species richness and abundance but largertrees. Cooperatives ES1, ES2, N1, N3, N4,and N5 were large, private plantations priorto the agrarian reforms and were then trans-ferred to resource-poor farmers. In Nicaragua,most of these cooperatives were subdivided intoindividual farms in the 1990s (except for N1),whereas in El Salvador they are still collectivelymanaged.
Contributions of Agrobiodiversity toHousehold LivelihoodsAgrobiodiversity managed by coffee farmerscontributed to household livelihoods by gen-erating products for consumption, incomethrough sales, or both (Table 4). Farmersreported seven plant uses (Table 1), whichincluded food (grains and vegetables), fruit,firewood, medicine, shade, timber, and orna-mentals. Trees provided the most diversity ofuses, including fruit, medicine, firewood, andshade.
Agricultural crops were used for food andincome generation, and medicinal plants wereused exclusively for remedies. Food crops pro-vided at least 40 percent of subsistence grains(corn and beans) for most families in bothcountries (Table 4). Coffee generated between50 and 100 percent of the annual incomeof most households. Firewood for consump-tion and sales was collected from trees andshrubs in the coffee plantation, home gar-dens, and live fences. Farmers in both coun-tries reported harvesting an average of 50 per-cent of the firewood they use, which amountsroughly to US$75 per year. This is a consider-able amount for households reporting averagemonthly incomes below US$170 (El Salvador)and US$100 (Nicaragua).
Individual farmers obtained a higher diver-sity of products from agrobiodiversity than col-lective cooperatives. The number of fruit andother edible species in coffee plots of indi-vidual farms is considerably higher in bothcountries (Mendez, Shapiro, and Gilbert 2009;Bacon et al. forthcoming). In El Salvador,mean monthly household income showed no
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
Tab
le2
Mos
tfre
quen
tpla
ntsp
ecie
sm
anag
edby
coffe
eho
useh
olds
inEl
Salv
ador
and
Nic
arag
ua
Ty
pe,
co
mm
on
nam
e,
Uses
No
.o
fan
dsp
ecie
sre
po
rte
dL
ocati
on
Fre
qu
en
cy
(%)
vari
eti
es
Sam
ple
siz
eR
efe
ren
ce(s
)
ElS
alva
dor
tree
sC
opal
chi(
Cro
ton
refle
xifo
lius)
F,W
SC
P,LF
57N
/An
=51
plot
sin
shad
eco
ffee
Men
dez,
Glie
ssm
an,
and
Gilb
ert
(200
7)In
gapu
ncta
taS,
FrS
CP,
LF57
N/A
n=
51pl
ots
insh
ade
coffe
eM
ende
z,G
liess
man
,an
dG
ilber
t(2
007)
Laur
el( C
ordi
aal
liodo
ra)
S,T
SC
P,LF
55N
/An
=51
plot
sin
shad
eco
ffee
Men
dez,
Glie
ssm
an,
and
Gilb
ert
(200
7)In
gaoe
rste
dian
aS,
FrS
CP,
LF49
N/A
n=
51pl
ots
insh
ade
coffe
eM
ende
z,G
liess
man
,an
dG
ilber
t(2
007)
Crit
onia
mor
ifolia
S,F
SC
P,LF
45N
/An
=51
plot
sin
shad
eco
ffee
Men
dez,
Glie
ssm
an,
and
Gilb
ert
(200
7)M
ango
( Man
gife
rain
dica
)S,
F,Fr
SC
P,LF
41N
/An
=51
plot
sin
shad
eco
ffee
Men
dez,
Glie
ssm
an,
and
Gilb
ert
(200
7)A
gric
ultu
ralc
rops
Cor
n( Z
eam
ays)
FA
P93
6n
=29
hous
ehol
din
terv
iew
san
dm
aps
Ols
on(fo
rthc
omin
g)B
ean
( Pha
seol
usvu
lgar
is)
FA
P81
2n
=29
hous
ehol
din
terv
iew
san
dm
aps
Ols
on(fo
rthc
omin
g)To
mat
o( L
ycop
ersi
cum
escu
lent
a)F
AP
33U
nkno
wn
n=
29ho
useh
old
inte
rvie
ws
and
map
sO
lson
(fort
hcom
ing)
Chi
leve
rde
( Cap
sicu
msp
p.)
FA
P30
Unk
now
nn
=29
hous
ehol
din
terv
iew
san
dm
aps
Ols
on(fo
rthc
omin
g)C
offe
e( C
offe
aar
abic
a)S
CP
100
2n
=51
plot
sin
shad
eco
ffee
Men
dez,
Glie
ssm
an,
and
Gilb
ert
(200
7)M
edic
inal
sE
pazo
te( C
heno
podi
umam
roso
ides
)M
62N
/An
=13
sem
istr
uctu
red
inte
rvie
ws
and
field
surv
eys
Sha
ttuck
(200
5)
Sav
ila( A
loe
barb
aden
sis)
M46
N/A
n=
13se
mis
truc
ture
din
terv
iew
san
dfie
ldsu
rvey
sS
hattu
ck(2
005)
Izot
e( Y
ucca
elep
hant
ipes
)F,
LF,M
,W46
N/A
n=
13se
mis
truc
ture
din
terv
iew
san
dfie
ldsu
rvey
sS
hattu
ck(2
005)
Chi
chip
ince
( Ham
elia
pate
ns)
M,S
46N
/An
=13
sem
istr
uctu
red
inte
rvie
ws
and
field
surv
eys
Sha
ttuck
(200
5)
San
And
res
( Tec
oma
stan
s)FW
,LF,
M,S
38N
/An
=13
sem
istr
uctu
red
inte
rvie
ws
and
field
surv
eys
Sha
ttuck
(200
5)
(Con
tinue
don
next
page
)
365
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
Tab
le2
Mos
tfre
quen
tpla
ntsp
ecie
sm
anag
edby
coffe
eho
useh
olds
inEl
Salv
ador
and
Nic
arag
ua(C
ontin
ued)
Ty
pe,
co
mm
on
nam
e,
Uses
No
.o
fan
dsp
ecie
sre
po
rte
dL
ocati
on
Fre
qu
en
cy
(%)
vari
eti
es
Sam
ple
siz
eR
efe
ren
ce(s
)
Nic
arag
uatr
ees
Gua
baro
ja( In
gaed
ulis
)S,
FWS
CP
70N
/An
=37
plot
sin
34sh
ade
coffe
efa
rms
Bac
on(2
005b
)G
uaba
negr
a( In
gapu
ncta
ta)
S,FW
SC
P59
N/A
n=
37pl
ots
in34
shad
eco
ffee
farm
sB
acon
(200
5b)
Laur
el( C
ordi
aal
liodo
ra)
S,T,
SC
P54
N/A
n=
37pl
ots
in34
shad
eco
ffee
farm
sB
acon
(200
5b)
Gua
sim
o( G
uazu
ma
ulm
ifolia
)S,
T,M
SC
P38
N/A
n=
37pl
ots
in34
shad
eco
ffee
farm
sB
acon
(200
5b)
Mam
pas
( Lip
pia
myr
ocep
hala
)S,
SC
P32
N/A
n=
37pl
ots
in34
shad
eco
ffee
farm
sB
acon
(200
5b)
Nog
al( J
ugla
nsol
anch
a)S,
T,M
SC
P32
N/A
n=
37pl
ots
in34
shad
eco
ffee
farm
sB
acon
(200
5b)
Gua
yaba
( Psi
dium
guaj
ava)
S,Fr
,M,
SC
P30
N/A
n=
37pl
ots
in34
shad
eco
ffee
farm
sB
acon
(200
5b)
Agr
icul
tura
lcro
psC
orn
( Zea
may
s)F
AP
8713
n=
79ho
useh
olds
inst
ruct
ured
surv
eys
Bac
onet
al.
(fort
hcom
ing)
Bea
n( P
hase
olus
vulg
aris
)F
AP
845
n=
79ho
useh
olds
inst
ruct
ured
surv
eys
Bac
onet
al.
(fort
hcom
ing)
Mus
asp
p.F
SC
P,H
G10
Unk
now
nn
=79
hous
ehol
dsin
stru
ctur
edsu
rvey
sB
acon
etal
.(fo
rthc
omin
g)C
acao
( The
obro
ma
caca
o)F
SC
P,H
G5
Unk
now
nn
=79
hous
ehol
dsin
stru
ctur
edsu
rvey
sB
acon
etal
.(fo
rthc
omin
g)C
hayo
te( S
echi
umed
ule)
FS
CP,
HG
4U
nkno
wn
n=
79ho
useh
olds
inst
ruct
ured
surv
eys
Bac
onet
al.
(fort
hcom
ing)
Mar
acuy
a( P
assi
flora
edul
is)
FS
CP,
HG
4U
nkno
wn
n=
79ho
useh
olds
inst
ruct
ured
surv
eys
Bac
onet
al.
(fort
hcom
ing)
Cof
fee
( Cof
fea
arab
ica)
SC
P10
08
n=
79ho
useh
olds
inst
ruct
ured
surv
eys
Bac
onet
al.
(fort
hcom
ing)
Not
e:Fo
rlo
catio
n,A
P=
agric
ultu
ral
Plot
;LF
=liv
eFe
nce;
HG
=ho
me
gard
en;
SCP
=sh
ade
coffe
epl
anta
tion.
For
uses
,F
=fo
od;
Fr=
frui
t;FW
=fir
ewoo
d;M
=m
edic
inal
;S
=sh
ade;
T=
timbe
r;O
=or
nam
enta
l;N
/A=
nota
pplic
able
.
366
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
Tab
le3
Com
paris
onof
agro
biod
iver
sity
indi
ffere
ntty
pes
ofsh
ade
coffe
eco
oper
ativ
esof
ElSa
lvad
oran
dN
icar
agua
Nic
ara
gu
aE
lS
alv
ad
or
N1
N2
N3
&4
N5
ES
1E
S2
ES
3E
S4
Re
fere
nce
(s)
Coo
pera
tive
man
agem
ent
type
Col
lect
ive
fair
trad
eO
rgan
ican
din
divi
dual
fair
trad
e
Indi
vidu
alfa
irtr
ade
Con
vent
iona
lin
divi
dual
aO
rgan
icco
llect
ive
and
fair
trad
e
Col
lect
ive
orga
nic
and
indi
vidu
al
Indi
vidu
alco
nven
tiona
lIn
divi
dual
and
colle
ctiv
e,bo
thor
gani
can
dco
nven
tiona
lLa
ndm
anag
emen
thi
stor
yA
grar
ian
refo
rmco
llect
ive
(198
2–19
84)
Indi
vidu
alhi
stor
ies
Agr
aria
nre
form
(198
0s),
colle
ctiv
e(1
990)
indi
vidu
al
Agr
aria
nre
form
(198
0s),
colle
ctiv
e(1
990)
indi
vidu
al
Agr
aria
nre
form
colle
ctiv
e(1
980)
Trad
ition
alco
llect
ive
(198
4)
Indi
vidu
alfa
rmer
asso
ciat
ion
(200
1)
Farm
eran
dco
oper
ativ
eas
soci
atio
n(2
007)
Tota
lare
am
anag
ed(b
oth
colle
ctiv
ean
din
divi
dual
)(in
ha)
100
117
173
4919
535
Est
imat
eof
53in
2004
45
Ave
rage
farm
size
per
mem
berb
6.3
6.5
4.9
2.9
2.0
2.5
0.7
No
data
c
Num
ber
of1,
000
m2
plot
s12
811
720
1417
24M
ende
z,G
liess
man
,an
dG
ilber
t(2
007)
Tota
lsha
detr
eesp
ecie
sric
hnes
sd38
5852
4769
a48
a93
b(p
<
0.00
01)
No
data
Men
dez,
Glie
ssm
an,
and
Gilb
ert
(200
7)M
ean
tree
spec
ies
richn
ess
per
1,00
0m
2pl
otd
914
1112
12a
12a
22b
(p<
0.00
01)
No
data
Men
dez,
Glie
ssm
an,
and
Gilb
ert
(200
7)M
ean
num
ber
offo
odcr
ops
grow
npe
rho
useh
old
No
data
No
data
No
data
No
data
No
data
2.58
No
data
2.2
Ols
on(fo
rth-
com
ing)
a Com
para
ble
indi
vidu
alfa
rmer
sno
taffi
liate
dw
ithan
yco
oper
ativ
e.bC
olle
ctiv
ely
man
aged
fore
sts
noti
nclu
ded.
c No
data
avai
labl
eor
data
bein
gpr
oces
sed.
dM
eans
follo
wed
byth
esa
me
subs
crip
tare
nots
igni
fican
tlydi
ffere
nt.
367
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
Tab
le4
Con
trib
utio
nsof
agro
biod
iver
sity
tosh
ade
coffe
eho
useh
old
livel
ihoo
dsin
ElSa
lvad
oran
dN
icar
agua
Main
co
ntr
ibu
tio
ns
toA
gro
bio
div
ers
ity
typ
eLo
cati
on
ho
useh
old
livelih
oo
ds
Va
lue
rep
ort
ed
by
farm
ers
Sam
plin
gR
efe
ren
ce(s
)
ElS
alva
dor
Tree
sS
CP,
HG
,LF
Fire
woo
d,fr
uit,
timbe
ran
dsh
ade,
and
inco
me
Fire
woo
dob
tain
edfr
omsh
ade
tree
ssa
ved
hous
ehol
dsan
aver
age
of$7
1.50
per
year
in20
02
Com
plet
etr
eein
vent
orie
sin
fifty
-one
1,00
0m
2pl
ots,
and
52ho
useh
old
surv
eys
inth
ree
coffe
eco
oper
ativ
es
Men
dez,
Glie
ssm
an,
and
Gilb
ert
(200
7)
Agr
icul
tura
lcro
psA
PFo
odan
din
com
e62
%of
the
sam
ple
( n=
18)r
epor
ted
prod
ucin
gat
leas
t40
%of
the
food
used
byth
efa
mily
inon
eye
ar
Sur
veys
and
sem
istr
uctu
red
inte
rvie
ws
with
29ho
useh
olds
Mor
ris(2
008)
Med
icin
alpl
ants
SC
P,A
P,H
GM
edic
inal
rem
edie
sM
edic
inal
plan
tsar
eva
lued
beca
use
farm
ers
cann
otaf
ford
mod
ern
med
icin
esor
heal
thca
re
Sem
istr
uctu
red
inte
rvie
ws
and
field
iden
tifica
tion
in13
hous
ehol
ds;i
nfor
mal
inte
rvie
ws,
dire
ctob
serv
atio
n
Sha
ttuck
(200
5)
Nic
arag
uaTr
ees
SC
P,H
G,L
FFi
rew
ood,
frui
t,tim
ber
and
shad
e,an
din
com
e
Farm
ers
repo
rted
anav
erag
eof
$167
per
year
from
firew
ood
sale
s,in
addi
tion
toco
verin
gth
eir
own
firew
ood
need
s
n=
37pl
ots
in34
shad
eco
ffee
farm
sB
acon
(200
5a,2
005b
)
Agr
icul
tura
lcro
psA
PFo
odan
din
com
eA
vera
geof
50%
offo
odis
prod
uced
inth
ese
field
sS
urve
ysan
dse
mis
truc
ture
din
terv
iew
sw
ith79
hous
ehol
dsB
acon
etal
.(fo
rthc
omin
g)O
rchi
dsS
CP,
HG
Orn
amen
tala
ndin
com
eA
esth
etic
and
orna
men
tal
n=
37pl
ots
in34
shad
eco
ffee
farm
sM
arce
ll-Ve
lasq
uez
(200
8)
Not
e:Fo
rloc
atio
n,A
P=
agric
ultu
ralp
lot;
LF=
live
fenc
e;H
G=
hom
ega
rden
;SC
P=
shad
eco
ffee
plan
tatio
n.
368
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods 369
significant differences between individual farmsand collective cooperatives (Mendez 2004). Asimilar trend was also observed in Nicaragua(Bacon et al. forthcoming).
All respondents in El Salvador interviewedfor medicinal plant use (n = 13) reportedhaving little or no access to health services.Medicinal plants were only used for com-mon ailments such as aches, diarrhea, commoncolds, and so on. For serious illnesses respon-dents went to public clinics or hospitals, whichtend to be short-staffed and ill-equipped facil-ities. Families expressed a desire to reacquaintthemselves with medicinal plant knowledge andexpressed concern that this knowledge is be-coming scarce. Nonetheless, Shattuck (2005)was able to collect 260 remedy recipes for sixty-two ailments.
Nicaraguan farmers stated that epiphyteshave an important aesthetic value for them.Many farmers “rescue” epiphytes from fallentree branches and perch them on trees neartheir houses, and the cooperatives use epiphytesas a tourist attraction. Epiphytes can also besold to local restaurants and wealthier house-holds, but this is illegal and thus goes largelyunreported.
Seed Sources and ExchangesFarmers in El Salvador (n = 29) reported ob-taining corn and bean seed from the follow-ing sources: (1) saving their own seed, (2)buying from another farmer, (3) local exten-sion office, (4) local agricultural store, or (5) acombination. Six varieties of corn were re-ported in El Salvador, including an improvedhybrid, which is bought locally or obtainedfrom the extension service, and five local vari-eties maintained by farmers (criollo). Thirty-sixpercent of households in El Salvador used onlythe seed they saved, with a similar percentageonly buying or receiving improved seed. Therest used a combination of both. Salvadorancoffee farmers used only two coffee varieties,Borbon, an older variety known for its qualityand high shade requirements, and Pacas, a hy-brid of Borbon bred specifically for Salvadoranconditions. Most farmers save their own coffeeseed.
Nicaraguan farmers reported higher diver-sity of varietals of corn (thirteen) and cof-fee (eight) than Salvadoran households. Thesefarmers received support from the Campesino
a Campesino (farmer-to-farmer) movement,which has been active in this region fortwo decades (Bacon 2005b). Local NGOs,the cooperatives, and the local Campesino-a-Campesino chapter have organized annual seedexchanges, promoted seed saving, and encour-aged traditional seed use. Although these pro-grams promote the more traditional corn vari-eties such as criollo and maizon and the Arabigo,Borbon, and Maragogype coffee varieties, mostcoffee farmers also use coffee hybrids, such asCaturra, Catimor, and Catuai. A similar patternwas observed for corn varieties, with 71 percentof households planting one or more traditionalvarieties, 29 percent using only newer varieties,and 19 percent planting both. Farmers have ac-cessed these newer varieties through purchasesin regional markets and through the govern-ment’s agricultural ministry.
Discussion
Agrobiodiversity in Smallholder ShadeCoffee HouseholdsAlthough there were some differences betweenthe study sites, overall, households managedhigh levels of plant agrobiodiversity. The diver-sity of trees found represents relatively high lev-els of species richness compared to other studiesof shade coffee in Mesoamerica (Philpott et al.2008). Farmers at both sites also managed adiversity of food crop species and varieties. Ahigh number of orchid species was also foundin Nicaragua, as compared to a similar study inMexico (Hietz 2005). In El Salvador, more than100 medicinal species were found, and farmershighlighted the importance of the knowledgeassociated with this type of agrobiodiversity.
Individually managed small farms containedhigher levels of shade tree agrobiodiversity incoffee plantations than collectively managedcooperatives at both sites. This supportsother research highlighting the importanceof small-scale tropical farms as reservoirs ofagrobiodiversity (Gliessman, Garcıa-Espinosa,and Amador 1981; Altieri 2004; Perfectoand Vandermeer 2008; Scales and Marsden2008). The higher levels of agrobiodiversityin individual farms were the result of growersseeking to obtain a diversity of products(e.g., fruit, firewood and timber), whereaslarger, collectively managed cooperativesconcentrated on coffee production and did
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
370 Volume 62, Number 3, August 2010
not prioritize product diversification (Mendez,Shapiro, and Gilbert 2009).
Our plant agrobiodiversity findings arecomparable to those found in shade cacaoagroforestry systems. Although less research isavailable on shade cacao, recent studies havereported on the biodiversity of numerous taxain several regions (Schroth and Harvey 2007).Shade tree species richness of shade cacaoplantations in Costa Rica was lower than atour sites, with a total of fifty-four and a meanof seven species in fourteen plots (Harvey andVillalobos 2007). Indonesian shade cacao farmscontained a higher number of tree species thanthose in our study, with a total of 189 speciesand a mean of twenty-six species per plot(Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2007). Similar resultswere found in southern Cameroon, with a totalof 206 tree species and a mean of twenty-onespecies per plot (Sonwa et al. 2007).
Contributions of Agrobiodiversity toHousehold LivelihoodsThe agrobiodiversity managed by coffee house-holds, in both countries, produced food, fire-wood, and timber for consumption. Theseproducts also generated income through sales.Taken as a whole, this accounts for at least50 percent of household income (roughly halfof which comes from coffee) and at least 40percent of the household’s staple food supply.Farmers also appreciated plants for their orna-mental and medicinal value.
Less research is available on the livelihoodcontributions of plant agrobiodiversity in shadecacao plantations. Bentley, Boa, and Stone-house (2004) reported that shade trees in ca-cao plantations of Ecuador were also sourcesof fruit and timber for household consump-tion and markets. Research in Costa Rica andPanama showed that diversified shade cacaoagroforestry systems were economically lessrisky than monocultures, and could generatesubstantial timber yields of the native Lau-rel tree (Cordia alliodora; Ramırez et al. 2001;Somarriba et al. 2001).
Conserving Agrobiodiversity in ShadeCoffee LandscapesProviding incentives for farmers to continueto conserve agrobiodiversity could result in
positive outcomes both for household liveli-hoods and conservation. An examination ofthe four biodiversity conservation initiativeswe discussed can provide insight on how todevelop more successful alternatives to sup-port agrobiodiversity conservation in coffeesmallholdings.
Although Rainforest Alliance certifiers haveapproached several of the cooperatives in thisstudy, the farmers have remained suspiciousof these certifications. This is largely due tocertifiers initially working only with owners oflarger plantations, who have historical tense re-lationships with smallholders. It also failed toengage rural social and cooperative organiza-tions, which serve as a reference to smallhold-ers and cooperatives (Bray, Plaza-Sanchez, andContreras-Murphy 2002). This initiative hasalso focused exclusively on the coffee planta-tion and has shown no concern for other typesof agrobiodiversity (e.g., agricultural crops andmedicinal) that are important to smallholdercoffee farmers.
PES has so far been implemented mostlythrough top-down mechanisms requiring ahigh level of capacity from participants, whichhas resulted in limited participation from small-holders (Corbera, Kosoy, and Tuna 2007). Inboth El Salvador and Nicaragua, government-led PES projects were initially interested inworking with shade coffee farmers to conservebiodiversity (Rosa, Kandel, and Dimas 2004).Cooperatives in both countries attended work-shops and were interested in the possibility ofdeveloping a PES initiative. To date, however,none of these initial efforts has materialized.
The PAR processes that have been carriedout with the coffee farmers of Nicaragua andEl Salvador have supported training and dis-cussions related to agrobiodiversity conser-vation (Mendez 2004; Bacon 2005b; Bacon,Mendez, and Brown 2005; Mendez and Bacon2006; Mendez, Gliessman, and Gilbert 2007).Researchers have accumulated a considerableamount of social and ecological informationand have been able to change some of the farm-ers’ negative assumptions related to conserva-tion, but the PAR process has generally lackedthe funds or capacity to implement initiatives,as most of the support has been in the formof capacity building, advising, and expansion ofsupport networks (Bacon, Mendez, and Brown2005).
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods 371
Agroecotourism and PAR both emergedthrough a “bottom-up” approach, which al-lowed farmers to develop a sense of owner-ship in these activities. In 2003, a partnershipbetween Nicaraguan cooperative unions, par-ticipatory action researchers, and alternativetrade NGO networks launched an agroecotur-ism project (Bacon 2005b). This cooperative-based initiative sought to promote economicopportunities for youth and women, diver-sify smallholders’ income, and conserve theenvironment (UCA San Ramon 2008). Thisproject has received more than 1,200 visits fromfair trade networks, foreign universities, andsolidarity organizations. Despite these accom-plishments, the farmers face persistent chal-lenges, including an insufficient number of vis-itors to cover the costs of the program (UCASan Ramon 2008). In El Salvador, agroeco-tourism was also facilitated through the PARprocess and took the form of educational ex-changes from solidarity organizations and U.S.universities (Mendez 2008). Although theseactivities were developed with high farmer par-ticipation, they have had limited resources andonly reached a small number of beneficiaries.
As has been discussed in the IntegratedConservation and Development Project andcommunity-based conservation literature, top-down conservation initiatives that fail to in-tegrate community participation have beenlargely unsuccessful with small-scale farmers indeveloping countries (Barrett and Arcese 1995;McShane 2003; Rosa et al. 2004; Wells andMcShane 2004). This is also illustrated by twoof the cases presented earlier. On the otherhand, many grassroots initiatives lack the re-sources to provide sufficient benefits and toscale up to larger areas and higher numbers ofbeneficiaries. This argues for a hybrid model,which is able to integrate community-basedprojects with the resources from top-down ap-proaches (Berkes 2007; Amend et al. 2008).
Conclusions
Our research demonstrates that shade coffeesmallholder households in El Salvador andNicaragua manage high levels of agrobiodiver-sity, both within and outside the coffee planta-tion. Households use these products for directconsumption and income generation throughsales. The agrobiodiversity managed by small-
holder coffee households was able to almostfully provide for their basic needs. This mea-sure of success was tempered, however, by thefact that the levels of income of these house-holds were at or below the poverty line (Bacon,Mendez, Flores Gomez, et al. 2008) and thathouseholds continue to face food shortages onan annual basis.2
Our results support other work demonstrat-ing that agroforestry systems, such as shade cof-fee and cacao, have great potential to conserveplant agrobiodiversity in tropical landscapes(Schroth et al. 2004). In addition, our sugges-tions for improving support initiatives shouldbe applicable to other settings and agroforestrysystems that are managed by smallholders andcooperatives.
Cooperative types and land use managementhistory had a strong influence on the levelsof agrobiodiversity found, with small, individ-ually managed farms containing higher levelsof shade tree agrobiodiversity than larger col-lectively managed cooperatives. Smallholdershave repeatedly been left out of conservationinitiatives, such as the ones discussed in thisarticle. Based on our findings, we argue thatthey should be supported and included in fu-ture conservation efforts.
More in-depth research is necessary to bet-ter understand how food security,3 landscape-scale conservation, and climate change will af-fect the agrobiodiversity conservation potentialof shade coffee smallholders in the future. Inthis light, PAR approaches can make impor-tant contributions to these endeavors becausethey are done with the participation of com-munities, produce relevant and necessary data,and facilitate capacity building and support net-works. For this approach to scale up to largerareas and more beneficiaries, however, it willneed to seek partnerships with more conven-tional models (i.e., top-down projects) that areable to contribute the necessary financial andhuman resources. An integration of these dis-tinct models will require a deliberate and re-spectful dialogue, which takes into account thecomplexity of conditions and needs of multiplestakeholders (Berkes 2007). �
Notes
1 Food security is an issue that has been largely ig-nored by the biodiversity conservation literature
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
372 Volume 62, Number 3, August 2010
on shade coffee, but it has been addressed by so-cial and interdisciplinary studies (e.g., Jaffee 2007;Bacon, Mendez, and Fox 2008). Agrobiodiversity iscritical to food security, as the increasing homoge-nization of agriculture often raises the vulnerabilityof smallholders (Thrupp 2000; Caceres 2006). Thisrelates to our argument that previous studies havehad an exclusive focus on the coffee plantation,rather than all land units for agricultural produc-tion. Our recent research (Bacon, Mendez, FloresGomez, et al. 2008; Morris 2008; Olson forthcom-ing) directly addresses food security, both in termsof production of food crops in agricultural areasand the coffee plantation, as well as to related pol-icy issues in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and CentralAmerica.
2 Of key importance is the fact that most smallholdercoffee farmers face a persistent shortage of food forup to two to three months (los meses flacos) when in-come from coffee has been spent and the new cropof corn and beans has not been harvested (Jaffee2007; Morris 2008).
3 Fully addressing food security for the farmers whoparticipated in this study requires a shift in policy,rural development initiatives, and household man-agement so that it integrates food and coffee pro-duction as equally important livelihood strategies.To date, policy and rural development efforts haveconcentrated on improving coffee production andsales, leaving food production mostly unattended.A promising initiative led by progressive coffee im-porters and buyers in North America (e.g., GreenMountain Coffee Roasters and Cooperative Cof-fees) has recently addressed food security issues byfunding research and food security projects in col-laboration with several of the cooperatives men-tioned in this article, and the first and secondauthors.
Literature Cited
Altieri, M. A. 1999. The ecological role of biodi-versity in agroecosystems. Agriculture Ecosystems &Environment 74 (1–3): 19–31.
———. 2004. Linking ecologists and traditionalfarmers in the search for sustainable agriculture.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2 (1): 35–42.
Amend, T., J. Brown, A. Kothari, A. Phillips, andS. Stolton, eds. 2008. Protected landscapes and agro-biodiversity values. Heidelberg, Germany: IUCN >Z.
Armbrecht, I., I. Perfecto, and E. Silverman. 2006.Limitation of nesting resources for ants in Colom-bian forests and coffee plantations. Ecological Ento-mology 31 (5): 403–10.
Ataroff, M., and M. Monasterio. 1997. Soil erosionunder different management of coffee plantationsin the Venezuelan Andes. Soil Technology 11:95–108.
Ayala, J. C. 1994. Botanica medicinal popular y et-nobotanica medicinal de El Salvador [Popular medicinalbotany and medicinal ethnobotany of El Salvador]. SanSalvador, El Salvador: Jardın Botanico La Laguna.
Bacon, C. 2005a. Confronting the coffee cri-sis: Can fair trade, organic and specialty cof-fees reduce small-scale farmer vulnerability innorthern Nicaragua. World Development 33 (3):497–511.
———. 2005b. Confronting the coffee crisis:Nicaraguan smallholders use of cooperative, fairtrade and agroecological networks to negotiatelivelihoods and sustainability. PhD dissertation,University of California, Santa Cruz, CA.
Bacon, C. M., M. A. Flores Gomez, A. Marcel, and S.R. Dıaz Flores. Forthcoming. Arboles, cooperativas,cafe y orquıdeas en cafetales bajo sombra (ACOGE)[Trees, cooperatives, coffee, and orchids in shade coffee].Matagalpa, Nicaragua: CECOCAFEN.
Bacon, C., V. E. Mendez, and M. Brown. 2005. Par-ticipatory action-research and support for communitydevelopment and conservation: Examples from shadecoffee landscapes of El Salvador and Nicaragua. SantaCruz, CA: Center for Agroecology and SustainableFood Systems, University of California.
Bacon, C. M., V. E. Mendez, M. A. Flores Gomez,D. Stuart, and S. R. Dıaz Flores. 2008. Are sustain-able coffee certifications enough to secure farmerlivelihoods? The millenium development goals andNicaragua’s fair trade cooperatives. Globalizations 5(2): 259–74.
Bacon, C. M., V. E. Mendez, and J. A. Fox. 2008. Cul-tivating sustainable coffee: Persistent paradoxes.In Confronting the coffee crisis: Fair trade, sustain-able livelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico and CentralAmerica, ed. C. M. Bacon, V. E. Mendez, S. R.Gliessman, D. Goodman, and J. A. Fox, 337–72.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bacon, C. M., V. E. Mendez, S. R. Gliessman, D.Goodman, and J. A. Fox, eds. 2008. Confrontingthe coffee crisis: Fair trade, sustainable livelihoods andecosystems in Mexico and Central America. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Barrett, C. B., and P. Arcese. 1995. Areintegrated conservation-development projects(ICDPs) sustainable—On the conservation of largemammals in sub-Saharan Africa. World Develop-ment 23 (7): 1073–84.
Beer, J., R. Muschler, D. Kass, and E. Somarriba.1998. Shade management in coffee and cacao plan-tations. Agroforestry Systems 38 (1–3): 139–64.
Bentley, J. W., E. Boa, & J. Stonehouse. 2004.Neighbor trees: Shade, intercropping, and cacaoin Ecuador. Human Ecology 32 (2): 241–70.
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods 373
Berkes, F. 2007. Community-based conservationin a globalized world. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America104 (39): 15188–193.
Blackman, A., B. Avalos-Sartorio, and J. Chow. 2007.Shade coffee & tree cover loss—Lessons from ElSalvador. Environment 49 (7): 22–32.
Bray, D. B., J. L. Plaza-Sanchez, and E. Contreras-Murphy. 2002. Social dimensions of organic cof-fee production in Mexico: Lessons for eco-labelinginitiatives. Society and Natural Resources 15 (6): 429–46.
Brookfield, H., and C. Padoch. 1994. Appreciatingagrodiversity: A look at the dynamism and diversityof indigenous farming practices. Environment 36(5): 6–11.
———. 2007. Managing biodiversity in spatiallyand temporally complex agricultural landscapes.In Managing biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems,ed. D. I. Jarvis, C. Padoch, and H. D. Cooper,338–61. New York: Biodiversity International andColumbia University Press.
Caceres, D. M. 2006. Agrobiodiversity and technol-ogy in resource-poor farms. Interciencia 31 (6): 403–10.
Castellanet, C., and C. F. Jordan. 2002. Participatoryaction research in natural resource management: A cri-tique of the method based on five year’s experience in theTransamazonica region of Brazil. London and NewYork: Taylor and Francis.
Chambers, R., and G. Conway. 1992. Sustainable ru-ral livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st cen-tury. Brighton, UK: IDS-University of Sussex.
Coelli, T., and E. Fleming. 2004. Diversificationeconomies and specialisation efficiencies in a mixedfood and coffee smallholder farming system inPapua New Guinea. Agricultural Economics 31 (2–3): 229–39.
Corbera, E., N. Kosoy, and M. M. Tuna. 2007. Eq-uity implications of marketing ecosystem servicesin protected areas and rural communities: Casestudies from Meso-America. Global Environmen-tal Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 17 (3–4):365–80.
Costanza, R., R. dArge, R. deGroot, S. Farber, M.Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, et al. 1997. Thevalue of the world’s ecosystem services and naturalcapital. Nature 387:253–60.
Daily, G. C., S. Alexander, P. R. Ehrlich, L. Goul-der, J. Lubchenco, P. A. Matson, H. A. Mooney,et al. 1997. Ecosystem services: Benefits suppliedto human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues inEcology 2 (Spring): 1–16.
Dossa, E. L., E. C. M. Fernandes, W. S. Reid, andK. Ezui. 2008. Above- and below-ground biomass,nutrient and carbon stocks contrasting an open-grown and a shaded coffee plantation. AgroforestrySystems 72 (2): 103–17.
Fals-Borda, O., and M. A. Rahman, eds. 1991. Actionand knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participa-tory action-research. New York: Apex Press.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1999.Sustaining agricultural biodiversity and agroecosystemfunctions. Rome: Food & Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations.
———. 2008. Soaring food prices: Facts, perspec-tives, impacts and actions required. Paper pre-sented at High Level Conference on World FoodSecurity: The challenges of climate change andbioenergy, Rome.
Fortmann, L., ed. 2008. Participatory research in con-servation and rural livelihoods: Doing science together.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gallina, S., S. Mandujano, and A. Gonzalez-Romero.1996. Conservation of mammalian biodiversity incoffee plantations of Central Veracruz. AgroforestrySystems 33:13–27.
Gliessman, S. R. 2008. Agroecological foundationsfor designing sustainable coffee agroecosystems.In Confronting the coffee crisis: Fair trade, sustain-able livelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico and CentralAmerica, ed. C. M. Bacon, V. E. Mendez, S. R.Gliessman, D. Goodman, and J. A. Fox, 27–42.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gliessman, S. R., R. Garcıa-Espinosa, and M.Amador. 1981. The ecological basis for the appli-cation of traditional agricultural technology in themanagement of tropical agro-ecosystems. Agro-Ecosystems 7:173–85.
Gobbi, J. A. 2000. Is biodiversity-friendly coffee fi-nancially viable? An analysis of five different coffeeproduction systems in El Salvador. Ecological Eco-nomics 33:267–81.
Gonda, N., and S. Siadou. 2002. Que bases para la con-struccion del San Ramon futuro? Diagnostico agrariode una pequena region cafetera en el departamento delMatagalpa, Nicaragua [What bases for the construc-tion of the future of San Ramon? Agrarian appraisal ofa small coffee region in the department of Matagalpa,Nicaragua]. Montpellier, France: CNEARC.
Hajjar, R., D. I. Jarvis, and B. Gemmill-Herren. 2008.The utility of crop genetic diversity in maintainingecosystem services. Agriculture Ecosystems & Envi-ronment 123:261–70.
Harvey, C. A., and J. A. G. Villalobos. 2007. Agro-forestry systems conserve species-rich but modifiedassemblages of tropical birds and bats. Biodiversityand Conservation 16 (8): 2257–92.
Herrador, D., and L. Dimas. 2000. Payment for en-vironmental services in El Salvador. Mountain Re-search and Development 20 (4): 306–09.
Hietz, P. 2005. Conservation of vascular epiphyte di-versity in Mexican coffee plantations. ConservationBiology 19 (2): 391–99.
Jackson, L. E., U. Pascual, and T. Hodgkin.2007. Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
374 Volume 62, Number 3, August 2010
in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture Ecosystems &Environment 121 (3): 196–210.
Jaffee, D. 2007. Brewing justice: Fair trade coffee, sus-tainability and survival. Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press.
Jarvis, D. I., C. Padoch, and H. D. Cooper, eds.2007. Managing biodiversity in agricultural ecosys-tems. New York: Biodiversity International andColumbia University Press.
Komar, O. 2006. Ecology and conservation of birdsin coffee plantations: A critical review. Bird Conser-vation International 16 (1): 1–23.
Love, B., and D. Spaner. 2007. Agrobiodiversity: Itsvalue, measurement, and conservation in the con-text of sustainable agriculture. Journal of SustainableAgriculture 31 (2): 53–82.
Marcell-Velasquez, A. 2008. Introduccion al mundode orquıdeas en Nicaragua [Introduction to theworld of orchids in Nicaragua]. Unpublished re-port, Estelı, Nicaragua.
Mas, A. H., and T. V. Dietsch. 2004. Linking shadecoffee certification to biodiversity conservation:Butterflies and birds in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecolog-ical Applications 14 (3): 642–54.
McShane, T. O. 2003. The devil in the detail of bio-diversity conservation. Conservation Biology 17 (1):1–3.
Mendez, V. E. 2004. Traditional shade, rural liveli-hoods, and conservation in small coffee farms andcooperatives of western El Salvador. PhD dis-sertation, University of California, Santa Cruz,CA.
———. 2005. Cafe con sombra y alternativas para re-ducir la presion del cambio del uso del suelo en la zonaSur de Ahuachapan, El Salvador [Shade coffee and al-ternatives to reduce land use change in the southern zoneof Ahuachapan, El Salvador]. San Jose, Costa Rica:UICN-ORMA/Proyecto BASIM.
———. 2008. Farmers’ livelihoods and biodiversityconservation in a coffee landscape of El Salvador.In Confronting the coffee crisis: Fair trade, sustainablelivelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico and Central Amer-ica, ed. C. Bacon, V. E. Mendez, S. R. Gliessman,D. Goodman, and J. A. Fox, 207–36. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Mendez, V. E., and C. Bacon. 2005. Medios de viday conservacion de la biodiversidad arborea: las ex-periencias de las cooperativas cafetaleras en El Sal-vador y Nicaragua. LEISA Revista de Agroecologıa(Peru) 20 (4): 27–30.
———. 2006. Ecological processes and farmer liveli-hoods in shaded coffee production. LEISA (TheNetherlands) 22 (4): 22–23.
Mendez, V. E., S. R. Gliessman, and G. S. Gilbert.2007. Tree biodiversity in farmer cooperatives ofa shade coffee landscape in western El Salvador.Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 119 (1–2):145–59.
Mendez, V. E., R. Lok, and E. Somarriba.2001. Interdisciplinary analysis of homegardens inNicaragua: Micro-zonation, plant use and socioe-conomic importance. Agroforestry Systems 51 (2):85–96.
Mendez, V. E., E. N. Shapiro, and G. S. Gilbert.2009. Cooperative management and its effects onshade tree diversity, soil properties and ecosystemservices of coffee plantations in western El Sal-vador. Agroforestry Systems 76 (1): 111–26.
Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Natu-rales (MARN). 2002. Informe nacional del estadodel medio ambiente [National report on the stateof the environment]. San Salvador, El Salvador:MARN/PNUMA.
———. 2003. Mapas del Sistema de InformacionAmbiental. San Salvador, El Salvador: Ministe-rio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.http://www.marn.gob.sv/gis/png/pedolo.htm (lastaccessed 18 October 2003).
Moguel, P., and V. M. Toledo. 1999. Biodiversityconservation in traditional coffee systems of Mex-ico. Conservation Biology 13 (1): 11–21.
Montagnini, F., and P. K. R. Nair. 2004. Carbonsequestration: An underexploited environmentalbenefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Sys-tems 61 (1): 281–95.
Morris, K. S. 2008. Food insecurity in coffee farmingcommunities of El Salvador. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the Association of AmericanGeographers, Las Vegas, NV.
Olson, M. Forthcoming. Food security and low-inputagriculture in Central American coffee growingcommunities. PhD dissertation, University of Ver-mont, Burlington, VT.
Pagiola, S., P. Agostini, J. Gobbi, C. de Haan, M.Ibrahim, E. Murgueitio, M. Rosales, and J. P. Ruiz.2004. Paying for biodiversity conservation services inagricultural landscapes. Washington, DC: WorldBank.
Paige, J. M. 1997. Coffee and power: Revolution andthe rise of democracy in Central America. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
Perfecto, I., and I. Ambrecht. 2003. The coffee agroe-cosystem in the Neotropics: Combining ecologicaland economic goals. In Tropical agroecosystems, ed.J. H. Vandermeer, 159–94. Boca Raton, FL: CRCPress.
Perfecto, I., R. A. Rice, R. Greenberg, and M. E.Vand der Voort. 1996. Shade coffee: A disappear-ing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience 46 (8): 598–609.
Perfecto, I., and J. Vandermeer. 2002. Quality ofagroecological matrix in a tropical montane land-scape: Ants in coffee plantations in southern Mex-ico. Conservation Biology 16 (1): 174–82.
———. 2008. Biodiversity conservation in tropicalagroecosystems—A new conservation paradigm.
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods 375
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134:173–200.
Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, P. Hanson, and V.Cartın. 1997. Arthropod biodiversity and the trans-formation of a tropical agro-ecosystem. Biodiversityand Conservation 6:935–45.
Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, A. Mas, and L. Soto-Pinto. 2005. Biodiversity, yield, and shade coffeecertification. Ecological Economics 52:435–46.
Petchers, S., and S. Harris. 2008. The roots of the cof-fee crisis. In Confronting the coffee crisis: Fair trade,sustainable livelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico andCentral America, ed. C. Bacon, V. E. Mendez, S.R. Gliessman, D. Goodman, and J. A. Fox, 43–66.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Phillips, A., and S. Stolton. 2008. Protected land-scapes and biodiversity values: A review. In Pro-tected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values, ed. T.Amend, J. Brown, A. Kothari, A. Phillips, and S.Stolton, 8–21. Heidelberg, Germany: IUCN >Z.
Philpott, S. M., W. J. Arendt, I. Ambrecht, P. Bichier,T. V. Dietsch, C. Gordon, R. Greenberg, et al.2008. Biodiversity loss in Latin American coffeelandscapes: Review of the evidence on ants, birds,and trees. Conservation Biology 22 (5): 1093–105.
Philpott, S. M., P. Bichier, R. Rice, and R. Green-berg. 2007. Field testing ecological and economicbenefits of sustainable coffee certification: Do or-ganic and fair trade do enough? Conservation Biology21 (4): 975–85.
Ponette-Gonzalez, A. G. 2007. 2001: A householdanalysis of Huastec Maya agriculture and land useat the height of the coffee crisis. Human Ecology 35(3): 289–301.
Qualset, C. O., P. E. McGuire, and M. L. Warburton.1995. Agrobiodiversity: Key to agricultural pro-ductivity. California Agriculture 49:45–49.
Ramırez, O. A., E. Somarriba, T. Ludewigs, and P.Ferreira. 2001. Financial returns, stability and riskof cacao-plantain-timber agroforestry systems inCentral America. Agroforestry Systems 51 (2): 141–54.
Robertson, G. P., and S. M. Swinton. 2005. Recon-ciling agricultural productivity and environmentalintegrity: A grand challenge for agriculture. Fron-tiers in Ecology and the Environment 3 (1): 38–46.
Rosa, H., S. Kandel, and L. Dimas. 2004. Compen-sation for environmental services and rural com-munities: Lessons from the Americas. InternationalForestry Review 6 (2): 187–94.
Scales, B. R., and S. J. Marsden. 2008. Biodiversity insmall-scale tropical agroforests: A review of speciesrichness and abundance shifts and the factors in-fluencing them. Environmental Conservation 35 (2):160–72.
Schroth, G., G. A. B. de Fonseca, C. A. Harvey, C.Gascon, H. L. Vasconcelos, and A. M. N. Izac,
eds. 2004. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation intropical landscapes. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Schroth, G., and C. Harvey. 2007. Biodiversityconservation in cocoa production landscapes: Anoverview. Biodiversity and Conservation 16 (8): 2237–44.
Selener, D. 1997. Participatory action research and socialchange. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Shattuck, A. K. 2005. Cures in the shade: Medici-nal plants of coffee agroecosystems of western ElSalvador and the participatory action research pro-cess. Undergraduate thesis, University of Califor-nia, Santa Cruz, CA.
Solis-Montero, L., A. Flores-Palacios, and A. Cruz-Angon. 2005. Shade-coffee plantations as refugesfor tropical wild orchids in central Veracruz, Mex-ico. Conservation Biology 19 (3): 908–16.
Somarriba, E., C. Harvey, M. Samper, F. Anthony,J. Gonzalez, C. Staver, and R. Rice. 2004. Bio-diversity in coffee plantations. In Agroforestry andbiodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes, ed. G.Schroth, G. Foseca, C. A. Harvey, C. Gascon, H.Vasconcelos, and A. M. N. Izac, 198–226. Wash-ington, DC: Island Press.
Somarriba, E., R. Valdivieso, W. Vasquez, and G.Galloway. 2001. Survival, growth, timber produc-tivity and site index of Cordia alliodora in forestryand agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 51(2): 111–18.
Sonwa, D. J., B. A. Nkongmeneck, S. F. Weise, M.Tchatat, A. A. Adesina, and M. J. J. Janssens. 2007.Diversity of plants in cocoa agroforests in the hu-mid forest zone of southern Cameroon. Biodiversityand Conservation 16 (8): 2385–400.
Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kessler, M., Barkmann, J., Bos,M. M., Buchori, D., Erasmi, S., Faust, H., et al.2007. Tradeoffs between income, biodiversity, andecosystem functioning during tropical rainforestconversion and agroforestry intensification. Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of theUnited States of America 104 (12): 4973–78.
Thrupp, L. A. 2000. Linking agricultural biodiversityand food security: The valuable role of agrobio-diversity for sustainable agriculture. InternationalAffairs 76 (2): 265–81.
UCA San Ramon. 2008. Plan estrategico de agroe-coturismo rural comunitario [Strategic plan forcommunity rural agroecotourism]. Internal report,UCA San Ramon, Nicaragua.
Vandermeer, J. D., A. Lawrence, A. Symstad, and S.Hobbie. 2002. Effect of biodiversity on ecosystemfunction in managed ecosystems. In Biodiversity andecosystem functioning: Synthesis and perspectives, ed.M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti, 221–35.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Vandermeer, J., and I. Perfecto. 1995. Breakfast ofbiodiversity: The truth about rain forest destruction.Oakland, CA: Food First.
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010
376 Volume 62, Number 3, August 2010
Wells, M., and T. O. McShane. 2004. Integratingprotected area management with local needs andaspirations. Ambio 33 (8): 513–19.
Westphal, S. M. 2008. Coffee agroforestry in the af-termath of modernization: Diversified productionand livelihood strategies in post-reform Nicaragua.In Confronting the coffee crisis: Fair trade, sustain-able livelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico and CentralAmerica, ed. C. M. Bacon, V. E. Mendez, S. R.Gliessman, D. Goodman, and J. A. Fox, 179–205.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wood, D., and J. M. Lenne. 1997. The conserva-tion of agrobiodiversity on-farm: Questioning theemerging paradigm. Biodiversity and Conservation 6(1): 109–29.
Wunder, S. 2007. The efficiency of payments for en-vironmental services in tropical conservation. Con-servation Biology 21 (1): 48–58.
V. ERNESTO MENDEZ is an Assistant Professorof Agroecology and Environmental Studies in theEnvironmental Program and Department of Plant &Soil Science at the University of Vermont, Burling-ton, VT 05401. E-mail: [email protected]. His re-search and teaching interests examine the interactionsamong agriculture, rural people’s livelihoods, and en-vironmental conservation in tropical and temperateagricultural landscapes.
CHRISTOPHER M. BACON is an S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup postdoctoral fellow affiliated with the
Geography Department at the University of Cal-ifornia, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720. E-mail:[email protected]. He is an environ-mental social scientist and agroecologist working onissues related to rural livelihoods, alternative trade,and environmental issues in Central America.
MERYL OLSON is a PhD student in the De-partment of Plant and Soil Science at the Univer-sity of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405. E-mail:[email protected]. Her research focuses onfood security, agrobiodiversity, and farmers in tropi-cal agricultural landscapes.
KATLYN S. MORRIS is a PhD candidate in theDepartment of Plant & Soil Science at the Uni-versity of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405. E-mail:[email protected]. Her research interests in-clude the causes and responses to seasonal food inse-curity for coffee-producing households, and the envi-ronmental, economic, and social aspects of food cropproduction in rural areas.
ANNIE SHATTUCK is an analyst at the In-stitute for Food and Development Policy (FoodFirst), 398 60th Street, Oakland, CA 94618. E-mail:[email protected]. Her interests include agri-cultural biodiversity and rural livelihoods.
Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010