What Good Will Two More Trees Do?'The Political Economy of Sustainable Coffee Certification, Local...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Lyon, Sarah]On: 16 March 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 909494284]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Landscape ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713437121

'What Good Will Two More Trees Do?' The Political Economy of SustainableCoffee Certification, Local Livelihoods and IdentitiesSarah Lyon a

a Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA

Online Publication Date: 01 April 2009

To cite this Article Lyon, Sarah(2009)''What Good Will Two More Trees Do?' The Political Economy of Sustainable Coffee Certification,Local Livelihoods and Identities',Landscape Research,34:2,223 — 240

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01426390802390673

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426390802390673

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.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713437121

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426390802390673

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

‘What Good Will Two More Trees Do?’The Political Economy of SustainableCoffee Certification, Local Livelihoodsand Identities

SARAH LYONDepartment of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, USA

ABSTRACT In recent years the North American sustainable coffee market, consisting of FairTrade, organic and shade-grown certified varieties, has steadily increased. This paper exploresthe local history and daily practice of sustainable coffee cultivation among a group of Guatemalansmall coffee growers and investigates the extent to which these are accurately reflected incertification standards and marketing. Their participation in the organic coffee market generatesthree sources of tension: first, the tension between a place- and time-bound indigeneity, and thereality of the growers’ sophisticated organic production and processing strategies. Second, thetension between the regional history of organic production as liberatory practice, and the organicconsumer movement whose meanings and practices historically have been defined in NorthAmerica and Europe. Finally, a tension exists between certification standards developed primarilyin the interest of tropical conservation and the ways that producers’ understandings of theirlandscape and environment are shaped by how they produce their livelihoods. The paper exploreseach of these in turn and in doing so illuminates how the sustainable coffee market is capable ofmoulding political-economic forces and distant places while reshaping livelihoods and processes ofcultural identification.

KEY WORDS: Conservation, coffee, organic, Guatemala

In recent years the North American sustainable coffee market, consisting of FairTrade, organic and shade-grown certified varieties, has steadily increased. Thatmarket is part of a growing body of alternative trade systems that attempt totransform North–South trade from a vehicle of exploitation into an avenue ofproducer empowerment and environmental protection (Raynolds et al., 2004). Theinternational price for green coffee reached an unprecedented low in 2001 due tothree transformations in the global coffee market. First, the International CoffeeAgreement, which historically contributed to price stability, was dismantled in 1989.Second, roasters and international traders consolidated their market shares,contributing to oligopolistic market conditions. Third, producing countries lost

Correspondence Address: Sarah Lyon, Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington,

KY, USA. Email: [email protected]

Landscape Research,Vol. 34, No. 2, 223–240, April 2009

ISSN 0142-6397 Print/1469-9710 Online/09/020223-18 � 2009 Landscape Research Group Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/01426390802390673

Downloaded By: [Lyon, Sarah] At: 14:34 16 March 2009

their ability to control export flows and stocks as a result of market liberalisation(Daviron & Ponte, 2005, pp. 113, 121). These changes have contributed to ongoingvolatile prices, and a growing number of small producers have formed associationsin order to gain access to the potentially lucrative sustainable coffee market.Producing certified coffees (whether Fair Trade, organic or shade grown) gives accessto the more stable, higher priced speciality market in which smaller importers androasters seek to establish long-term relationships and contracts with producers inorder to maintain the consistency of their product. The higher prices and long-termcontracts in this speciality market can contribute to the economic, political andsocial stability of rural farming communities and producer households.

Unlike other eco-labelled commodities such as timber, organic and shade-growncoffee certification is frequently combined with Fair Trade certification, which iscelebrated for enhancing producer-consumer relationships through humanisedmarket mechanisms (Barham, 2002, p. 350). Through this process, many argue thatcertified coffee is defetishised as the social and environmental conditions of thecommodity’s production are revealed (Lyon, 2006). In other words, the organic coffeemarket attempts to bridge the geographic and cultural differences between consumersand producers by forging relations of solidarity rooted in economic justice andenvironmental stewardship. However, others argue that this is countered by a trendtowards the commodification of difference (Goodman, 2004) and the recuperation of‘‘familiar discourses of ‘self’ and ‘other’’’ (Dolan, 2005, p. 369). As cosmopolitanconsumers seek to immerse themselves in other cultures and engage with the ‘other’(see Hannerz, 1990, p. 239) through their coffee consumption, they make visible andstable the cultural categories of the consuming self and the producing other.

While the impact of Fair Trade coffee certification has been explored by a varietyof researchers, the meanings, structures and processes of identification surroundingorganic and shade-grown certification are less studied.1 This paper explores the localhistory and daily practice of sustainable coffee cultivation among a group ofGuatemalan small coffee growers and investigates the extent to which these areaccurately reflected in certification standards and marketing.

This exploration reveals that co-operative members pride themselves in the highquality of the organic coffee they produce for Northern markets. Despite this, theirparticipation in the organic coffee market generates three sources of tension. Thefirst is the tension between the image of a place- and time-bound indigeneity, and thereality of the growers’ sophisticated organic production and processing strategies.The second is the tension between the regional history of organic production asliberatory practice, and the organic consumer movement whose meanings andpractices historically have been defined in North America and Europe within acontext of what Guthman (2003, p. 47) labels gentrification and its attendant classdifferentiation. The last is a tension between certification standards developedprimarily in the interest of tropical conservation, and the ways that producers’understandings of their landscape and environment are shaped by how they pursuetheir livelihoods. After providing background information on the coffee market andcertification requirements, the paper explores each of these tensions in turn. In doingso it illuminates how the sustainable coffee market is capable of moulding political-economic forces and distant places while reshaping livelihoods and processes ofcultural identification.

224 S. Lyon


Research Methodology

This analysis emerges from ethnographic data gathered during 20 months of researchin Guatemala and the United States (September 2001–March 2003, June 2006) whichexplored the complex relationship between four interrelated processes: a) thepolitical-economic forces shaping the transnational Fair Trade and organic coffeemarket, b) producers’ livelihoods and production practices, c) processes of identityconstruction and self-representation, and d) attempts to forge equitable traderelationships between producers and consumers by making visible the social andenvironmental conditions of coffee production. The overall purpose of the researchproject was to explore the local history and daily practice of organic coffeecultivation and investigate the extent to which these are accurately reflected incertification standards and marketing.

The Guatemalan research reported here focused on the 116 members and theadministrators of the Fair Trade coffee co-operative located in a Tz’utujil Mayacommunity of approximately 5000 people. The research site was chosen on the basisof the co-operative’s extensive history of Fair Trade and organic coffee marketparticipation. The community is located on the shores of Lake Atitlan, one ofGuatemala’s most popular tourist attractions. So, while the majority of inhabitantssustain themselves and their families through subsistence agriculture, horticulturalfarming, coffee production and weaving, there is also an emerging small-scaletourism industry. The research included ongoing participant observation atcommunity events, at the wet mill during the harvest (December – March) and atinternal co-operative meetings and meetings with external market participants suchas coffee importers, roasters and certifiers. Participant observation was alsoconducted during visits made by agronomists and certifiers to members’ coffeefields in order to observe production practices and better understand certificationrequirements.

Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with the majority of theco-operative’s remaining 19 founding members and the collection of life historiesfrom 18 community elders, in order to illustrate the community’s past and recenttransformations. Semi-structured interviews also were conducted with 53 of the co-operative’s 116 members and 30 employees of development agencies, coffeeimporters and roasters assisting the co-operative and coffee certifiers. Further datawere gathered during participant observation at the Guatemalan National CoffeeAssociation’s annual conference in 2000 and 2002, and during visits to several FairTrade coffee co-operatives located in the Western Highlands, where interviews wereconducted with co-operative administrators and board members.

Small Farmers and the Global Coffee Crisis

Coffee’s introduction to Latin America during the second half of the nineteenthcentury intensified existing transnational flows and affected diverse individuals andlandscapes. In Guatemala, coffee cultivation and the exploitative political and socialstructures that supported it contributed to the civil unrest that resulted in thenation’s civil war and continues to shape political, economic and cultural reality(Paige, 1997; Williams, 1994). Despite this history, however, it became increasingly

The Political Economy of Sustainable Coffee Certification 225


attractive to smallholders beginning in the 1970s. That is because coffee is easy tostore and handle, its value has historically surpassed that of comparable agriculturalproducts, it can be grown on steep slopes and once neglected can be fairly easilyrejuvenated (Sick, 1999). People in the research site called the introduction of coffeecultivation ‘the bomb’ that exploded in the community, bringing income thatenabled families to end their seasonal migration, build cement-block houses andeducate their children. However, the recent low prices have weakened the nation’scoffee industry and exacerbated rural poverty.

Between 20 and 25 million small farmers produce coffee in more than 50 countriesaround the world, most being very small family farmers or those with fewer than fivehectares (Nicholls & Opal, 2005, p. 81) who are especially vulnerable to marketfluctuations. Lewin et al. (2004, p. 109) argue that certification is particularly useful forthese smallholders because it allows for consistency of characteristics, improves markettransparency, provides marketplace credibility and captures the demand and priceincentives of niche markets. According to some estimates, up to 30% of the world’ssmall-scale coffee producers are now linked to Fair Trade networks (Conroy, 2001,p. 20, inMurray et al., 2006, p. 182) and a high percentage of these also produce certifiedorganic coffee. However, the market for Fair Trade coffee, currently the largest amongcertified commodities, remains insufficient: Fair Trade Labelling OrganizationInternational estimates that the capacity of producers worldwide who could meetcertification standards is roughly seven times the current volume exported via FairTrade channels (Murray et al., 2006). Furthermore, despite their remarkable growth,sustainable coffees represent only 0.48%of the totalNorthAmerican coffeemarket and2.8% of the speciality market (Daviron et al., 2005; Lewin et al., 2004; Ponte, 2004).

Coffee Certification

Like many smallholders in the sustainable coffee market, the members of the co-operative described here produce coffee that is certified as both organic and FairTrade. During the initial research period (2001 – 2003) the co-operative also appliedfor shade-grown certification at the urging of their long-term North Americanimporter, who hoped to place their product in this emerging market niche. TheUnited States imported approximately 4600 metric tons of certified Fair Trade coffee(green) in 2002, 83% of which was also certified organic (Lewin et al., 2004, p. 123).While the focus here is primarily on the impact of organic and shade-growncertification systems, it is useful to outline Fair Trade certification requirements dueto this trend towards dual and triple certifications.

There are four central requirements importers must meet in order to use the FairTrade label. First, they must buy their coffee directly from small farmers organised indemocratic associations. Second, they must offer these farmers contracts that extendbeyond at least one annual harvest. Third, they must pay a price premium of$US1.26 per pound and an additional $US0.15 per pound if the coffee is alsoorganic. Finally, they must offer the farmer organisations pre-financing covering atleast 60% of the annual contract. Similarly, there are three central requirements forparticipating coffee producers. First, they must be small, family farmers. Second,they must be organised into independent, democratic associations. Third, they mustpursue loosely defined ecological goals.

226 S. Lyon


The shade-grown coffee movement emerged late in the 1990s as a response to thedecline in populations of North American migratory birds, the majority of whichwinter in the tropical forests of northern Latin America. The Green Revolution andtechnological improvements promoted heavily by the United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID) and other development agencies in the 1970sintroduced more productive varieties of coffee that are cultivated in full sun withheavy chemical inputs that adversely affect migratory birds (Greenberg et al., 1997;Perfecto et al., 1996). Studies demonstrate that naturally-shaded coffee plantationscan serve as sanctuaries to protect forest species, especially in regions with fewnatural forests (Moguel & Toledo, 1999, in Giovannucci, 2003; Pimentel et al., 1992;Rice & Ward, 1996). Shade-grown coffee certification was created through apartnership between North American speciality coffee roasters, ornithologists andbird enthusiasts to provide an economic incentive to small producers to preservemigratory bird habitat through cultivation in forest-like agro-ecosystems in whichcoffee trees form an under-storey shaded by a cover of fruit trees and hardwoodspecies. Shade-grown certification was thus conceived to solve a problem primarilyarticulated by people in the United States, and its primary goal is conservation ratherthan livelihood stability.

Shade certification offers no fixed price premium, only a chance to sell to apremium market. When linked to coffee quality, the premiums paid to shade-growncoffee producers commonly are $US0.10 to $US0.60 per pound (Giovannucci, 2003).In order to compete in the North American speciality market, shade-grown coffeesmust also meet high quality standards, and the majority of small producers belong toco-operatives that have received training and financial assistance from developmentagencies and coffee roasters. More generally, familiarity with market demands andthe capability to produce a quality product are effectively prerequisites forparticipation in the sustainable coffee market.

Because it offers neither the guaranteed price of Fair Trade nor the price premiumof organic, shade-grown coffee is an uncertain production strategy for small coffeeproducers. This is especially important because research on smallholder decision-making demonstrates that individuals are more likely to be averse to losses thataffect the status quo than they are to be attracted to gains and advantages(Kahneman & Tversky, 1997). Furthermore, farmers with less available land andwith lower income are, paradoxically, more likely to adopt innovations than thosewho have greater access to land and higher income from production (Cancian, 1980).In light of this, shade-grown certification can be interpreted as a less attractiveoption for small producers already well established in the relatively stable organicand Fair Trade coffee markets; they may be less willing to implement substantiallydifferent production methods that potentially threaten their existing certifications.

The Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (SMBC) created the initial certificationstandards for shade-grown coffee (www.si.edu/smbc), but other institutions havedeveloped competing standards. In order to promote a diversity of bird and animalpopulations, the SMBC requires 40% minimum shade coverage, to be measuredwith an optical densitometer at noon time. No more than 60% of the shade trees canbe the Inga genus, which is commonly used and fast-growing. The remaining 40%must comprise ten or more species, with at least ten of these trees representing 1% ormore of all shade trees present. The backbone of the shade-tree canopy should be



http://www.si.edu/smbc

allowed to attain a minimum height of 12 – 15 meters with lower and higher treesgrowing around the backbone totalling 20% of total shade. Additionally, producersmust nurture epiphytic plants (such as bromeliads and mistletoes) and maintain treeborders and shrubs along roadways and field boundaries to preserve the integrity ofthe soil.

Organic coffee certification is a growing segment of the diverse, internationalorganic agriculture movement, and there are numerous certifying agencies. I willoutline the specific requirements of the Organic Crop Improvement Association(OCIA), the agency certifying the co-operative during the research period.2

Producers must undergo a 36-month documented conversion period and may alsohave to make significant investments in their fields. For example, live barriers andbuffer zones must be created to promote soil conservation, deter erosion andsafeguard the ‘organic integrity’ of the certified fields. Requirements also define soilbuilding and conservation procedures; the use of seeds, seedlings, grafting and rootstock; harvest and post-harvest conditions; water use and wet milling; cropprotection; and biodiversity, including shade management plans for the support ofmigratory bird populations.

Written records are an integral part of certification. Producers must maintaincomplete information describing three (preferably five) years of production practices,which permit the tracing of sources and amounts of all off-farm inputs, the date andplace of harvest and the coffee’s physical movement through the commodity chain.Additionally, organic certification is expensive: OCIA charges co-operatives anannual fee of $US450 in addition to a $US200 daily fee for the inspection itself and.05% volume fee for use of the trademark.

Producer Pride in Coffee Quality

Co-operative members pride themselves on the high quality of the organic coffeethey produce. However, despite the sophisticated production and processingpractices the co-operative employs to maintain its certification and quality, thecoffee is celebrated in the North for its symbolic characteristics rather than itsmaterial qualities. The co-operative was founded in 1977, acquired its initial organiccertification in 1991 and maintains a long-term relationship with a North Americanroaster who purchases the majority of its coffee. The co-operative was originallymotivated to seek organic certification through a desire to sell in the niche marketand as a result of educational initiatives about the dangers associated with intensivechemical production. Organic certification guarantees co-operative members a fixedprice premium of US$.15 per pound and its organic methods have significantlyreduced the use of chemical fertiliser. The co-operative also engages in reforestationprojects and is a strong advocate for the community’s proposed solid-wastecollection system.

In the United States, organic products tend to be premium-priced and thereforethey need to be premium quality to stay competitive. Coffee quality is assessed atvarious points in its production and processing and according to various attributes.Daviron and Ponte (2005, p. 127) distinguish between material attributes ofproducts, which are usually seen as objective, existing independently of the identityof sellers and buyers, and symbolic attributes, which are based on reputation.

228 S. Lyon


The ability to assess material quality attributes depends on the existence ofmeasurement operations and devices, which can include the human senses. Symbolicquality attributes are signalled through trademarks, geographical indications, labelsand marketing that highlights producer identities.

The co-operative’s coffee is Arabica from a mixture of cultivars, althoughmembers own mostly Bourbon trees. It is grown organically at high altitudes. Co-operative members are expected to harvest only ripe cherries clear of foreign matterand the coffee is processed in a wet mill. This mill processing does not improvematerial quality. It can only maintain the original quality of the bean, and thereforequality control at every stage of processing is critical for the coffee’s final quality.Poor handling, pulping, fermentation, drying, storage or shipping can harm theappearance of the bean and the coffee’s flavour.

All but two of the 53 co-operative members interviewed agreed that organicmethods generate a higher quality coffee and this was a source of considerable pridewithin the group. During informal conversations, members described the character-istics which they believed contribute to that quality. For example, one memberexplained: ‘‘The cherries are bigger, they weigh more. They are also juicier and havemore water inside them. Organic production is difficult but worthwhile’’ (Figure 1shows healthy organic coffee). Others maintained that organic production results intaller and greener coffee trees that yield consistently more than trees grown withchemical fertilisers, and that the coffee tastes better. However, like the majority ofsmall producers in Guatemala, they do not drink their own export-quality coffee,which they produce solely for sale.

Asked about the benefits of co-operative membership, one member described theorganisation as a venue for contact with foreigners who ‘‘bring us information aboutcoffee, new techniques and consumer demands for quality’’. In addition to marketaccess and information, the co-operative has received significant technical and

Figure 1. Organic coffee (all figures by author).



financial assistance from coffee buyers and the Small Coffee Farmer ImprovementProgram, implemented by the USAID and the Guatemalan National CoffeeAssociation. Members understand the basic production and processing practices thatinfluence the quality of the final consumer product. For example, they know thattheir organic coffee must be carefully picked to avoid contamination from over- orunder-ripe coffee cherries and leaves, which many sell to the coyotes, the buyers forlocal mills who pay significantly lower prices than the co-operative. Others dry theseundesirable cherries, called K’ox, on their patios or sidewalks for later hand roastingand household consumption.

Coffee quality is not something to be achieved and then forgotten about. Rather, itmust be monitored consistently, season after season. In the case of coffee producedby a co-operative, this monitoring is complicated by the fact that quality isdetermined by the actions of a hundred or more individual producers in their ownfields and during their rotating 12-hour shifts in the wet mill during the harvestseason. During an interview, one coffee importer described coffee quality as ‘‘Acustom, a routine that you have to maintain every day and it is the responsibility ofthe co-operatives to fulfil their commitments and to provide this quality coffee.’’Through his regular contact and conversations with Northern buyers, the group’sformer manager understood that the co-operative is ‘‘Succeeding in the marketbecause of the quality of our coffee.’’ Therefore, while organic certification does notguarantee market access, producers see their production methods as contributing toa higher quality coffee.

Indigeneity vs the ‘Modern’ Maya

While some fear that global economic integration will result in culturalhomogenisation, contemporary markets are also marked by consumers who seekexotic and unique Third World objects (Nash, 1993), so that authenticity andindigenous identity can be rewarded (Edelman & Haugerud, 2005). This increasingmarket value of indigenous identity challenges historic associations of indigenouspopulations with underdevelopment, poverty and tradition-bound cultural practices(Garcia, 2005; Levi & Dean, 2003).

In January 2003, the head and the employees of Green Mountain Coffee Roastersvisited the research site to meet with the co-operative members who supply coffee forseveral of the company’s blends. The visiting group also included a film crew fromFrontline, broadcast by the Public Broadcasting System in the US, and the tripcoincided with the launch of the Green Mountain and Newman’s Own co-branded(meaning both company trademarks are on the label) Fair Trade and organic coffeeblends. Nell Newman travelled with the group in order to meet the producersgrowing the coffee that bore her family’s name. Frontline filmed the whole visit toinclude in a piece on the coffee crisis, broadcast in the spring of 2003. The resultingprogramme was educational and emotionally moving, and it provided free publicityfor Green Mountain, Newman’s Own and the co-operative. At the same time, theprogramme and the filming experience worked to bridge the geographic distanceseparating the coffee producers and their Northern buyers.

In addition to the high quality of its organic coffee, the co-operative is attractive toNorthern coffee importers and retailers because its members have a cohesive ethnic

230 S. Lyon


identity easily marketed as authentic Tz’utujil Maya Indians.3 Their language,artisan traditions and the presence of women who continue to wear (albeit nottraditional) huipils and cortes (see Figure 2) serve as symbolic markers of ‘Mayaness’for outsiders searching for signs of Guatemala’s cultural heritage. Co-operativemembers are aware of this and consistently stress their Maya identity in theirinteractions with visitors. In preparation for the Green Mountain visit, men dressedin traje, the community-specific Maya outfits they rarely wear in daily activities. Infact, several men without the necessary clothing borrowed it from others. However,they repeatedly expressed their excitement over the opportunity to demonstrate theirdistinctive cultural traditions.

The co-operative’s management and board of directors chose to use their Tz’utujilculture to demonstrate the quality of their coffee and the stringent organicproduction guidelines they followed. In effect, they claimed that ‘‘Our coffee is highquality and organic because we are traditional Tz’utujil.’’ The Frontline producersfollowed that lead. They distilled co-operative members’ identity into a package ofethnic and cultural traits identified in terms of ‘structures of common difference’

Figure 2. A co-operative member’s wife in traditional clothing, posing for the camera.



(Wilk, 1995). These celebrated particular kinds of diversity, such as Maya traje andenvironmentally sensitive production methods, while suppressing others, such asstructural poverty. In short, in the way it celebrates selected symbolic attributes ofthe producers’ coffee and their lives, the film is a mechanism through whicheconomic and social participation in the market makes difference manifest (Little,2004).

Co-operative members and the filmmakers might have chosen to highlight thingsother than their distinctive culture. They could, for instance, have stressed thegroup’s modernity: the strict guidelines members follow when making organicfertiliser or tending their coffee, the large loans from international lenders theycollectively manage, their plans to construct a dry mill and training centre. One ofthe traje-clad coffee harvesters might have pointed out the similarities between hisown life and the lives of consumers by explaining that he is a physician who rarelyperforms agricultural labour, but instead monitors his day-labourers’ work duringhis free time. Another might have mentioned how two of his children are officeworkers in Guatemala City who are finishing their college degrees on the weekends.However, they chose to represent the group as the ‘‘small farmer co-operative rich inIndian tradition’’ described in Green Mountain Coffee Roasters’ promotionalmaterials. This sort of representation subsumes their sophisticated organicproduction practices for Northern consumers under the veneer of an image of thetime- and place-bound ‘other’, and is a strategic use of indigenous identity thatfurthers the members’ economic interests and helps the group resist processes offinancial domination.

We should acknowledge that co-operative members’ successful participation in theglobal economy through certified coffee sales is predicated upon remaining in theircommunity andmaintaining the competitive advantage they gain through their distinctTz’utujil identity. Therefore, the relationship between market success and localprocesses of cultural identification is reciprocal.While theirMayanessmay be a distinctmarket advantage, participation in the international sustainable-coffeemarket can alsoplay an important role in the preservation and promotion of cultural traditions.Therefore, this celebratory coupling of indigenous culture and innovative organicpractices challenges the cultural disdain toward indigenous people that has beenprevalent in Guatemalan society (Lyon, 2007). Rather than a simple contradictionbetween a timeless indigeneity and modern market demands, it is perhaps better tounderstand the co-operative and its actions as a process of modernisation from agrounding in tradition. As Bebbington (1996, p. 1163) explains, modernised forms ofindigenous organisations, such as the co-operative, can enact strategies of modernisa-tion that are grounded in their ethnic and regional identity and organisation, and sohave a potential to be sustainable, accountable and locally adaptive.

Organic Production: The Tension between Eco-Colonialism and Liberation

There is a tension between the regional history of organic production as liberatorypractice and the organic consumer movement whose meanings and practiceshistorically have been defined in North America and Europe. Across Latin Americaorganic production is promoted as a social movement with liberatory potential formarginalised small producers. For example, an agriculture manual the co-operative

232 S. Lyon


uses for training purposes includes, ‘‘Before it is an instrument of technologicaltransformation, organic agriculture is an instrument of social transformation, wherethe true agrarian justice that the campesinos look for . . . results from their ownindependence and liberty’’ (Restrepo, 1996, p. 9). On the other hand, organiccertification has adverse effects arising from its bureaucratic and industrialconventions, the Northern bias of certification standards, burdensome record-keeping requirements, the expenses associated with certification and insufficientcompensation (Bray et al., 2002; Browne et al., 2000; Calo & Wise, 2005;Mutersbaugh, 2002, 2004; Plaza Sanchez, 1998; Raynolds, 2004). Even so, organiccoffee production has enhanced the livelihoods of producers, promoted thedevelopment of a skilled workforce and channelled resources to educate and trainvillage-based certification workers (Mutersbaugh, 2004, p. 534).

Latin America is the hub of certified organic production in the global South, with21% of the world’s certified land (4.9 million hectares) and 19% of the world’sorganic enterprises (110 000 producers). In Guatemala there are 14 746 certifiedorganic hectares farmed by 2830 growers producing coffee, bananas, cashews, fruitsand vegetables (Raynolds, 2004, pp. 735–736). However, over 80% of LatinAmerica’s organic output is exported, reproducing the region’s dependence on agro-export markets and vulnerability to their fluctuations. Furthermore, most of thatoutput is exported unprocessed, ‘‘so that the substantial profits derived fromprocessing and packaging accrue to enterprises in Northern consuming countries’’(Raynolds, 2004, pp. 735–736).

Organic agriculture is presented by many Latin American advocates as a solutionto some key problems facing small producers, including diminished production dueto an overuse of chemical fertilisers, lack of market access, health problems andenvironmental degradation. The growing popularity of organic production parallelsthe Campesino a Campesino movement initiated in Guatemala in the 1980s. Itpromotes simple methods of small-scale experimentation and horizontal (farmer-to-farmer) workshops in basic ecology, agronomy and farm management (Desmarais,2002; Holt-Gimenez, 1996). Movements such as this attempt to place the burden ofinnovation and change on the farmers themselves, which can empower marginalised,under-educated small farmers while fostering more appropriate production methods.This agricultural innovation challenges the ways in which international developmentefforts create ‘‘states of backwardness’’ (Pigg, 1993, p. 47) which need to be rescuedfrom their ‘‘undesirable, undignified condition’’ (Esteva & Prakash, 1998, p. 10).

The goals and methods of organic agriculture mirror the Maya agrarian ethic ofsustainable, subsistence production. This coupling of organic agriculture andindigenous cultural traditions was articulated by many co-operative members, whomade statements such as, ‘‘We are rescuing the culture and rescuing the older system ofproduction from before.’’ While they acknowledged their advanced technicalknowledge, many described in depth the similarities between modern organicagricultural methods and those employed by their grandparents before theintroduction of chemical fertilisers. This echoes the finding of research among organiccoffee farmers in a Mam community in Mexico, that the agro-ecological discourse canprovide indigenous farmers with ‘‘an internationally recognised arena for thereaffirmation of what are considered . . . to reflect their traditional cultural values ofindependence and respect for nature’’ (Hernandez Castillo & Nigh, 1998, p. 144).



The Tension between Conservation and Household Needs

There is a tension between certification standards developed primarily in the interestof tropical conservation and the ways that producers’ understandings of theirlandscape, place and community are shaped by how they produce their livelihoods.While co-operative members do not ascribe an intrinsic purity to nature, they doshare an ethic of environmental stewardship and care for the land that provides theirlivelihood. They have also enjoyed substantial economic and technical assistancefrom foreign development agencies and coffee importers who place a high value onconservation. Co-operative members often said things like ‘‘Trees are an importantpart of being human and our equilibrium. We have to conserve the lake and thevolcanoes.’’ While walking visitors through their coffee plots they pointed out thehigh quality of their organic soil and the large number of edible herbs growingbeneath their trees. Members also spoke of the importance of forest diversity andmaintained that their shade trees augment rainfall levels and help cleanse the localair (Figure 3 is an example of a well-shaded coffee parcel).

The co-operative is conscious of its role in local conservation efforts. Manymembers said that they are initiating a slow revolution in agricultural productionmethods and ecosystem protection. Over the course of the research the co-operativewas visited numerous times by the directors of various co-operatives interested inorganic production. Similarly, several members maintained that the group isinfluencing community members to return to the organic production methods oftheir ancestors. For example, one stated, ‘‘Our town sees what we are doing and theywill change their land and production to organic eventually.’’

Even so, the bulk of co-operative members resemble the majority of NorthAmerican environmentalists in their adoption of some environmentalist practices butnot others. Just as a Northern environmentalist might park the family Prius next tothe large SUV in the drive, co-operative members often use organic fertiliser on their

Figure 3. Organic coffee growing under a canopy of diverse shade trees.

234 S. Lyon


coffee and chemical fertilisers on their corn. So, while they recognise the benefits oforganic agriculture, this has not meant a wholesale adoption of an ecologicallysensitive life. This is due to both the local limitations on environmentally sensitivebehaviour and also the fact that without guaranteed financial remuneration, theperceived risks of organic production may dissuade innovators. At the time ofresearch, the community had no access to a landfill, no opportunity to recycleconsumer waste and limited financial resources. Across town, coffee fields werelittered with household waste, including discarded plastic bags and glass bottles.Similarly, four out of five of the 53 co-operative members interviewed applychemical fertiliser to their corn and vegetable fields, indicating that while membersmay recognise the benefits of organic production, they are unwilling to incur theadded monetary and labour costs without market remuneration. Ironically, it wasnot uncommon to observe co-operative members carrying their harvested organiccoffee to the wet mill in bags imprinted with the 20-20-20 symbol of chemicalfertiliser.

When stricter certification requirements for shade-grown coffee were published in2001, the co-operative failed to pass its initial inspection. Like many small producersin Latin America, co-operative members planted coffee en masse in the 1970s andwere influenced by the USAID’s emphasis on technology transfer, converting theirmilpa, or corn fields, into plots of coffee grown with chemical fertilisers and limitedshade coverage. Because they planted in existing fields, their plots do not havenatural shade canopies or the diversity of life found in forest eco-systems. In order toachieve organic certification in 1991, the majority of co-operative members plantedtwo fast-growing shade-tree species, Grevillea and Inga. This directly contributed totheir failure to meet the certification standards for shade-grown coffee, whichrequires substantial diversity in shade trees. However, the co-operative’s importersaw that shade-grown certification would increase the marketability of the co-operative’s coffee and, in order to ensure future compliance with certificationrequirements and improve coffee quality, she employed an agronomist to visit the co-operative periodically to monitor coffee production.

Rather than celebrating the forest-like aspects of the agro-ecosystem their shadetrees create, members spoke of their practical role, emphasising the ways in whichshade trees contribute to the health of their coffee. For example, when asked theprimary purpose of shade trees, only 25% responded that they contribute toecological diversity, and the majority of these said that the trees counteract pollutionby producing oxygen and reducing contamination. For example, one person statedsimply, ‘‘If there’s only contamination, there is no happiness in life.’’ However, thissame person later said: ‘‘The United States says Guatemala needs to plant more treesbut they have to pay us a better price.’’ Another who cited the oxygen produced byshade trees argued that ‘‘buyers want us to plant shade trees because they pollute alot in the United States, but then they should pay us more money.’’ Some members,at least, resent being asked to preserve biodiversity and meet environmentalstandards while wealthier industrialised nations continue to pollute and get richer.

Because the majority of co-operative members defined themselves primarily ascampesinos, not conservationists, they did not agree that diversifying the shadecoverage in their fields would improve the quality of their coffee. They had producedcertified organic coffee for over a decade and were hesitant to accept the additional



burden of habitat conservation without demonstrated financial reward. In order toavoid requests for higher payments, the importer’s representatives routinelydescribed shade diversification to co-operative members as a part of the organiccertification process (which does not require as much diversity in shade trees) andattempted to instil the idea that shade diversity and habitat protection wouldincrease the quality and yield of their coffee trees. In my presence they nevermentioned declining migratory bird populations, the prevailing scientific justificationfor shade diversity. This contributed to the opinion that shade diversity was anirrational demand made by North Americans with no farming experience. ‘‘We’rethinking, ‘how are we going to produce coffee with ten species of trees in our coffeefields?’ Already, my field has eight Chalum trees, what good will two more trees do?But they say we need to have all ten.’’

The rigidity of the new certification system does not necessarily serve the needs ofthe members’ household economies. For example, the majority of members cook onwood stoves, so fast-growing non-native trees are useful. However, not being native,they do not meet the certification requirements. This frustrates some co-operativemembers, like one who complained, ‘‘The buyers want us to only have native plants,but the Greviella is good for firewood. We want to leave it, but they say no.’’ Otherstandards also were interpreted as unreasonably demanding. For example, therequirement that coffee farmers maintain ten species of shade trees in every plot isrealistic with large holdings, but many members’ plots measure a third of an acre orless. This ignoring of local context by certification systems that are supposed to servethe interests of participating farmers reflects a fundamental tension between thedemands of an agro-food system that relies on impersonal capitalist relations,certifications and rules, and the ideals of social justice and environmentalconservation characterising alternative trade (Shreck, 2002).

North American proponents claim that diversity of shade cover insures againsteconomic uncertainty (e.g. Rice & Ward, 1996). However, members of the co-operative remained unconvinced that the benefits, such as alternative sources of foodand income, outweighed the costs. Avocados are the only permitted tropical treeproduct with any local market, but low prices make this unattractive; orange andbanana trees do little good if one has no secure outlet for their fruits; hardwoodplanted for sale requires a decade or more to reach maturity. In the meantime, treesthat grow tall and straight are frequently poached from coffee fields late at night andresurface days later as television antennas or construction materials at a neighbour’shouse.

A common criticism of international agricultural certification systems is that therules and regulations are largely established by Northern participants, and not theSouthern producers who must abide by them (Lyon, 2006). The certification processitself involves producer organisations being investigated and assessed by outsiderswho are unfamiliar with local culture, history and politics; possess little localagricultural knowledge or expertise; and whose class and ethnic backgrounds differfrom those of producers. The certification system offers no demonstrable benefitsbeyond the price premium. Unless it offers benefits more relevant to growers thanNorth American desires for habitat conservation and wildlife diversity, people arelikely to see the system as unduly demanding or irrational, hindering the long-termsuccess of market-based conservation efforts.

236 S. Lyon


Conclusion

Recently, agriculture has been identified as the main global threat to biodiversity(World Conservation Union & Future Harvest, 2001, in Giovannucci, 2003). Atpresent, organic and environmentally-sensitive agricultural certification systemsrepresent the most logical market-based way to address this problem. Shade-grownand organic coffee is one of the few forms of agriculture that potentially helps topreserve the environment and biodiversity (Bray et al., 2002; Giovannucci, 2003).However, market-based conservation efforts must be coupled with market accessand secure, high prices for small producers if they are to reverse historical trends ofimpoverishment and environmental degradation. The financial incentives mitigaterisk and ensure the ongoing maintenance of the community’s material base forsurvival, their land and agrarian tradition.

My exploration of the local history and daily practice of sustainable coffeecultivation and the extent to which these are accurately reflected in certificationstandards reveals a number of tensions in this sort of market-based conservation.First, there is a tension between a place- and time-bound indigeneity, and the realityof growers’ sophisticated production and processing strategies. Similarly, a tensionexists between the regional history of organic production as liberatory practice andthe organic consumer movement, the meanings and practices of which historicallyhave been defined in North America and Europe. Finally, there is a tension betweencertification standards developed primarily in the interest of tropical conservationand the ways that producers’ understandings of their landscape, place andcommunity are shaped by how they produce their livelihoods.

Taken together, these tensions illustrate how the sustainable coffee market iscapable of moulding political-economic forces and distant landscapes whilereshaping livelihoods and processes of cultural identification. For example,certification requirements developed by Northern consumers and environmentaladvocates result in a transformation in coffee landscapes as native species arereintroduced and shade coverage is dramatically increased. At the same time, thesustainable coffee market strategically works to shorten the distance betweenproducers and consumers through the celebration of symbolic coffee qualitiesover material ones. This is paralleled by the intentional use of identity byindigenous producers eager to cement their niche in the growing sustainable coffeemarket. In short, organic and shade-grown coffee can fulfil North Americandesires both for environmental conservation and for an image of producers whoseagricultural practices maintain their cultural identity and the health of their localecosystem.

Notes

1 The most nuanced studies of the impact of organic coffee certification and market participation on

community relations and identities are those of Hernandez Castillo and Nigh (1998), Mutersbaugh

(2002, 2003, 2004,) and Nigh (1997). A variety of studies have addressed these issues in regard to Fair

Trade certification and, to a lesser degree, organic coffee certification (Bacon, 2005; Bray et al., 2002;

Calo & Wise, 2005; Daviron & Ponte, 2005; Gobbi, 2000; Murray et al., 2006; Nicholls & Opal, 2005;

Paul, 2005; Plaza Sanchez, 1998; Raynolds et al., 2004; Renard, 2003; Rice, 2001; Tallontire, 2000;

Taylor, 2004; Utting-Chamorro, 2005).



2 All information regarding certification standards is from the OCIA 2004 International Certification

Standards, effective 6 July 2004.

3 Despite this cultural identity there are a number of ways in which the coffee co-operative challenges

community cohesion. For example, enforcement of certification requirements introduces a form of

surveillance into previously horizontal and co-operative relationships. The international success of the

co-operative may in the future exacerbate local inequalities. Individuals may attempt to reap the benefits

of membership without fulfilling production and administrative requirements. A discussion of these

challenges is in Lyon (2006).

References

Bacon, C. (2005) Confronting the coffee crisis: can Fair Trade, organic, and specialty coffees reduce small-

scale farmer vulnerability in northern Nicaragua?, World Development, 33, pp. 497–511.

Barham, E. (2002) Towards a theory of value-based labeling, Agriculture and Human Values, 19, pp. 349–

360.

Bebbington, A. (1996) Organizations and intensifications: Campesino federations, rural livelihoods and

agricultural technology in the Andes and Amazonia, World Development, 24, pp. 1161–1177.

Bray, D. B., Plaza Sanchez, J. L. & Contreras Murphy, E. (2002) Social dimensions of organic coffee

production in Mexico: lessons for eco-labeling initiatives, Society and Natural Resources, 14, pp. 429–

446.

Browne, A. W., Harris, P. J. C., Hofny-Collins, A. H., Pasiecznik, N. & Wallace, R. R. (2000) Organic

production and ethical trade: definition, practice and links, Food Policy, 25, pp. 69–89.

Calo, M. & Wise, T. A. (2005) Revaluing Peasant Coffee Production: Organic and Fair Trade Markets in

Mexico (Medford, MA: Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University).

Cancian, F. (1980) Risk and uncertainty in agricultural decision making, in: P. Barlett (Ed.) Agricultural

Decision Making: Anthropological Contributions to Rural Development (New York: Academic Press).

Conroy, M. E. (2001) Can advocacy-led certification systems transform global corporate practices?

Evidence and some theory, Working Paper 21, Political Economy Research Institute, University of

Massachusetts-Amherst.

Daviron, B. & Ponte, S. (2005) The Coffee Paradox: Global Markets, Commodity Trade and the Elusive

Promise of Development (London: Zed Books).

Desmarais, A.-A. (2002) The Via Campesina: consolidating an international peasant and farm movement,

The Journal of Peasant Studies, 29, pp. 91–124.

Dolan, C. S. (2005) Fields of obligation: rooting ethical sourcing in Kenyan horticulture, Journal of

Consumer Culture, 5, pp. 365–389.

Edelman, M. & Haugerud, A. (2005) Introduction, in: M. Edleman & A. Haugerud (Eds) The

Anthropology of Development and Globalization, pp. 1–74 (Malden, MA: Blackwell).

Esteva, G. & Prakash, M. S. (1998) Grassroots Postmodernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures (New York:

Zed Books).

Garcia, M. E. (2005)Making Indigenous Citizens: Identity, Development and Multicultural Activism in Peru

(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).

Giovannucci, D. (2003) The State of Sustainable Coffee: A Study of Twelve Major Markets (Winnipeg:

International Institute for Sustainable Development).

Gobbi, J. A. (2000) Is biodiversity-friendly coffee financially viable? An analysis of five different coffee

production systems in western El Salvador, Ecological Economics, 33, pp. 267–281.

Goodman, M. (2004) Reading Fair Trade: political ecological imaginary and the moral economy of Fair

Trade foods, Political Geography, 23, pp. 891–915.

Greenberg, R., Bichier, P., Angon, A. C. & Reitsma, R. (1997) Bird populations in shade and sun coffee

plantations in central Guatemala, Conservation Biology, 11, pp. 448–459.

Guthman, J. (2003) Fast food/organic food: reflexive tastes and the making of ‘yuppie chow’, Social and

Cultural Geography, 41, pp. 45–58.

Hannerz, U. (1990) Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture, in: M. Featherstone (Ed.) Global Culture:

Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, pp. 237–252 (London: Sage).

Hernandez Castillo, R. A. & Nigh, R. (1998) Global processes and local identity among Mayan coffee

growers in Chiapas, Mexico, American Anthropologist, 100, pp. 136–147.

238 S. Lyon


Holt-Gimenez, E. (1996) The Campesino a Campesino Movement: Farmer-Led Sustainable Agriculture in

Central America and Mexico (Oakland, CA: Institute for Food and Development Policy).

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1997) Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk, Econometrica,

47, pp. 263–291.

Levi, J. M. & Dean, B. (2003) Introduction, in: B. Dean J. M. Levi (Eds) At the Risk of Being Heard: Identity,

Indigenous Rights and Postcolonial States, pp. 1–44 (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press).

Lewin, B., Giovannucci, D. & Varangis, P. (2004) Coffee Markets: New Paradigms in Global Supply and

Demand, Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 3, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Little, W. (2004) Mayas in the Marketplace: Tourism, Globalization, and Cultural Identity (Austin, TX:

University of Texas Press).

Lyon, S. (2006) Evaluating Fair Trade consumption: politics, defetishization and producer participation,

International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, pp. 452–464.

Lyon, S. (2007) Fair trade coffee and human rights in Guatemala, Journal of Consumer Policy, 30, pp. 241–

261.

Moguel, P. & Toledo, V. M. (1999) Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee systems of Mexico,

Conservation Biology, 13, pp. 11–21.

Murray, D. L., Raynolds, L. T. & Taylor, P. L. (2006) The future of Fair Trade coffee: dilemmas facing

Latin America’s small-scale producers, Development in Practice, 16, pp. 179–192.

Mutersbaugh, T. (2002) The number is the beast: a political economy of organic-coffee certification and

producer unionism, Environment and Planning A, 34, pp. 1165–1184.

Mutersbaugh, T. (2003) Ethical trade and certified organic coffee: implications of rules-based agricultural

product certification for Mexican producer households and villages, Transnational Law and

Contemporary Problems, 12, pp. 89–107.

Mutersbaugh, T. (2004) Serve and certify: paradoxes of service work in organic-coffee certification,

Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22, pp. 533–552.

Nash, J. (1993) Introduction: traditional arts and changing markets in Middle America, in: J. Nash (Ed.)

Crafts in the World Market: The Impact of Global Exchange on Middle American Artisans, pp. 1–24

(Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).

Nicholls, A. & Opal, C. (2005) Fair Trade: Market-Driven Ethical Consumption (Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE).

Nigh, R. (1997) Organic agriculture and globalization: a Maya associative corporation in Chiapas,Human

Organization, 56, pp. 427–436.

Paige, J. M. (1997) Coffee and Power: Revolution and the Rise of Democracy in Central America

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Paul, E. (2005) Evaluating Fair Trade as a development project, Development in Practice, 15, pp. 134–150.

Perfecto, I., Rice, R. A., Greenburg, R. & Vander Voort, M. (1996) Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for

biodiversity, BioScience, 46, pp. 598–608.

Pigg, S. L. (1993) Unintended consequences: the ideological impact of development in Nepal, South Asia

Bulletin, 13, pp. 45–58.

Pimentel, D., Stachow, U., Takacs, D. A., Brubaker, H. W., Dumas, A. R., Meaney, J. J., O’Neil, J. A. S.,

Onsi, D. E. & Corzilius, D. B. (1992) Conserving biological diversity in agricultural/forestry systems,

BioScience, 42, pp. 354–362.

Plaza Sanchez, J. L. (1998) Organic coffee production and the conservation of natural resources in Las

Margaritas, Chiapas, in: R. B. Primack, D. Bray, H. A. Galletti & I. Ponciano (Eds) Timber, Tourists

and Temples: Conservation and Development in the Maya Forest of Belize, Guatemala and Mexico, pp.

299–315 (Washington, DC: Island Press).

Ponte, S. (2004) The politics of ownership: Tanzanian coffee policy in the age of liberal reformism, African

Affairs, 103(413), pp. 615–633.

Raynolds, L. T. (2004) The globalization of organic agro-food networks,World Development, 32, pp. 725–

743.

Raynolds, L. T., Murray, D. & Taylor, P. (2004) Fair Trade coffee: building producer capacity via global

networks, Journal of International Development, 16, pp. 1109–1121.

Renard, M. C. (2003) Fair Trade: quality, market and conventions, Journal of Rural Studies, 19, pp. 87–

96.

Restrepo, J. (1996) Abonos Organicos: Experiencias de Agricultores en Centroamerica y Brasil (San Jose,

Costa Rica: CEDECO—Corporacion Educativa del Desarrollo Costarricense).



Rice, R. (2001) Noble goals and challenging terrain: organic and Fair Trade coffee movements in the

global marketplace, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14, pp. 39–66.

Rice, R. A. & Ward, J. R. & (1996) Coffee, Conservation and Commerce in the Western Hemisphere: How

Individuals and Institutions Can Promote Ecologically Sound Farming and Forest Management in

Northern Latin America (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center & the Natural

Resources Defense Council).

Shreck, A. (2002) Just bananas? Fair Trade banana production in the Dominican Republic, International

Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture, 10(2), pp. 25–52.

Sick, D. (1999) Farmers of the Golden Bean: Costa Rican Households and the Global Coffee Economy

(Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press).

Tallontire, A. (2000) Partnerships in Fair Trade: reflections from a case study of Cafedirect, Development

in Practice, 10, pp. 166–177.

Taylor, P. L. (2004) In the market but not of it: Fair Trade coffee and forest stewardship: council

certification as market-based social change, World Development, 33, pp. 584–147.

Utting-Chamorro, K. (2005) Does Fair Trade make a difference? The case of small coffee producers in

Nicaragua, Development in Practice, 15, pp. 584–599.

Wilk, R. (1995) Learning to be local in Belize: global systems of common difference, in: D. Miller (Ed.)

Worlds Apart: Modernity through the Prism of the Local pp. 110–133 (London: Routledge).

Williams, R. G. (1994) States and Social Evolution: Coffee and the Rise of National Governments in Central

America (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press).

World Conservation Union & Future Harvest (2001) Common Ground, Common Future: How Eco-

Agriculture Can Help Feed the World and Save Wild Biodiversity (Washington, DC: Future Harvest).

240 S. Lyon


What Good Will Two More Trees Do?'The Political Economy of Sustainable Coffee Certification, Local...

Documents

Transcript of What Good Will Two More Trees Do?'The Political Economy of Sustainable Coffee Certification, Local...