Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods: A Review and Synthesis of Ten Years of Research in Central America

Méndez, V. Ernesto; Bacon, Christopher M.; Olson, Meryl; Morris, Katlyn S.; Shattuck, Annie

doi:10.1080/00330124.2010.483638

Cited by 89 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to planned biodiversity for shade coffee, associated 454 biodiversity such as ferns (Yeshitila, 2008), epiphytes (Hylander 455 and Nemomissa, 2008), and birds (Gove et al, 2008) (Mendez et al, 2010). 460 Generally, woody species richness in state-owned plantations 461 and smallholder farms in this study is comparable to traditional 462 polyculture and rustic coffee systems of Latin America, respectively 463 (Moguel and Toledo, 1999;Philpott et al, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 66%

Coffee landscapes as refugia for native woody biodiversity as forest loss continues in southwest Ethiopia

Tadesse¹,

Zavaleta²,

Shennan³

2014

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

' are cited in the text but not provided in the reference list. Please provide them in the reference list or delete these citations from the text. Q5In the reference list 'Hundera et al. (2013a) and Hundera et al. (2013b)' are mentioned as separate references. Therefore we have changed all citations of Hundera et al. (2013) to Hundera et al. (2013a,b). Please amend the citations in the text if necessary. Q6Please specify the significance of footnotes 'a-c and ⁄' cited in the Tables 1 and 2, as a corresponding footnote text has not been provided. Q7This section comprises references that occur in the reference list but not in the body of the text. Please position each reference in the text or, alternatively, delete it. Any reference not dealt with will be retained in this section.Thank you for your assistance. Please check this box if you have no corrections to make to the PDF file HighlightsWe compared native woody biodiversity in wild forest fragments and two types of coffee agroforests in southwest Ethiopia. Over 60% of native forest fragment species occurred in semi-forest coffee systems. Intensified coffee plantations contained a much smaller (26%) proportion of native species. Woody species regeneration on semi-forest coffee exceeds that of intensive plantations. Biodiversity persistence in coffee systems relies on source populations in adjacent forest fragments. BIOC 5805No. of Pages 1, Model 5G

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 66%

Coffee landscapes as refugia for native woody biodiversity as forest loss continues in southwest Ethiopia

Tadesse¹,

Zavaleta²,

Shennan³

2014

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, these smallholders were a marginal population, generally without access to credit or technical assistance; thus, most families had created risk management strategies that combined subsistence production with diversified farms and livelihoods http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss4/art41/ (Bacon et al 2008). Finally, small-scale farmers and workers were more likely to note the decreased timber, fruit, and firewood yields following the disappearance of shade trees (Méndez et al 2010). These factors notwithstanding, by the early 21st century most farmers had experimented with at least some of the Green Revolution technologies; many planted one or more new coffee varieties, applied chemical fertilizers, to coffee, milpa, and other systems, when they could afford them, and adjusted their coffee management systems to the changing availability of both household and contracted labor (Guadarrama-Zugasti 2008).…”

Section: Social Costs and Benefits: Assessing Shade Coffee Householdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some cases, people have created solidaritybased institutions connected to coffee farmers as part of a conscious effort to generate a more socially just and ecologically sustainable global trading system. More than 40 years ago, northern advocacy groups and enterprises collaborated with organized small-scale coffee farmers to create the fair trade system; their stated goals were to combat an unfair global free trade system that impoverished farmers and exploited environments (Bacon 2010).…”

Section: Social Costs and Benefits: Assessing Shade Coffee Householdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Social Dimensions of Sustainability and Change in Diversified Farming Systems

Bacon¹,

Getz²,

Kraus³

et al. 2012

E&S

Self Cite

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Agricultural systems are embedded in wider social-ecological processes that must be considered in any complete discussion of sustainable agriculture. Just as climatic profiles will influence the future viability of crops, institutions, i.e., governance agreements, rural household and community norms, local associations, markets, and agricultural ministries, to name but a few, create the conditions that foster sustainable food systems. Because discussions of agricultural sustainability often overlook the full range of social dimensions, we propose a dual focus on a broad set of criteria, i.e., human health, labor, democratic participation, resiliency, biological and cultural diversity, equity, and ethics, to assess social outcomes, and on institutions that could support diversified farming systems (DFS). A comparative analysis of case studies from California's Central Valley, Mesoamerican coffee agroforestry systems, and European Union agricultural parks finds that DFS practices are unevenly adopted within and among these systems and interdependent with institutional environments that specifically promote diversified farming practices. Influential institutions in these cases include state policies, farmers' cooperatives/associations, and organized civic efforts to influence agroenvironmental policy, share knowledge, and shape markets for more 'sustainable' products. The Californian and Mesoamerican cases considers organic and fair trade certifications, finding that although they promote several DFS practices and generate social benefits, they are inadequate as a single strategy to promote agricultural sustainability. The complex governance and multifunctional management of Europe's peri-urban agricultural parks show unexpected potential for promoting DFS. Unless DFS are anchored in supportive institutions and evaluated against an inclusive set of social and environmental criteria, short-term investments to advance diversified agriculture could miss a valuable opportunity to connect ecological benefits with social benefits in the medium and long terms.

show abstract

“…Given that it is small landholders, most often the sub-sector responsible for managing such diverse, multi-use systems, who deserve focused attention from policymakers concerned with agriculture and development (Garrity 2004;IAASTD 2009;WOLA 2008), studies of how agroforestry systems contribute to local income are sorely needed. Several studies have focused on shade coffee settings and acknowledged the importance of fruits from the system (Méndez et al 2001(Méndez et al , 2010Moguel and Toledo 1999;Perfecto et al 2007;Philpott et al 2007;Soto-Pinto et al 2007;Somarriba et al 2004;Escalante et al 1987;Escalante 1995;Westphal 2008) and some have catalogued the different contributions that shade trees can make. But it is the assessment of the actual value-whether in terms of use or exchange-of the shade-derived products associated with agroforestry systems that can better inform us as to the real importance of these associated products at the farm level.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fruits from shade trees in coffee: how important are they?

Rice

2011

Agroforest Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agroforestry systems often receive attention and support in the literature for what is perceived as the benefits from multiple products associated with the trees that create the ''forest'' component of the setting. A comparison of small coffee growers' use of fruits derived from the coffee agroforestry holding in Guatemala and Peru reveals that significant differences exist between these groups-not merely in the importance of the fruits themselves, but in the ways they are used. The overall importance of fruits from the coffee system accounts for a relatively small portion of the total value coming from the coffee area (about 10%), but the consumption and sales of the various products do generate needed income or sustenance for most farmers. The fate of fruits shows significant differences between the two countries. Whether at the farm level or on a per hectare basis, Guatemalan coffee farmers are more linked into a market economy and sell significantly more fruits than Peruvian farmers. The opposite is the case when on-farm consumption (use value) of the fruits is compared. While the potential value of these products may be quite large (from $95 to $270/ha), we find that little gets consumed or sold, resulting in tremendous loss of potential benefits that could flow from these sources. Both groups lose more fruits than are sold or used, with Guatemalans foregoing more than three times the dollar value per hectare than Peruvians ($151/ha vs. $44/ha). Data about the economic context within which these growers and the fruits from coffee are found reveal possible reasons as to why we see the differences in use and exchange values realized in the two countries.

show abstract

Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods: A Review and Synthesis of Ten Years of Research in Central America

Cited by 89 publications

References 66 publications

Coffee landscapes as refugia for native woody biodiversity as forest loss continues in southwest Ethiopia

Coffee landscapes as refugia for native woody biodiversity as forest loss continues in southwest Ethiopia

The Social Dimensions of Sustainability and Change in Diversified Farming Systems

Fruits from shade trees in coffee: how important are they?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About