Economic Evaluation of Pollination Services Comparing Coffee Landscapes in Ecuador and Indonesia

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Biodiversity conservation through land-use systems on private land is becoming a pressing environmental policy issue. Agroforestry, such as shade-coffee production, contributes to biodiversity conservation. However, falling coffee prices force many coffee growers to convert their sites into economically more attractive land uses. We performed an economic evaluation of coffee pollination by bees in two distinct tropical regions: an area of low human impact with forests neighboring agroforestry in Indonesia and an area of high human impact with little remaining forest in Ecuador. We evaluated bee pollination for different forest-destruction scenarios, where coffee yields depend on forests to provide nesting sites for bees. We used two novel approaches. First, we examined how coffee net revenues depend on the pollination services of adjacent forests by considering berry weight in addition to fruit set, thereby providing a comprehensive evaluation. Second, we determined the net welfare effects of land-use changes, including the fact that former forestland is normally used for alternative crops. In both regions, crop revenues exceeded coffee pollination values, generating incentives to convert forests, even if owners would be compensated for pollination services. The promotion of certified "biodiversity-friendly" coffee is a feasible option to maintain shade-coffee systems. This is of special importance in high-impact areas where only small forest fragments remain. We conclude that a comprehensive economic analysis is necessary to adequately evaluate rainforest preservation for the enhancement of ecosystem services, such as pollination.

Generating and Fostering Novelty

“…About half of those articles are part of the regular issue, and those remaining appear as part of special features. The articles in the regular issue cover topics ranging from methods for species-based assessment and management of baleen whales in the Antarctic (Williams et al 2006) to the reintroduction of wild boar in Europe (Fern&#0225ndez et al 2006), the temporal stability of artisanal coastal fishing areas in Brazil (Begossi 2006), an economic evaluation of the pollination service in relation to coffee growing in Ecuador and Indonesia (Olschewski et al 2006), and the use of utility theory for conservation (Davis et al 2006).…”

‘Fair’ policies for the coffee trade – protecting people or biodiversity?

“…A similar regression model for forest distance and berry weight has been considered by Olschewski et al (2006). Let us assume that the fruitset percentage, s, and the yield of a coffee plant, y, have the relationship y =ā +bs 8 .…”

“…However, certain ecological relationships have been taken from studies conducted elsewhere. In our base scenario, we assume that the impact of pollination was only a higher fruit set and ignore impacts on berry weight as well as any possible quality improvements (see Olschewski et al 2006). We carry out sensitivity analysis to check the robustness of our results regarding our assumptions on economic and ecological parameters.…”

“…In practice, the stretches of forest could form a more complex pattern depending on the landscape. Olschewski et al (2006) have analyzed the economic impacts of bee pollination by assuming that the cultivated region surrounds the forest. In contrast, we assume that shade-coffee production has to include a forest strip, which is located at the edges of the cultivated area.…”

“…Gobbi (2000) finds that investment in biodiversityfriendly certification criteria is financially viable for coffee farms, while Benítez et al (2006), Ninan and Sathyaplan (2005), and Olschewski et al (2006) note that the high opportunity costs of land managed by ecological principles, in terms of lost benefits of intensely cultivated coffee or alternative crops, precipitates biodiversity degradation. An overall conclusion from these studies focusing on the value of pollination services is that policy measures such as trade-related standards, premiums, forms of tax relief, or dedicated government institutions are necessary for the adoption of biodiversity-friendly growing practices (see also Damodaran, 2002, Bacon, 2005, Perfecto et al, 2005.…”