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

Abstract

We investigate the role that economic instruments can play in the eradication of poverty and preservation of biodiversity in agroforestry management in coffee production. Most of the world's coffee producers live in poverty and manage agroecosystems in regions that culturally and biologically are among the most diverse on the globe. Despite the relatively recent finding that bees can augment pollination and boost coffee crop yields substantially, the short-term revenues to be had from intense monoculture drive land-use decisions that destroy forest strips serving as habitats for pollinating insects. Our study investigates the possibility of multiple equilibria in the adoption of technology in coffee production; farmers specialize in environmentally detrimental (sun-grown) or sustainable (shade-grown) farming or both practices co-exist. We calibrate an empirical model to characterize the equilibria and investigate the ecological and economic impacts of alternative policy instruments, among these protection fees, price premiums and a minimum wage.

Agroforestry coffee production increased by native shade trees, irrigation, and liming

“…Despite this, however, less intensive management remains often less productive in terms of yield and profitability (see Campanha et al 2005;Somarriba et al 2004 for coffee). This has led to a discrepancy between the priorities of farmers and those of conservationists (Garcia et al 2010;Kitti et al 2009). Farmers often choose to reduce shade and replace the original shade trees with faster growing exotic species (Nath et al 2011), despite recent research advocating diverse and shaded agroforestry systems to conserve biodiversity and secure ecosystem services (Borkhataria et al 2012;Harvey et al 2008;Perfecto et al 1996).…”

Assessing policies to mitigate abandonment of shade-grown coffee production in forest systems amid low and uncertain prices

“…International organizations that promote certification programs, such as ‘bird-friendly coffee,’ enable certified farmers to capture some of the global value for their production process through price premiums. If the farmers receive price premiums without any additional costs, this analysis is consistent with other studies that suggest higher prices will encourage shade-production or conservation (Ferraro et al ., 2005; Kitti et al ., 2009; Atallah et al ., 2018; Hernandez-Aguilera et al ., 2019). In contrast, this analysis also demonstrates that the costs of certification and the waiting period before capturing that higher price can cause farmers to forgo maintenance and begin the path toward abandonment, which the subsequent price with premium rarely reverses.…”

“…(2008), Kitti et al . (2009), and a set of econometric land use models (see online appendix) address changes in coffee production patterns by focusing on a producer's transition to sun production or subsistence cropping and how those decisions contribute to deforestation. Hernandez-Aguilera et al .…”

Sustainable Agroforestry Systems for Livelihood Security and their Economic Appraisal in Indian Himalayas

“…Agroforestry systems in the Himalaya are backbone of hill agrarian community for livelihood security (Yadav et al 2016). Various forms of agroforestry such as improved fallows beside maintenance of soil fertility also improve on farm environment quality (Kuntashula and Mungatana 2015), carbon sequestration (Cacho et al 2005;Yadav et al 2017) and economic sustainability (Kitti et al 2009). Hence, there is enough scope in Himalayan agroforestry research for economic benefit to community and diverse ecosystem services in the context of global climate change.…”