Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 83, Issue 1, pp 41–49 | Cite as

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

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Shade coffee Fruits Agroforestry Farm income Guatemala Peru 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Summit Foundation and Winrock International for grant funds supporting this project in Guatemala and Peru, respectively. Gerardo Medina and Victor Guzmán helped collect data and provide insights in Peru, and Rony Mejía and Erika Curley did likewise in Guatemala—proving indispensible in their efforts. I thank reviewers for their comments, along with the editor of AS. Any errors found here are mine alone.

References

  1. Albertin A, Nair PKR (2004) Farmers’ perspectives on the role of shade trees in coffee production systems: an assessment from the Nicoya Peninsula, Costa Rica. Human Ecol 32(4):443–463Google Scholar
  2. Beer J (1995) Efectos de los arboles de sombra sobre la sostenibilidad de un cafetal. Boletin PROMECAFE 68:13–18Google Scholar
  3. Chazdon RL, Harvey CA, Komar O, Griffith DM, Ferguson BG, Martinez-Ramos M, Morales H, Nigh R, Soto-Pinto L, van Breugel M, Philpott SM (2009) Beyond reserves: a research agenda for conserving biodiversity in human-modified tropical landscapes. Biotropica 41(2):142–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Escalante E (1995) Coffee and agroforestry in Venezuela. Agrofor Today July–December:5–7Google Scholar
  5. Escalante E, Aguilar A, Lugo R (1987) Identicación, evaluación y distribución espacial de especies utilizados como sombra en sistemas tradicionales de café (Coffea arabica) en dos zonas del estado de Trujillo, Venezuela. Venezuela Forestal 3:50–62Google Scholar
  6. Garrity DP (2004) Agroforestry and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Agroforest Syst 61:5–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garrity D, Cooke R (2010) The fruits of success: a programme to domesticate West and Central Africa’s wild fruit trees is raising incomes, improving health and stimulating the rural economy. Trees for Change, No. 4. World Agroforestry Center, Nairobi, KenyaGoogle Scholar
  8. Gockowski J, Dury S (1999) The economics of cocoa-fruit agroforests in southern Cameroon. Paper presented at the international workshop on multi-strata systems with perennial tree crops. CATIE, Costa Rica, 22–25 February. Organized by the International Union of Forestry Research OrganisationsGoogle Scholar
  9. IAASTD (2009) Agriculture at a crossroads (Synthesis Report). International assessment of agricultural knowledge, Science and technology for development. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. ICO Website (2010) International Coffee Organization data, found at “Prices to Growers” at http://www.ico.org/new_historical.asp
  11. Kehlenbeck K, Maass BL (2004) Crop diversity and classification of homegardens in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Agroforest Syst 63:53–62Google Scholar
  12. Langemann J, Heuveldop J (1983) Characterization and evaluation of agroforestry systems: the case of Acosta-Puriscal, Costa Rica. Agroforest Syst 1:101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leakey RRB, Tchoundjeu Z, Schreckenberg K, Shackleton S, Shackleton CM (2005) Agroforestry tree products (AFTPs): targeting poverty reduction and enhanced livelihoods. Int J Agric Sustain 3(1):1–23Google Scholar
  14. Méndez VE, Lok R, Somarriba E (2001) Interdisciplinary analysis of homegardens in Nicaragua: micro-zonation, plant use and socioeconomic importance. Agroforest Syst 51:85–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Méndez VE, Bacon CM, Olson M, Morris KS (2010) Agrobiodiversity and shade coffee smallholder livelihoods: a review and synthesis of tens years of research in Central America. The Prof Geogr 62(3):357–376Google Scholar
  16. Moguel P, Toledo VM (1999) Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee systems of Mexico. Conserv Biol 13(1):11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Muschler RG (1999) Arboles en Cafetales. CATIE/GTZ, Proyecto Agroforestal. Turrialba, Costa RicaGoogle Scholar
  18. Perfecto I, Armbrecht I, Philpott SM, Soto-Pinto L, Dietsch TV (2007) Shade coffee and the stability of rainforest margins in northern Latin America. In: Tscharntke T, Leuschner C, Zeller M, Guhardja E, Bidin A (eds) The stability of tropical rainforest margins, linking ecological, economic and social constraints of land use and conservation. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 227–263Google Scholar
  19. Philpott SM, Bichier P, Rice R, Greenberg R (2007) Field-testing ecological and economic benefits of coffee certification programs. Conserv Biol 21(4):975–985Google Scholar
  20. Rice R (2008) Agricultural intensification within agroforestry: the case of coffee and wood products. Agric Ecosyst Environ 128:212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Somarriba E (1990) Sustainable timber production from uneven-aged stands of Cordia al- liodora in small coffee farms. Agroforest Syst 10:253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Somarriba E, Harvey C, Samper M, Anthony F, Gonzalez J, Staver C, Rice R (2004) Biodiversity conservation in neotropical coffee (Coffea arabica) plantations. In: Schroth G, da Fonseca G, Harvey C, Gascon C, Vasconcelos H, Izac A-M (eds) Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 198–226Google Scholar
  23. Soto-Pinto L, Villalvazo-López V, Jimenéz-Ferrer G, Ramírez-Marcial N, Montoya G, Sinclair FL (2007) The role of local knowledge in determining shade composition of multistrata coffee systems in Chiapas, Mexico. Biodivers Conserv 16:419–436Google Scholar
  24. Westphal SM (2008) Coffee agroforestry in the aftermath of modernization: diversified production and livelihood strategies in post-reform Nicaragua. In: Bacon CM, Méndez VE, Gliessman SR, Good D, Fox JA (eds) Confronting the coffee crisis: fair trade, sustainable livelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico and Central America. MIT Press Cambridge, MA, pp 179–206Google Scholar
  25. WOLA (2008) The promise and the perils of agricultural trade liberalization: lessons from Latin America. Washington Office on Latin America, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. World Bank (2008) Website for WB indicators. http://data.worldbank.org

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA)  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Smithsonian Migratory Bird CenterSmithsonian Conservation Biology InstituteWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations