the professional geographer agrobiodiversity and shade ......de la biodiversidad, cooperativas de...

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of theAssociation of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer]On: 21 June 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 789737545]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Professional GeographerPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t788352615

Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods: A Review andSynthesis of Ten Years of Research in Central AmericaV. Ernesto Méndeza; Christopher M. Baconb; Meryl Olsona; Katlyn S. Morrisa; Annie Shattuckc

a University of Vermont, b University of California, Berkeley c Institute for Food and DevelopmentPolicy (Food First),

First published on: 01 June 2010

To cite this Article Méndez, V. Ernesto , Bacon, Christopher M. , Olson, Meryl , Morris, Katlyn S. and Shattuck,Annie(2010) 'Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods: A Review and Synthesis of Ten Years ofResearch in Central America', The Professional Geographer, 62: 3, 357 — 376, First published on: 01 June 2010 (iFirst)To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2010.483638URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2010.483638

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=t788352615

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2010.483638

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

Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder

Livelihoods: A Review and Synthesis of Ten Years of

Research in Central America∗

V. Ernesto MendezUniversity of Vermont

Christopher M. BaconUniversity of California, Berkeley

Meryl Olson and Katlyn S. MorrisUniversity of Vermont

Annie ShattuckInstitute for Food and Development Policy (Food First)

We used households as the primary unit of analysis to synthesize agrobiodiversity research in small-scalecoffee farms and cooperatives of Nicaragua and El Salvador. Surveys, focus groups, and plant inventorieswere used to analyze agrobiodiversity and its contribution to livelihoods. Households managed high levelsof agrobiodiversity, including 100 shade tree and epiphyte species, food crops, and medicinals. Small farmscontained higher levels of agrobiodiversity than larger, collectively managed cooperatives. Households bene-fited from agrobiodiversity through consumption and sales. To better support agrobiodiversity conservation,our analysis calls for a hybrid approach integrating bottom-up initiatives with the resources from top-downprojects. Key Words: agroecology, biodiversity conservation, farmer cooperatives, participatory actionresearch.

Utilizamos los hogares como unidad basica de analisis para sintetizar la investigacion sobre agrobiodiversidaden fincas pequenas y cooperativas cafeteras de Nicaragua y El Salvador. Se utilizaron estudios de campo,grupos focales e inventario de plantas para analizar la agrobiodiversidad y su contribucion al medio de vidade la gente. Los hogares manejan niveles altos de agrobiodiversidad, lo cual incluye 100 especies de arbolesde sombrıo y epıfitas, cultivos alimentarios y plantas medicinales. Las fincas pequenas contienen niveles mas

∗We would like to thank the farmers and their cooperatives for their long-term participation in this research process. We are grateful to Bill Morrisfor his help in developing Figures 1 and 2. Funding for V. Ernesto Mendez, Meryl Olson, and Katlyn S. Morris was provided by the Universityof Vermont. Meryl Olson also received support from Annie’s Homegrown Sustainable Agriculture Scholarship. Christopher M. Bacon thanksthe S.V. Ciriacy-Wintrup Postdoctoral Fellowship for support and Raul Dıaz, Maria Eugenia Flores Gomez, Pedro H. Mendoza, and Byron forproviding assistance in Nicaragua. Stephen R. Gliessman and three anonymous reviewers provided useful comments that helped improve thequality of the article.

The Professional Geographer, 62(3) 2010, pages 357–376 C© Copyright 2010 by Association of American Geographers.Initial submission, November 2008; revised submission, August 2009; final acceptance, October 2009.

Published by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Downloaded By: [Association of American Geographers - Referer URL for Annals of the Association of American Geographers and The Professional Geographer] At: 20:18 21 June 2010

358 Volume 62, Number 3, August 2010

altos de agrobiodiversidad que las cooperativas, mas grandes y de manejo colectivo. Las unidades familiares sebenefician de la agrobiodiversidad por consumo y ventas. Para apoyar de mejor manera la conservacion de laagrobiodiversidad, nuestro analisis es partidario de un enfoque hıbrido que integre iniciativas de abajo haciaarriba con los recursos de proyectos que operan de arriba abajo. Palabras clave: agroecologıa, conservacionde la biodiversidad, cooperativas de agricultores, investigacion de accion participativa.

T he last two decades have seen a prolifera-tion of studies on the biodiversity conser-

vation potential of shade coffee agroecosystems(Perfecto et al. 1996; Perfecto and Vandermeer2008). The evidence shows that coffee planta-tions with a diversified shade tree canopy havehigher biodiversity conservation potential thanplantations under full sun or simplified shade(Perfecto et al. 1996; Moguel and Toledo 1999;Somarriba et al. 2004; Philpott et al. 2008).Most of this research has focused on the coffeeplantation and does not take into account otheragricultural plots that are managed by coffeefarmers (Somarriba et al. 2004; Philpott et al.2008).

Although the notion of agrobiodiversityis implicit in most of the ecological researchon shade coffee, no studies have explicitlyused the concept to analyze these agroecosys-tems. Previous studies have focused on whatVandermeer and Perfecto (1995) define asassociated biodiversity, which refers to plantsand animals that colonize an agroecosystemwithout direct intervention from farmers. Thisperspective stems from an interest in shadecoffee plantations to act as extended habitat forwild biodiversity, such as birds (Komar 2006),insects (Armbrecht, Perfecto, and Silverman2006; Perfecto et al. 1997), mammals (Gallina,Mandujano, and Gonzalez-Romero 1996),and orchids (Solis-Montero, Flores-Palacios,and Cruz-Angon 2005), among others. Thisleaves an information gap regarding plannedbiodiversity, which refers to organisms directlyincorporated into agroecosystems by farmers(Altieri 1999; Vandermeer and Perfecto 1995).The lines between associated and plannedagrobiodiversity can be unclear (Phillipsand Stolton 2008), and both are ultimatelyaffected by farmer management. Both typesof biodiversity have an effect on ecosystemfunction and dynamics (Vandermeer et al.2002) and on the products and benefits thatgrowers obtain (Mendez 2008). We focused onthe useful plant agrobiodiversity of smallholderfarmers and their cooperatives, who tend tomanage coffee plantations with diversified

shade canopies, and low-input management(Moguel and Toledo 1999; Gliessman 2008).

Agrobiodiversity has been defined in differ-ent ways (Qualset, McGuire, and Warbur-ton 1995; Wood and Lenne 1997; Love andSpaner 2007) and can be synonymous with theterms agricultural biodiversity and agrodiversity(Brookfield and Padoch 1994). We consideragrobiodiversity to encompass the diversity ofplants, practices, and knowledge that farmersmanage and use within their farms and in thebroader landscape (Food and Agriculture Or-ganization [FAO] 1999; Brookfield and Padoch2007).

Household Agrobiodiversity

Management at Multiple Scales

To fully account for the agrobiodiversity man-aged by coffee farmers, it is necessary to stepoutside of the coffee plantation and observethe additional plots where they maintain plants.These include parcels for annual crops, trees,live fences, and homegardens surroundinghouseholds (Coelli and Fleming 2004; Ponette-Gonzalez 2007). We propose that to examinethe entirety of agrobiodiversity present, it isnecessary to use the household as the unit ofanalysis, rather than the coffee plantation. Thisallows us to capture the agrobiodiversity man-aged by a household unit, which might includeplots separate from the coffee plantation, oftencared for by different family members.

Although agrobiodiversity is mostly man-aged at the plot and farm scales, ecologicaland social factors at the landscape scale influ-ence its composition and diversity (Brookfieldand Padoch 2007; Phillips and Stolton 2008).These can include the distance a farmer walksto reach a field; seed sources; plant arrange-ments within fields, farms, or landscapes; anddifferent types of support networks (e.g., tech-nical, financial, etc.; Mendez, Lok, and Somar-riba 2001; Bacon 2005a; Mendez 2008). Thereis also a growing interest in assessing agro-biodiversity at the landscape scale and its po-tential role in ecosystem services conservation


Agrobiodiversity and Shade Coffee Smallholder Livelihoods 359

(Brookfield and Padoch 2007; Jackson, Pascual,and Hodgkin 2007).

A focus on coffee smallholder agrobiodi-versity management is timely because theyare facing globally driven challenges, such asunstable international coffee prices and threatsto food security1 (FAO 2008; Petchers andHarris 2008). We use the livelihoods conceptto analyze the contributions of agrobiodiversityto farm households. A livelihood “comprisesthe capabilities, assets (stores, resources, claimsand access) and activities required for a meansof living” (Chambers and Conway 1992, 6).Understanding the linkages between agrobio-diversity and household livelihoods can provideinsight on how these resources can be usedto support both conservation and livelihoodstrategies (Bacon, Mendez, and Fox 2008).

Initiatives to Support Biodiversity

Conservation in Central American

Shade Coffee

Many studies have highlighted the importanceof agrobiodiversity, for both livelihood andconservation, yet farmers have received mini-mal support for on-farm conservation (Jackson,Pascual, and Hodgkin 2007; Jarvis, Padoch, andCooper 2007; Amend et al. 2008).

In Central America, several initiatives haveattempted to assist shade coffee farmers to con-serve biodiversity. We discuss four initiativesthat have directly or indirectly reached the ruralcommunities we have collaborated with for thisarticle. The first initiative is Rainforest Alliancecertification (Gobbi 2000; Perfecto et al. 2005;Philpott et al. 2007), which pays a premiumto coffee farms that meet biodiversity-friendlyand social criteria (e.g., number of shade trees,limited agrochemical use and dignified hous-ing for workers; Mas and Dietsch 2004). Thiscertification was initiated through the Coffeeand Biodiversity Project, implemented in ElSalvador between 1997 and 2001. Workingwith the Rainforest Alliance, this project devel-oped the criteria for the ECO-OK label, whichlater became Rainforest Alliance (Herrador andDimas 2000; Perfecto and Ambrecht 2003).

Second, we focus on payment or compen-sation for ecosystem services (PES or CES),which argues for rewarding land owners whomanage their properties in a way that will con-serve ecosystem services. Ecosystem services

can be defined as the benefits that humans ob-tain from ecosystems (Costanza et al. 1997;Daily et al. 1997; Wunder 2007). There isgrowing interest in utilizing PES to conserveecosystem services in agricultural landscapes(Pagiola et al. 2004; Robertson and Swinton2005). If managed adequately, shade coffee hasthe potential to conserve several ecosystem ser-vices (Blackman, Avalos-Sartorio, and Chow2007), including biodiversity, soil and waterconservation, and carbon sequestration (Ataroffand Monasterio 1997; Montagnini and Nair2004; Dossa et al. 2008; Philpott et al. 2008;Mendez, Shapiro, and Gilbert 2009). The ex-plicit value of agrobiodiversity to ecosystemservices conservation has recently begun tobe recognized (Hajjar, Jarvis, and Gemmill-Herren 2008).

Agroecotourism is the third initiative we ad-dressed. It is well established in coffee plan-tations of Central America and has provensuccessful mostly for medium to large planta-tion owners (Mendez 2005). Agroecotourismuses the beauty of the coffee landscape, the cul-tural heritage associated with coffee productionand processing, and the planned (e.g., shadetrees) and associated (e.g., birds) agrobiodiver-sity as attractions for visitors (Mendez, 2005).

Finally, we assessed participatory action re-search (PAR), an approach that brings to-gether researchers and other stakeholders ina process that integrates research and ac-tion objectives (Fals-Borda and Rahman 1991;Selener 1997). In agriculture and natural re-sources management, PAR will ideally yield in-teresting research products (e.g., publications)and also support the livelihoods, natural re-sources management capacities, and conserva-tion efforts of community partners (for farmers,this could mean implementing sustainable agri-culture practices, or accessing better markets;Castellanet and Jordan 2002; Fortmann 2008).

This article synthesizes ten years ofagrobiodiversity-related research in coffeecommunities of Nicaragua and El Salvador.We focused on the interactions between agro-biodiversity and household livelihoods and onthe challenges and opportunities to supporton-farm conservation. The specific objectivesof our analysis were to (1) assess the typesand levels of plant agrobiodiversity managedby smallholder coffee households; (2) exam-ine how agrobiodiversity contributed to house-hold livelihoods; and (3) discuss challenges



and opportunities of selected initiatives to sup-port agrobiodiversity conservation in small-scale coffee farms and cooperatives of CentralAmerica.

Study Sites

The landscapes we studied contained a pro-tected area surrounded by an agriculturalmatrix (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2002)composed of larger patches of shade coffeeand smaller areas of annual crops (Figure 1).We selected farmers who grew coffee as their

main agricultural and economic occupation,most of whom were members of cooperativesexclusively devoted to coffee activities.

Western El SalvadorIn El Salvador, we worked in the municipal-ity of Tacuba in the western part of the coun-try, with average elevations of 897 m abovesea level (Figure 2). The climate is subtropicalhumid with average rainfall of 1,500 mm peryear (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recur-sos Naturales [MARN] 2002). The natural veg-etation in the area is humid, subtropical forest,

Figure 1 Satellite image of the agricultural landscape where cooperative ES2 is located in Tacuba, ElSalvador. High-resolution imagery by DigitalGlobe Inc., acquired on 27 October 2004.



Figure 2 Location of Tacuba, El Salvador, andMatagalpa, Nicaragua.

and soils are predominantly volcanic Andisols(MARN 2003). The cooperatives were locatedin or near the buffer zone of El Imposible Na-tional Park, one of the largest protected naturalforests in the country.

The PAR process has been carried out withfour different types of cooperatives. Coopera-tives ES1 and ES2 were collectively managedcoffee farms, of 195 and 35 ha, respectively.Cooperative ES3 consisted of twenty-eight in-dependently owned and managed farms, withaverage farm sizes of 0.94 ha, including res-idential and subsistence crop areas, and shadecoffee (Mendez 2004). Cooperative 4 (ES4) wasa union between organic farmers from coopera-tives ES2 and ES3, which organized to improvetheir production and marketing efforts.

Northern NicaraguaIn Nicaragua, the research was conducted inthe municipality of San Ramon, Matagalpa, andthe surrounding communities of Yasika Sur and

Yucul (Bacon 2005b; Figure 1). The naturalvegetation in this area is humid, subtropicalforest, and farm elevations ranged between 700and 1,150 m above sea level. Annual precip-itation ranges between 1,600 and 1,800 mm(Gonda and Siadou 2002). The farms borderthe biological reserves of Yucul and El Saltoin Yasika, which are private protected areas.In Nicaragua we worked with the followingtypes of farmers: (1) agrarian reform cooper-atives that were collectively managed duringthe early 1980s (N1, N3, N4, and N5); (2)marketing and service cooperatives thatgrouped individual farmers in an effort to ac-cess credit, markets, and support networks; and(3) farmers unaffiliated with a cooperative.

Institutions and Policies Affecting theCooperative Coffee Sectors in El Salvadorand NicaraguaThe farmers in this research have been in-fluenced by the changing roles of the state,local cooperatives, different types of supportnetworks, and access to organic and fair trademarkets (Bacon, Mendez, and Fox 2008). Inthe 1980s there was a regulated internationalcoffee market with strong domestic agenciesand private exporters. In the 1990s, this shiftedto market deregulation and the privatiza-tion of technical assistance and marketing(Bacon, Mendez, Gliessman, et al. 2008; Bray,Plaza-Sanchez, and Contreras-Murphy 2002).State-led agrarian reforms enabled access toland for all but two of the cooperatives (N2and ES3), but many of these collapsed duringthe 1990s. Some of those that survived formedcooperative unions to gain better access to mar-kets, credit, and development projects. Afterthe retreat of the state and cooperative failures,transnational corporations gained more controlover coffee exports. In El Salvador, the statenever played a dominant role in coffee process-ing and exporting, as these largely remainedin control of an agro-industrial elite (Paige1997). In both countries, cooperatives used fairtrade and organic markets to build relation-ships with coffee roasters and, in Nicaragua,this allowed them to become independentexporters (Bacon 2005b). Most cooperativesalso developed relationships with nongovern-mental organizations (NGOs) and solidarityand farmer organizations, both nationally and



internationally (Mendez 2004; Bacon, Mendez,and Fox 2008).

Technical assistance in both countries wasprovided by state agencies and programs de-voted to coffee until the 1990s (PROCAFE inEl Salvador and CONARCA and UNICAFE inNicaragua), focusing mostly on increasing pro-duction through intensification (i.e., high useof inputs and decreased shade levels) in largerplantations (Mendez 2008; Westphal 2008).After the 1990s, these agencies were consider-ably weakened, allowing for NGOs (e.g. Oxfamand TechnoServe) and farmer cooperatives(e.g., CafeNica) to take over technical assis-tance to coffee farmers (Mendez 2004). Thisresulted in a diversification of the content oftechnological offerings (e.g., organic produc-tion and value added) and a stronger focus onsmallholders.

Research Approach and

Methodology

Research in the two sites has been conductedthrough a PAR approach, which started in 1999(Bacon, Mendez, and Brown 2005). Through-out this period we have carried out numerousdata collection efforts from which we draw se-lected information for this article. Key partnersin these activities have included professors andstudents from U.S. universities, different typesof coffee farmer cooperatives in both countries,and national and international NGOs.

Household Livelihood Surveys and FocusGroupsHousehold surveys consisting of open- andclosed-ended questions were conducted in2000, 2002, and 2008. In the first roundswe surveyed fifty-two households in El Sal-vador and 105 households in Nicaragua. In2008, sample sizes were twenty-nine house-holds in El Salvador and seventy-nine house-holds in Nicaragua. Data were collected on thefollowing factors: (1) household demograph-ics (age, gender, occupation, etc.); (2) house-hold livelihoods (income sources, savings, debt,agricultural products, education, and supportnetworks); (3) farmer’s perceptions of biodiver-sity conservation; (4) agricultural management(crops, number of plots, and management prac-

tices); and (5) the functions, benefits, and chal-lenges of cooperative membership.

Shade Tree and Epiphyte Biodiversity inCoffee PlantationsShade tree biodiversity data were collectedin forty-nine and fifty-one plots within cof-fee plantations of Nicaragua and El Salvador,respectively (Mendez and Bacon 2005). Treespecies richness, abundance, and size (diam-eter at breast height and tree height) weremeasured in 1,000 m2 plots. In the two col-lectively managed coffee cooperatives of ElSalvador we established twenty (ES1) and four-teen (ES2) plots through a stratified randomdesign. Stratification was based on shade typesas described by Moguel and Toledo (1999).Seventeen farms were randomly selected incooperative ES3, and plots were placed inthe middle of the coffee parcels of each farm(see Mendez, Gliessman, and Gilbert 2007for details). Nicaraguan inventories followeda similar sampling methodology. Tree specieswere identified by the National Herbarium inNicaragua and La Laguna Botanical Garden inEl Salvador.

Epiphyte surveys were conducted within thesame thirty-seven plots used for tree inven-tories. Data collected included epiphyte pres-ence on trees (orchids, bromeliads, mosses, andferns). We were only able to identify orchidsdue to the availability of a specialist affiliatedwith the National Herbarium in Managua.

Medicinal Plant Surveys in El SalvadorResearch was conducted between October andDecember 2005 and consisted of semistruc-tured interviews and plant inventories on thir-teen farms from cooperatives ES2 and ES3(Shattuck 2005). Information collected also in-cluded perceptions and management of medic-inals and a list of remedies. Common and scien-tific names were matched using Mendez (2004)and Ayala (1994).

Results

Types and Uses of AgrobiodiversityShade coffee households managed four distincttypes of plant agrobiodiversity, including shadetrees, agricultural crops, medicinal plants,and epiphytes (Table 1). Agrobiodiversity was


Tab

le1

Cha

ract

eris

tics

ofag

robi

odiv

ersi

tyfo

und

insh

ade

coffe

eho

useh

olds

ofEl

Salv

ador

and

Nic

arag

ua

Ag

rob

iod

ivers

ity

typ

eG

row

thh

ab

itLo

cati

on

No

.o

fsp

ecie

sU

ses

rep

ort

ed

Sam

plin

geff

ort

an

dm

eth

od

Refe

ren

ce(s

)

ElS

alva

dor

Tree

sW

oody

pere

nnia

lS

CP

123

S,FW

,Fr,

M,T

Com

plet

etr

eein

vent

orie

sin

fifty

-one

1,00

0m

2pl

ots,

and

52ho

useh

old

surv

eys

inth

ree

coffe

eco

oper

ativ

es

Men

dez,

Glie

ssm

an,

and

Gilb

ert

(200

7)

Agr

icul

tura

lcro

psH

erba

ceou

sA

P7

F,M

Sem

istr

uctu

red

inte

rvie

ws

and

part

icip

ator

ym

aps

with

29ho

useh

olds

Ols

on(fo

rthc

omin

g;

data

colle

cted

in20

08)

Med

icin

alpl

ants

Woo

dype

renn

ial,

shru

bs,h

erba

ceou

sS

CP,

AP,

HG

119

F,M

,FW

Sem

istr

uctu

red

inte

rvie

ws

and

field

iden

tifica

tion

in13

hous

ehol

ds;i

nfor

mal

inte

rvie

ws,

dire

ctob

serv

atio

n

Sha

ttuck

(200

5)

Nic

arag

uaTr

ees

Woo

dype

renn

ial

SC

P10

6S,

FW,F

r,M

,TC

ompl

ete

tree

inve

ntor

ies

inth

irty-

seve

n1,

000

m2

plot

s,an

d34

hous

ehol

dsu

rvey

sin

four

coffe

eco

oper

ativ

es

Bac

on(2

005b

)

Agr

icul

tura

lcro

psH

erba

ceou

sA

P7

F,M

Hou

seho

ldle

vels

urve

ysin

82ho

useh

olds

Bac

onet

al.

(fort

hcom

ing)

Orc

hids

Prim

arily

epyp

hite

sS

CP,

HG

96O

Orc

hid

inve

ntor

ies

ontr

ees

inan

dar

ound

thirt

y-se

ven

1,00

0-m

2pl

ots

on34

farm

sM

arce

ll-Ve

lasq

uez

(200

8)

Not

e:Fo

rlo

catio

n,A

P=

agric

ultu

ralp

lot;

LF=

live

fenc

e;H

G=

hom

ega

rden

;SC

P=

shad

eco

ffee

plan

tatio

n.Fo

rus

es,

F=

food

;Fr

=fr

uit;

FW=

firew

ood;

M=

med

icin

al;

S=

shad

e;T

=tim

ber;

O=

orna

men

tal.

363



found in four locations, including shade coffeeplantations, homegardens, agricultural plots,and live fences. Shade trees, medicinals, andepiphytes were found in several locations,whereas crops were only found in agriculturalplots (Table 1). Trees were the most species-rich group, with a total of 123 and 106 species inEl Salvador and Nicaragua, respectively. Agri-cultural crop species diversity was similar inboth countries, but differences were observedin the types of crops grown and the numberof varieties. Nicaraguan households managedthirteen varieties of corn and nine varieties ofbeans. These numbers are higher than thoseobserved in El Salvador (Table 2), but this couldbe due to a larger sample size in Nicaragua.The number of coffee varieties was also higherin Nicaragua (eight), compared to El Salvador(two). Medicinals in El Salvador were a verydiverse group, both in terms of species andgrowth habit (119 species of trees, shrubs, andherbs).

The most frequent tree species were similarin Nicaragua and El Salvador (Table 2). Treesof the genus Inga were common in both coun-tries, as they have desirable characteristics forshade, including nitrogen fixation, pruning tol-erance, nondeciduousness, and fruit (Beer et al.1998). The native timber tree Laurel (Cordia al-liodora) was also common in both countries. Sal-vadorans planted a greater variety of vegetables(tomatoes, peppers, and cabbage), which weremostly used for sales. Nicaraguan householdsmost frequently grew locally valued crops, suchas cacao (Theobroma cacao) and passion fruit(Passiflora spp.) for sale. Most medicinal speciesreported in El Salvador had multiple uses, ex-cept for Epazote (Chenopodium amrosoides) andSavila (Aloe barbadensis), which were exclusivelymedicinal.

Comparison of Agrobiodiversity BetweenCooperative TypesOur previous studies demonstrated that typeof cooperative management (i.e., collectiveor individual) is an important factor affect-ing shade tree biodiversity (Mendez, Gliess-man, and Gilbert 2007; Mendez, Shapiro, andGilbert 2009). In El Salvador, individuallymanaged farms contained significantly higherlevels of tree richness and abundance comparedto collectively managed cooperatives (Table 3;

Mendez, Gliessman, and Gilbert 2007), buttrees in individual farms tended to be smaller.The findings from Nicaragua show a simi-lar pattern, suggesting that farms with collec-tive management practices have lower shadetree species richness and abundance but largertrees. Cooperatives ES1, ES2, N1, N3, N4,and N5 were large, private plantations priorto the agrarian reforms and were then trans-ferred to resource-poor farmers. In Nicaragua,most of these cooperatives were subdivided intoindividual farms in the 1990s (except for N1),whereas in El Salvador they are still collectivelymanaged.

Contributions of Agrobiodiversity toHousehold LivelihoodsAgrobiodiversity managed by coffee farmerscontributed to household livelihoods by gen-erating products for consumption, incomethrough sales, or both (Table 4). Farmersreported seven plant uses (Table 1), whichincluded food (grains and vegetables), fruit,firewood, medicine, shade, timber, and orna-mentals. Trees provided the most diversity ofuses, including fruit, medicine, firewood, andshade.

Agricultural crops were used for food andincome generation, and medicinal plants wereused exclusively for remedies. Food crops pro-vided at least 40 percent of subsistence grains(corn and beans) for most families in bothcountries (Table 4). Coffee generated between50 and 100 percent of the annual incomeof most households. Firewood for consump-tion and sales was collected from trees andshrubs in the coffee plantation, home gar-dens, and live fences. Farmers in both coun-tries reported harvesting an average of 50 per-cent of the firewood they use, which amountsroughly to US$75 per year. This is a consider-able amount for households reporting averagemonthly incomes below US$170 (El Salvador)and US$100 (Nicaragua).

Individual farmers obtained a higher diver-sity of products from agrobiodiversity than col-lective cooperatives. The number of fruit andother edible species in coffee plots of indi-vidual farms is considerably higher in bothcountries (Mendez, Shapiro, and Gilbert 2009;Bacon et al. forthcoming). In El Salvador,mean monthly household income showed no


Tab

le2

Mos

tfre

quen

tpla

ntsp

ecie

sm

anag

edby

coffe

eho

useh

olds

inEl

Salv

ador

and

Nic

arag

ua

Ty

pe,

co

mm

on

nam

e,

Uses

No

.o

fan

dsp

ecie

sre

po

rte

dL

ocati

on

Fre

qu

en

cy

(%)

vari

eti

es

Sam

ple

siz

eR

efe

ren

ce(s

)

ElS

alva

dor

tree

sC

opal

chi(

Cro

ton

refle

xifo

lius)

F,W

SC

P,LF

57N

/An

=51

plot

sin

shad

eco

ffee

Men

dez,

Glie

ssm

an,

and

Gilb

ert

(200

7)In

gapu

ncta

taS,

FrS

CP,

LF57

N/A

n=

51pl

ots

insh

ade

coffe

eM

ende

z,G

liess

man

,an

dG

ilber

t(2

007)

Laur

el( C

ordi

aal

liodo

ra)

S,T

SC

P,LF

55N

/An

=51

plot

sin

shad

eco

ffee

Men

dez,

Glie

ssm

an,

and

Gilb

ert

(200

7)In

gaoe

rste

dian

aS,

FrS

CP,

LF49

N/A

n=

51pl

ots

insh

ade

coffe

eM

ende

z,G

liess

man

,an

dG

ilber

t(2

007)

Crit

onia

mor

ifolia

S,F

SC

P,LF

45N

/An

=51

plot

sin

shad

eco

ffee

Men

dez,

Glie

ssm

an,

and

Gilb

ert

(200

7)M

ango

( Man

gife

rain

dica

)S,

F,Fr

SC

P,LF

41N

/An

=51

plot

sin

shad

eco

ffee

Men

dez,

Glie

ssm

an,

and

Gilb

ert

(200

7)A

gric

ultu

ralc

rops

Cor

n( Z

eam

ays)

FA

P93

6n

=29

hous

ehol

din

terv

iew

san

dm

aps

Ols

on(fo

rthc

omin

g)B

ean

( Pha

seol

usvu

lgar

is)

FA

P81

2n

=29

hous

ehol

din

terv

iew

san

dm

aps

Ols

on(fo

rthc

omin

g)To

mat

o( L

ycop

ersi

cum

escu

lent

a)F

AP

33U

nkno

wn

n=

29ho

useh

old

inte

rvie

ws

and

map

sO

lson

(fort

hcom

ing)

Chi

leve

rde

( Cap

sicu

msp

p.)

FA

P30

Unk

now

nn

=29

hous

ehol

din

terv

iew

san

dm

aps

Ols

on(fo

rthc

omin

g)C

offe

e( C

offe

aar

abic

a)S

CP

100

2n

=51

plot

sin

shad

eco

ffee

Men

dez,

Glie

ssm

an,

and

Gilb

ert

(200

7)M

edic

inal

sE

pazo

te( C

heno

podi

umam

roso

ides

)M

62N

/An

=13

sem

istr

uctu

red

inte

rvie

ws

and

field

surv

eys

Sha

ttuck

(200

5)

Sav

ila( A

loe

barb

aden

sis)

M46

N/A

n=

13se

mis

truc

ture

din

terv

iew

san

dfie

ldsu

rvey

sS

hattu

ck(2

005)

Izot

e( Y

ucca

elep

hant

ipes

)F,

LF,M

,W46

N/A

n=

13se

mis

truc

ture

din

terv

iew

san

dfie

ldsu

rvey

sS

hattu

ck(2

005)

Chi

chip

ince

( Ham

elia

pate

ns)

M,S

46N

/An

=13

sem

istr

uctu

red

inte

rvie

ws

and

field

surv

eys

Sha

ttuck

(200

5)

San

And

res

( Tec

oma

stan

s)FW

,LF,

M,S

38N

/An

=13

sem

istr

uctu

red

inte

rvie

ws

and

field

surv

eys

Sha

ttuck

(200

5)

(Con

tinue

don

next

page

)

365


Tab

le2

Mos

tfre

quen

tpla

ntsp

ecie

sm

anag

edby

coffe

eho

useh

olds

inEl

Salv

ador

and

Nic

arag

ua(C

ontin

ued)

Ty

pe,

co

mm

on

nam

e,

Uses

No

.o

fan

dsp

ecie

sre

po

rte

dL

ocati

on

Fre

qu

en

cy

(%)

vari

eti

es

Sam

ple

siz

eR

efe

ren

ce(s

)

Nic

arag

uatr

ees

Gua

baro

ja( In

gaed

ulis

)S,

FWS

CP

70N

/An

=37

plot

sin

34sh

ade

coffe

efa

rms

Bac

on(2

005b

)G

uaba

negr

a( In

gapu

ncta

ta)

S,FW

SC

P59

N/A

n=

37pl

ots

in34

shad

eco

ffee

farm

sB

acon

(200

5b)

Laur

el( C

ordi

aal

liodo

ra)

S,T,

SC

P54

N/A

n=

37pl

ots

in34

shad

eco

ffee

farm

sB

acon

(200

5b)

Gua

sim

o( G

uazu

ma

ulm

ifolia

)S,

T,M

SC

P38

N/A

n=

37pl

ots

in34

shad

eco

ffee

farm

sB

acon

(200

5b)

Mam

pas

( Lip

pia

myr

ocep

hala

)S,

SC

P32

N/A

n=

37pl

ots

in34

shad

eco

ffee

farm

sB

acon

(200

5b)

Nog

al( J

ugla

nsol

anch

a)S,

T,M

SC

P32

N/A

n=

37pl

ots

in34

shad

eco

ffee

farm

sB

acon

(200

5b)

Gua

yaba

( Psi

dium

guaj

ava)

S,Fr

,M,

SC

P30

N/A

n=

37pl

ots

in34

shad

eco

ffee

farm

sB

acon

(200

5b)

Agr

icul

tura

lcro

psC

orn

( Zea

may

s)F

AP

8713

n=

79ho

useh

olds

inst

ruct

ured

surv

eys

Bac

onet

al.

(fort

hcom

ing)

Bea

n( P

hase

olus

vulg

aris

)F

AP

845

n=

79ho

useh

olds

inst

ruct

ured

surv

eys

Bac

onet

al.

(fort

hcom

ing)

Mus

asp

p.F

SC

P,H

G10

Unk

now

nn

=79

hous

ehol

dsin

stru

ctur

edsu

rvey

sB

acon

etal

.(fo

rthc

omin

g)C

acao

( The

obro

ma

caca

o)F

SC

P,H

G5

Unk

now

nn

=79

hous

ehol

dsin

stru

ctur

edsu

rvey

sB

acon

etal

.(fo

rthc

omin

g)C

hayo

te( S

echi

umed

ule)

FS

CP,

HG

4U

nkno

wn

n=

79ho

useh

olds

inst

ruct

ured

surv

eys

Bac

onet

al.

(fort

hcom

ing)

Mar

acuy

a( P

assi

flora

edul

is)

FS

CP,

HG

4U

nkno

wn

n=

79ho

useh

olds

inst

ruct

ured

surv

eys

Bac

onet

al.

(fort

hcom

ing)

Cof

fee

( Cof

fea

arab

ica)

SC

P10

08

n=

79ho

useh

olds

inst

ruct

ured

surv

eys

Bac

onet

al.

(fort

hcom

ing)

Not

e:Fo

rlo

catio

n,A

P=

agric

ultu

ral

Plot

;LF

=liv

eFe

nce;

HG

=ho

me

gard

en;

SCP

=sh

ade

coffe

epl

anta

tion.

For

uses

,F

=fo

od;

Fr=

frui

t;FW

=fir

ewoo

d;M

=m

edic

inal

;S

=sh

ade;

T=

timbe

r;O

=or

nam

enta

l;N

/A=

nota

pplic

able

.

366


Tab

le3

Com

paris

onof

agro

biod

iver

sity

indi

ffere

ntty

pes

ofsh

ade

coffe

eco

oper

ativ

esof

ElSa

lvad

oran

dN

icar

agua

Nic

ara

gu

aE

lS

alv

ad

or

N1

N2

N3

&4

N5

ES

1E

S2

ES

3E

S4

Re

fere

nce

(s)

Coo

pera

tive

man

agem

ent

type

Col

lect

ive

fair

trad

eO

rgan

ican

din

divi

dual

fair

trad

e

Indi

vidu

alfa

irtr

ade

Con

vent

iona

lin

divi

dual

aO

rgan

icco

llect

ive

and

fair

trad

e

Col

lect

ive

orga

nic

and

indi

vidu

al

Indi

vidu

alco

nven

tiona

lIn

divi

dual

and

colle

ctiv

e,bo

thor

gani

can

dco

nven

tiona

lLa

ndm

anag

emen

thi

stor

yA

grar

ian

refo

rmco

llect

ive

(198

2–19

84)

Indi

vidu

alhi

stor

ies

Agr

aria

nre

form

(198

0s),

colle

ctiv

e(1

990)

indi

vidu

al

Agr

aria

nre

form

(198

0s),

colle

ctiv

e(1

990)

indi

vidu

al

Agr

aria

nre

form

colle

ctiv

e(1

980)

Trad

ition

alco

llect

ive

(198

4)

Indi

vidu

alfa

rmer

asso

ciat

ion

(200

1)

Farm

eran

dco

oper

ativ

eas

soci

atio

n(2

007)

Tota

lare

am

anag

ed(b

oth

colle

ctiv

ean

din

divi

dual

)(in

ha)

100

117

173

4919

535

Est

imat

eof

53in

2004

45

Ave

rage

farm

size

per

mem

berb

6.3

6.5

4.9

2.9

2.0

2.5

0.7

No

data

c

Num

ber

of1,

000

m2

plot

s12

811

720

1417

24M

ende

z,G

liess

man

,an

dG

ilber

t(2

007)

Tota

lsha

detr

eesp

ecie

sric

hnes

sd38

5852

4769

a48

a93

b(p

<

0.00

01)

No

data

Men

dez,

Glie

ssm

an,

and

Gilb

ert

(200

7)M

ean

tree

spec

ies

richn

ess

per

1,00

0m

2pl

otd

914

1112

12a

12a

22b

(p<

0.00

01)

No

data

Men

dez,

Glie

ssm

an,

and

Gilb

ert

(200

7)M

ean

num

ber

offo

odcr

ops

grow

npe

rho

useh

old

No

data

No

data

No

data

No

data

No

data

2.58

No

data

2.2

Ols

on(fo

rth-

com

ing)

a Com

para

ble

indi

vidu

alfa

rmer

sno

taffi

liate

dw

ithan

yco

oper

ativ

e.bC

olle

ctiv

ely

man

aged

fore

sts

noti

nclu

ded.

c No

data

avai

labl

eor

data

bein

gpr

oces

sed.

dM

eans

follo

wed

byth

esa

me

subs

crip

tare

nots

igni

fican

tlydi

ffere

nt.

367


Tab

le4

Con

trib

utio

nsof

agro

biod

iver

sity

tosh

ade

coffe

eho

useh

old

livel

ihoo

dsin

ElSa

lvad

oran

dN

icar

agua

Main

co

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

toA

gro

bio

div

ers

ity

typ

eLo

cati

on

ho

useh

old

livelih

oo

ds

Va

lue

rep

ort

ed

by

farm

ers

Sam

plin

gR

efe

ren

ce(s

)

ElS

alva

dor

Tree

sS

CP,

HG

,LF

Fire

woo

d,fr

uit,

timbe

ran

dsh

ade,

and

inco

me

Fire

woo

dob

tain

edfr

omsh

ade

tree

ssa

ved

hous

ehol

dsan

aver

age

of$7

1.50

per

year

in20

02

Com

plet

etr

eein

vent

orie

sin

fifty

-one

1,00

0m

2pl

ots,

and

52ho

useh

old

surv

eys

inth

ree

coffe

eco

oper

ativ

es

Men

dez,

Glie

ssm

an,

and

Gilb

ert

(200

7)

Agr

icul

tura

lcro

psA

PFo

odan

din

com

e62

%of

the

sam

ple

( n=

18)r

epor

ted

prod

ucin

gat

leas

t40

%of

the

food

used

byth

efa

mily

inon

eye

ar

Sur

veys

and

sem

istr

uctu

red

inte

rvie

ws

with

29ho

useh

olds

Mor

ris(2

008)

Med

icin

alpl

ants

SC

P,A

P,H

GM

edic

inal

rem

edie

sM

edic

inal

plan

tsar

eva

lued

beca

use

farm

ers

cann

otaf

ford

mod

ern

med

icin

esor

heal

thca

re

Sem

istr

uctu

red

inte

rvie

ws

and

field

iden

tifica

tion

in13

hous

ehol

ds;i

nfor

mal

inte

rvie

ws,

dire

ctob

serv

atio

n

Sha

ttuck

(200

5)

Nic

arag

uaTr

ees

SC

P,H

G,L

FFi

rew

ood,

frui

t,tim

ber

and

shad

e,an

din

com

e

Farm

ers

repo

rted

anav

erag

eof

$167

per

year

from

firew

ood

sale

s,in

addi

tion

toco

verin

gth

eir

own

firew

ood

need

s

n=

37pl

ots

in34

shad

eco

ffee

farm

sB

acon

(200

5a,2

005b

)

Agr

icul

tura

lcro

psA

PFo

odan

din

com

eA

vera

geof

50%

offo

odis

prod

uced

inth

ese

field

sS

urve

ysan

dse

mis

truc

ture

din

terv

iew

sw

ith79

hous

ehol

dsB

acon

etal

.(fo

rthc

omin

g)O

rchi

dsS

CP,

HG

Orn

amen

tala

ndin

com

eA

esth

etic

and

orna

men

tal

n=

37pl

ots

in34

shad

eco

ffee

farm

sM

arce

ll-Ve

lasq

uez

(200

8)

Not

e:Fo

rloc

atio

n,A

P=

agric

ultu

ralp

lot;

LF=

live

fenc

e;H

G=

hom

ega

rden

;SC

P=

shad

eco

ffee

plan

tatio

n.

368



significant differences between individual farmsand collective cooperatives (Mendez 2004). Asimilar trend was also observed in Nicaragua(Bacon et al. forthcoming).

All respondents in El Salvador interviewedfor medicinal plant use (n = 13) reportedhaving little or no access to health services.Medicinal plants were only used for com-mon ailments such as aches, diarrhea, commoncolds, and so on. For serious illnesses respon-dents went to public clinics or hospitals, whichtend to be short-staffed and ill-equipped facil-ities. Families expressed a desire to reacquaintthemselves with medicinal plant knowledge andexpressed concern that this knowledge is be-coming scarce. Nonetheless, Shattuck (2005)was able to collect 260 remedy recipes for sixty-two ailments.

Nicaraguan farmers stated that epiphyteshave an important aesthetic value for them.Many farmers “rescue” epiphytes from fallentree branches and perch them on trees neartheir houses, and the cooperatives use epiphytesas a tourist attraction. Epiphytes can also besold to local restaurants and wealthier house-holds, but this is illegal and thus goes largelyunreported.

Seed Sources and ExchangesFarmers in El Salvador (n = 29) reported ob-taining corn and bean seed from the follow-ing sources: (1) saving their own seed, (2)buying from another farmer, (3) local exten-sion office, (4) local agricultural store, or (5) acombination. Six varieties of corn were re-ported in El Salvador, including an improvedhybrid, which is bought locally or obtainedfrom the extension service, and five local vari-eties maintained by farmers (criollo). Thirty-sixpercent of households in El Salvador used onlythe seed they saved, with a similar percentageonly buying or receiving improved seed. Therest used a combination of both. Salvadorancoffee farmers used only two coffee varieties,Borbon, an older variety known for its qualityand high shade requirements, and Pacas, a hy-brid of Borbon bred specifically for Salvadoranconditions. Most farmers save their own coffeeseed.

Nicaraguan farmers reported higher diver-sity of varietals of corn (thirteen) and cof-fee (eight) than Salvadoran households. Thesefarmers received support from the Campesino

a Campesino (farmer-to-farmer) movement,which has been active in this region fortwo decades (Bacon 2005b). Local NGOs,the cooperatives, and the local Campesino-a-Campesino chapter have organized annual seedexchanges, promoted seed saving, and encour-aged traditional seed use. Although these pro-grams promote the more traditional corn vari-eties such as criollo and maizon and the Arabigo,Borbon, and Maragogype coffee varieties, mostcoffee farmers also use coffee hybrids, such asCaturra, Catimor, and Catuai. A similar patternwas observed for corn varieties, with 71 percentof households planting one or more traditionalvarieties, 29 percent using only newer varieties,and 19 percent planting both. Farmers have ac-cessed these newer varieties through purchasesin regional markets and through the govern-ment’s agricultural ministry.

Discussion

Agrobiodiversity in Smallholder ShadeCoffee HouseholdsAlthough there were some differences betweenthe study sites, overall, households managedhigh levels of plant agrobiodiversity. The diver-sity of trees found represents relatively high lev-els of species richness compared to other studiesof shade coffee in Mesoamerica (Philpott et al.2008). Farmers at both sites also managed adiversity of food crop species and varieties. Ahigh number of orchid species was also foundin Nicaragua, as compared to a similar study inMexico (Hietz 2005). In El Salvador, more than100 medicinal species were found, and farmershighlighted the importance of the knowledgeassociated with this type of agrobiodiversity.

Individually managed small farms containedhigher levels of shade tree agrobiodiversity incoffee plantations than collectively managedcooperatives at both sites. This supportsother research highlighting the importanceof small-scale tropical farms as reservoirs ofagrobiodiversity (Gliessman, Garcıa-Espinosa,and Amador 1981; Altieri 2004; Perfectoand Vandermeer 2008; Scales and Marsden2008). The higher levels of agrobiodiversityin individual farms were the result of growersseeking to obtain a diversity of products(e.g., fruit, firewood and timber), whereaslarger, collectively managed cooperativesconcentrated on coffee production and did



not prioritize product diversification (Mendez,Shapiro, and Gilbert 2009).

Our plant agrobiodiversity findings arecomparable to those found in shade cacaoagroforestry systems. Although less research isavailable on shade cacao, recent studies havereported on the biodiversity of numerous taxain several regions (Schroth and Harvey 2007).Shade tree species richness of shade cacaoplantations in Costa Rica was lower than atour sites, with a total of fifty-four and a meanof seven species in fourteen plots (Harvey andVillalobos 2007). Indonesian shade cacao farmscontained a higher number of tree species thanthose in our study, with a total of 189 speciesand a mean of twenty-six species per plot(Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2007). Similar resultswere found in southern Cameroon, with a totalof 206 tree species and a mean of twenty-onespecies per plot (Sonwa et al. 2007).

Contributions of Agrobiodiversity toHousehold LivelihoodsThe agrobiodiversity managed by coffee house-holds, in both countries, produced food, fire-wood, and timber for consumption. Theseproducts also generated income through sales.Taken as a whole, this accounts for at least50 percent of household income (roughly halfof which comes from coffee) and at least 40percent of the household’s staple food supply.Farmers also appreciated plants for their orna-mental and medicinal value.

Less research is available on the livelihoodcontributions of plant agrobiodiversity in shadecacao plantations. Bentley, Boa, and Stone-house (2004) reported that shade trees in ca-cao plantations of Ecuador were also sourcesof fruit and timber for household consump-tion and markets. Research in Costa Rica andPanama showed that diversified shade cacaoagroforestry systems were economically lessrisky than monocultures, and could generatesubstantial timber yields of the native Lau-rel tree (Cordia alliodora; Ramırez et al. 2001;Somarriba et al. 2001).

Conserving Agrobiodiversity in ShadeCoffee LandscapesProviding incentives for farmers to continueto conserve agrobiodiversity could result in

positive outcomes both for household liveli-hoods and conservation. An examination ofthe four biodiversity conservation initiativeswe discussed can provide insight on how todevelop more successful alternatives to sup-port agrobiodiversity conservation in coffeesmallholdings.

Although Rainforest Alliance certifiers haveapproached several of the cooperatives in thisstudy, the farmers have remained suspiciousof these certifications. This is largely due tocertifiers initially working only with owners oflarger plantations, who have historical tense re-lationships with smallholders. It also failed toengage rural social and cooperative organiza-tions, which serve as a reference to smallhold-ers and cooperatives (Bray, Plaza-Sanchez, andContreras-Murphy 2002). This initiative hasalso focused exclusively on the coffee planta-tion and has shown no concern for other typesof agrobiodiversity (e.g., agricultural crops andmedicinal) that are important to smallholdercoffee farmers.

PES has so far been implemented mostlythrough top-down mechanisms requiring ahigh level of capacity from participants, whichhas resulted in limited participation from small-holders (Corbera, Kosoy, and Tuna 2007). Inboth El Salvador and Nicaragua, government-led PES projects were initially interested inworking with shade coffee farmers to conservebiodiversity (Rosa, Kandel, and Dimas 2004).Cooperatives in both countries attended work-shops and were interested in the possibility ofdeveloping a PES initiative. To date, however,none of these initial efforts has materialized.

The PAR processes that have been carriedout with the coffee farmers of Nicaragua andEl Salvador have supported training and dis-cussions related to agrobiodiversity conser-vation (Mendez 2004; Bacon 2005b; Bacon,Mendez, and Brown 2005; Mendez and Bacon2006; Mendez, Gliessman, and Gilbert 2007).Researchers have accumulated a considerableamount of social and ecological informationand have been able to change some of the farm-ers’ negative assumptions related to conserva-tion, but the PAR process has generally lackedthe funds or capacity to implement initiatives,as most of the support has been in the formof capacity building, advising, and expansion ofsupport networks (Bacon, Mendez, and Brown2005).



Agroecotourism and PAR both emergedthrough a “bottom-up” approach, which al-lowed farmers to develop a sense of owner-ship in these activities. In 2003, a partnershipbetween Nicaraguan cooperative unions, par-ticipatory action researchers, and alternativetrade NGO networks launched an agroecotur-ism project (Bacon 2005b). This cooperative-based initiative sought to promote economicopportunities for youth and women, diver-sify smallholders’ income, and conserve theenvironment (UCA San Ramon 2008). Thisproject has received more than 1,200 visits fromfair trade networks, foreign universities, andsolidarity organizations. Despite these accom-plishments, the farmers face persistent chal-lenges, including an insufficient number of vis-itors to cover the costs of the program (UCASan Ramon 2008). In El Salvador, agroeco-tourism was also facilitated through the PARprocess and took the form of educational ex-changes from solidarity organizations and U.S.universities (Mendez 2008). Although theseactivities were developed with high farmer par-ticipation, they have had limited resources andonly reached a small number of beneficiaries.

As has been discussed in the IntegratedConservation and Development Project andcommunity-based conservation literature, top-down conservation initiatives that fail to in-tegrate community participation have beenlargely unsuccessful with small-scale farmers indeveloping countries (Barrett and Arcese 1995;McShane 2003; Rosa et al. 2004; Wells andMcShane 2004). This is also illustrated by twoof the cases presented earlier. On the otherhand, many grassroots initiatives lack the re-sources to provide sufficient benefits and toscale up to larger areas and higher numbers ofbeneficiaries. This argues for a hybrid model,which is able to integrate community-basedprojects with the resources from top-down ap-proaches (Berkes 2007; Amend et al. 2008).

Conclusions

Our research demonstrates that shade coffeesmallholder households in El Salvador andNicaragua manage high levels of agrobiodiver-sity, both within and outside the coffee planta-tion. Households use these products for directconsumption and income generation throughsales. The agrobiodiversity managed by small-

holder coffee households was able to almostfully provide for their basic needs. This mea-sure of success was tempered, however, by thefact that the levels of income of these house-holds were at or below the poverty line (Bacon,Mendez, Flores Gomez, et al. 2008) and thathouseholds continue to face food shortages onan annual basis.2

Our results support other work demonstrat-ing that agroforestry systems, such as shade cof-fee and cacao, have great potential to conserveplant agrobiodiversity in tropical landscapes(Schroth et al. 2004). In addition, our sugges-tions for improving support initiatives shouldbe applicable to other settings and agroforestrysystems that are managed by smallholders andcooperatives.

Cooperative types and land use managementhistory had a strong influence on the levelsof agrobiodiversity found, with small, individ-ually managed farms containing higher levelsof shade tree agrobiodiversity than larger col-lectively managed cooperatives. Smallholdershave repeatedly been left out of conservationinitiatives, such as the ones discussed in thisarticle. Based on our findings, we argue thatthey should be supported and included in fu-ture conservation efforts.

More in-depth research is necessary to bet-ter understand how food security,3 landscape-scale conservation, and climate change will af-fect the agrobiodiversity conservation potentialof shade coffee smallholders in the future. Inthis light, PAR approaches can make impor-tant contributions to these endeavors becausethey are done with the participation of com-munities, produce relevant and necessary data,and facilitate capacity building and support net-works. For this approach to scale up to largerareas and more beneficiaries, however, it willneed to seek partnerships with more conven-tional models (i.e., top-down projects) that areable to contribute the necessary financial andhuman resources. An integration of these dis-tinct models will require a deliberate and re-spectful dialogue, which takes into account thecomplexity of conditions and needs of multiplestakeholders (Berkes 2007). �

Notes

1 Food security is an issue that has been largely ig-nored by the biodiversity conservation literature



on shade coffee, but it has been addressed by so-cial and interdisciplinary studies (e.g., Jaffee 2007;Bacon, Mendez, and Fox 2008). Agrobiodiversity iscritical to food security, as the increasing homoge-nization of agriculture often raises the vulnerabilityof smallholders (Thrupp 2000; Caceres 2006). Thisrelates to our argument that previous studies havehad an exclusive focus on the coffee plantation,rather than all land units for agricultural produc-tion. Our recent research (Bacon, Mendez, FloresGomez, et al. 2008; Morris 2008; Olson forthcom-ing) directly addresses food security, both in termsof production of food crops in agricultural areasand the coffee plantation, as well as to related pol-icy issues in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and CentralAmerica.

2 Of key importance is the fact that most smallholdercoffee farmers face a persistent shortage of food forup to two to three months (los meses flacos) when in-come from coffee has been spent and the new cropof corn and beans has not been harvested (Jaffee2007; Morris 2008).

3 Fully addressing food security for the farmers whoparticipated in this study requires a shift in policy,rural development initiatives, and household man-agement so that it integrates food and coffee pro-duction as equally important livelihood strategies.To date, policy and rural development efforts haveconcentrated on improving coffee production andsales, leaving food production mostly unattended.A promising initiative led by progressive coffee im-porters and buyers in North America (e.g., GreenMountain Coffee Roasters and Cooperative Cof-fees) has recently addressed food security issues byfunding research and food security projects in col-laboration with several of the cooperatives men-tioned in this article, and the first and secondauthors.

Literature Cited

Altieri, M. A. 1999. The ecological role of biodi-versity in agroecosystems. Agriculture Ecosystems &Environment 74 (1–3): 19–31.

———. 2004. Linking ecologists and traditionalfarmers in the search for sustainable agriculture.Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2 (1): 35–42.

Amend, T., J. Brown, A. Kothari, A. Phillips, andS. Stolton, eds. 2008. Protected landscapes and agro-biodiversity values. Heidelberg, Germany: IUCN &GTZ.

Armbrecht, I., I. Perfecto, and E. Silverman. 2006.Limitation of nesting resources for ants in Colom-bian forests and coffee plantations. Ecological Ento-mology 31 (5): 403–10.

Ataroff, M., and M. Monasterio. 1997. Soil erosionunder different management of coffee plantationsin the Venezuelan Andes. Soil Technology 11:95–108.

Ayala, J. C. 1994. Botanica medicinal popular y et-nobotanica medicinal de El Salvador [Popular medicinalbotany and medicinal ethnobotany of El Salvador]. SanSalvador, El Salvador: Jardın Botanico La Laguna.

Bacon, C. 2005a. Confronting the coffee cri-sis: Can fair trade, organic and specialty cof-fees reduce small-scale farmer vulnerability innorthern Nicaragua. World Development 33 (3):497–511.

———. 2005b. Confronting the coffee crisis:Nicaraguan smallholders use of cooperative, fairtrade and agroecological networks to negotiatelivelihoods and sustainability. PhD dissertation,University of California, Santa Cruz, CA.

Bacon, C. M., M. A. Flores Gomez, A. Marcel, and S.R. Dıaz Flores. Forthcoming. Arboles, cooperativas,cafe y orquıdeas en cafetales bajo sombra (ACOGE)[Trees, cooperatives, coffee, and orchids in shade coffee].Matagalpa, Nicaragua: CECOCAFEN.

Bacon, C., V. E. Mendez, and M. Brown. 2005. Par-ticipatory action-research and support for communitydevelopment and conservation: Examples from shadecoffee landscapes of El Salvador and Nicaragua. SantaCruz, CA: Center for Agroecology and SustainableFood Systems, University of California.

Bacon, C. M., V. E. Mendez, M. A. Flores Gomez,D. Stuart, and S. R. Dıaz Flores. 2008. Are sustain-able coffee certifications enough to secure farmerlivelihoods? The millenium development goals andNicaragua’s fair trade cooperatives. Globalizations 5(2): 259–74.

Bacon, C. M., V. E. Mendez, and J. A. Fox. 2008. Cul-tivating sustainable coffee: Persistent paradoxes.In Confronting the coffee crisis: Fair trade, sustain-able livelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico and CentralAmerica, ed. C. M. Bacon, V. E. Mendez, S. R.Gliessman, D. Goodman, and J. A. Fox, 337–72.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bacon, C. M., V. E. Mendez, S. R. Gliessman, D.Goodman, and J. A. Fox, eds. 2008. Confrontingthe coffee crisis: Fair trade, sustainable livelihoods andecosystems in Mexico and Central America. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Barrett, C. B., and P. Arcese. 1995. Areintegrated conservation-development projects(ICDPs) sustainable—On the conservation of largemammals in sub-Saharan Africa. World Develop-ment 23 (7): 1073–84.

Beer, J., R. Muschler, D. Kass, and E. Somarriba.1998. Shade management in coffee and cacao plan-tations. Agroforestry Systems 38 (1–3): 139–64.

Bentley, J. W., E. Boa, & J. Stonehouse. 2004.Neighbor trees: Shade, intercropping, and cacaoin Ecuador. Human Ecology 32 (2): 241–70.



Berkes, F. 2007. Community-based conservationin a globalized world. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America104 (39): 15188–193.

Blackman, A., B. Avalos-Sartorio, and J. Chow. 2007.Shade coffee & tree cover loss—Lessons from ElSalvador. Environment 49 (7): 22–32.

Bray, D. B., J. L. Plaza-Sanchez, and E. Contreras-Murphy. 2002. Social dimensions of organic cof-fee production in Mexico: Lessons for eco-labelinginitiatives. Society and Natural Resources 15 (6): 429–46.

Brookfield, H., and C. Padoch. 1994. Appreciatingagrodiversity: A look at the dynamism and diversityof indigenous farming practices. Environment 36(5): 6–11.

———. 2007. Managing biodiversity in spatiallyand temporally complex agricultural landscapes.In Managing biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems,ed. D. I. Jarvis, C. Padoch, and H. D. Cooper,338–61. New York: Biodiversity International andColumbia University Press.

Caceres, D. M. 2006. Agrobiodiversity and technol-ogy in resource-poor farms. Interciencia 31 (6): 403–10.

Castellanet, C., and C. F. Jordan. 2002. Participatoryaction research in natural resource management: A cri-tique of the method based on five year’s experience in theTransamazonica region of Brazil. London and NewYork: Taylor and Francis.

Chambers, R., and G. Conway. 1992. Sustainable ru-ral livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st cen-tury. Brighton, UK: IDS-University of Sussex.

Coelli, T., and E. Fleming. 2004. Diversificationeconomies and specialisation efficiencies in a mixedfood and coffee smallholder farming system inPapua New Guinea. Agricultural Economics 31 (2–3): 229–39.

Corbera, E., N. Kosoy, and M. M. Tuna. 2007. Eq-uity implications of marketing ecosystem servicesin protected areas and rural communities: Casestudies from Meso-America. Global Environmen-tal Change-Human and Policy Dimensions 17 (3–4):365–80.

Costanza, R., R. dArge, R. deGroot, S. Farber, M.Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, et al. 1997. Thevalue of the world’s ecosystem services and naturalcapital. Nature 387:253–60.

Daily, G. C., S. Alexander, P. R. Ehrlich, L. Goul-der, J. Lubchenco, P. A. Matson, H. A. Mooney,et al. 1997. Ecosystem services: Benefits suppliedto human societies by natural ecosystems. Issues inEcology 2 (Spring): 1–16.

Dossa, E. L., E. C. M. Fernandes, W. S. Reid, andK. Ezui. 2008. Above- and below-ground biomass,nutrient and carbon stocks contrasting an open-grown and a shaded coffee plantation. AgroforestrySystems 72 (2): 103–17.

Fals-Borda, O., and M. A. Rahman, eds. 1991. Actionand knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participa-tory action-research. New York: Apex Press.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 1999.Sustaining agricultural biodiversity and agroecosystemfunctions. Rome: Food & Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations.

———. 2008. Soaring food prices: Facts, perspec-tives, impacts and actions required. Paper pre-sented at High Level Conference on World FoodSecurity: The challenges of climate change andbioenergy, Rome.

Fortmann, L., ed. 2008. Participatory research in con-servation and rural livelihoods: Doing science together.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gallina, S., S. Mandujano, and A. Gonzalez-Romero.1996. Conservation of mammalian biodiversity incoffee plantations of Central Veracruz. AgroforestrySystems 33:13–27.

Gliessman, S. R. 2008. Agroecological foundationsfor designing sustainable coffee agroecosystems.In Confronting the coffee crisis: Fair trade, sustain-able livelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico and CentralAmerica, ed. C. M. Bacon, V. E. Mendez, S. R.Gliessman, D. Goodman, and J. A. Fox, 27–42.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gliessman, S. R., R. Garcıa-Espinosa, and M.Amador. 1981. The ecological basis for the appli-cation of traditional agricultural technology in themanagement of tropical agro-ecosystems. Agro-Ecosystems 7:173–85.

Gobbi, J. A. 2000. Is biodiversity-friendly coffee fi-nancially viable? An analysis of five different coffeeproduction systems in El Salvador. Ecological Eco-nomics 33:267–81.

Gonda, N., and S. Siadou. 2002. Que bases para la con-struccion del San Ramon futuro? Diagnostico agrariode una pequena region cafetera en el departamento delMatagalpa, Nicaragua [What bases for the construc-tion of the future of San Ramon? Agrarian appraisal ofa small coffee region in the department of Matagalpa,Nicaragua]. Montpellier, France: CNEARC.

Hajjar, R., D. I. Jarvis, and B. Gemmill-Herren. 2008.The utility of crop genetic diversity in maintainingecosystem services. Agriculture Ecosystems & Envi-ronment 123:261–70.

Harvey, C. A., and J. A. G. Villalobos. 2007. Agro-forestry systems conserve species-rich but modifiedassemblages of tropical birds and bats. Biodiversityand Conservation 16 (8): 2257–92.

Herrador, D., and L. Dimas. 2000. Payment for en-vironmental services in El Salvador. Mountain Re-search and Development 20 (4): 306–09.

Hietz, P. 2005. Conservation of vascular epiphyte di-versity in Mexican coffee plantations. ConservationBiology 19 (2): 391–99.

Jackson, L. E., U. Pascual, and T. Hodgkin.2007. Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity



in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture Ecosystems &Environment 121 (3): 196–210.

Jaffee, D. 2007. Brewing justice: Fair trade coffee, sus-tainability and survival. Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press.

Jarvis, D. I., C. Padoch, and H. D. Cooper, eds.2007. Managing biodiversity in agricultural ecosys-tems. New York: Biodiversity International andColumbia University Press.

Komar, O. 2006. Ecology and conservation of birdsin coffee plantations: A critical review. Bird Conser-vation International 16 (1): 1–23.

Love, B., and D. Spaner. 2007. Agrobiodiversity: Itsvalue, measurement, and conservation in the con-text of sustainable agriculture. Journal of SustainableAgriculture 31 (2): 53–82.

Marcell-Velasquez, A. 2008. Introduccion al mundode orquıdeas en Nicaragua [Introduction to theworld of orchids in Nicaragua]. Unpublished re-port, Estelı, Nicaragua.

Mas, A. H., and T. V. Dietsch. 2004. Linking shadecoffee certification to biodiversity conservation:Butterflies and birds in Chiapas, Mexico. Ecolog-ical Applications 14 (3): 642–54.

McShane, T. O. 2003. The devil in the detail of bio-diversity conservation. Conservation Biology 17 (1):1–3.

Mendez, V. E. 2004. Traditional shade, rural liveli-hoods, and conservation in small coffee farms andcooperatives of western El Salvador. PhD dis-sertation, University of California, Santa Cruz,CA.

———. 2005. Cafe con sombra y alternativas para re-ducir la presion del cambio del uso del suelo en la zonaSur de Ahuachapan, El Salvador [Shade coffee and al-ternatives to reduce land use change in the southern zoneof Ahuachapan, El Salvador]. San Jose, Costa Rica:UICN-ORMA/Proyecto BASIM.

———. 2008. Farmers’ livelihoods and biodiversityconservation in a coffee landscape of El Salvador.In Confronting the coffee crisis: Fair trade, sustainablelivelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico and Central Amer-ica, ed. C. Bacon, V. E. Mendez, S. R. Gliessman,D. Goodman, and J. A. Fox, 207–36. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Mendez, V. E., and C. Bacon. 2005. Medios de viday conservacion de la biodiversidad arborea: las ex-periencias de las cooperativas cafetaleras en El Sal-vador y Nicaragua. LEISA Revista de Agroecologıa(Peru) 20 (4): 27–30.

———. 2006. Ecological processes and farmer liveli-hoods in shaded coffee production. LEISA (TheNetherlands) 22 (4): 22–23.

Mendez, V. E., S. R. Gliessman, and G. S. Gilbert.2007. Tree biodiversity in farmer cooperatives ofa shade coffee landscape in western El Salvador.Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 119 (1–2):145–59.

Mendez, V. E., R. Lok, and E. Somarriba.2001. Interdisciplinary analysis of homegardens inNicaragua: Micro-zonation, plant use and socioe-conomic importance. Agroforestry Systems 51 (2):85–96.

Mendez, V. E., E. N. Shapiro, and G. S. Gilbert.2009. Cooperative management and its effects onshade tree diversity, soil properties and ecosystemservices of coffee plantations in western El Sal-vador. Agroforestry Systems 76 (1): 111–26.

Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Natu-rales (MARN). 2002. Informe nacional del estadodel medio ambiente [National report on the stateof the environment]. San Salvador, El Salvador:MARN/PNUMA.

———. 2003. Mapas del Sistema de InformacionAmbiental. San Salvador, El Salvador: Ministe-rio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales.http://www.marn.gob.sv/gis/png/pedolo.htm (lastaccessed 18 October 2003).

Moguel, P., and V. M. Toledo. 1999. Biodiversityconservation in traditional coffee systems of Mex-ico. Conservation Biology 13 (1): 11–21.

Montagnini, F., and P. K. R. Nair. 2004. Carbonsequestration: An underexploited environmentalbenefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Sys-tems 61 (1): 281–95.

Morris, K. S. 2008. Food insecurity in coffee farmingcommunities of El Salvador. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the Association of AmericanGeographers, Las Vegas, NV.

Olson, M. Forthcoming. Food security and low-inputagriculture in Central American coffee growingcommunities. PhD dissertation, University of Ver-mont, Burlington, VT.

Pagiola, S., P. Agostini, J. Gobbi, C. de Haan, M.Ibrahim, E. Murgueitio, M. Rosales, and J. P. Ruiz.2004. Paying for biodiversity conservation services inagricultural landscapes. Washington, DC: WorldBank.

Paige, J. M. 1997. Coffee and power: Revolution andthe rise of democracy in Central America. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Perfecto, I., and I. Ambrecht. 2003. The coffee agroe-cosystem in the Neotropics: Combining ecologicaland economic goals. In Tropical agroecosystems, ed.J. H. Vandermeer, 159–94. Boca Raton, FL: CRCPress.

Perfecto, I., R. A. Rice, R. Greenberg, and M. E.Vand der Voort. 1996. Shade coffee: A disappear-ing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience 46 (8): 598–609.

Perfecto, I., and J. Vandermeer. 2002. Quality ofagroecological matrix in a tropical montane land-scape: Ants in coffee plantations in southern Mex-ico. Conservation Biology 16 (1): 174–82.

———. 2008. Biodiversity conservation in tropicalagroecosystems—A new conservation paradigm.



Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134:173–200.

Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, P. Hanson, and V.Cartın. 1997. Arthropod biodiversity and the trans-formation of a tropical agro-ecosystem. Biodiversityand Conservation 6:935–45.

Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, A. Mas, and L. Soto-Pinto. 2005. Biodiversity, yield, and shade coffeecertification. Ecological Economics 52:435–46.

Petchers, S., and S. Harris. 2008. The roots of the cof-fee crisis. In Confronting the coffee crisis: Fair trade,sustainable livelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico andCentral America, ed. C. Bacon, V. E. Mendez, S.R. Gliessman, D. Goodman, and J. A. Fox, 43–66.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Phillips, A., and S. Stolton. 2008. Protected land-scapes and biodiversity values: A review. In Pro-tected landscapes and agrobiodiversity values, ed. T.Amend, J. Brown, A. Kothari, A. Phillips, and S.Stolton, 8–21. Heidelberg, Germany: IUCN &GTZ.

Philpott, S. M., W. J. Arendt, I. Ambrecht, P. Bichier,T. V. Dietsch, C. Gordon, R. Greenberg, et al.2008. Biodiversity loss in Latin American coffeelandscapes: Review of the evidence on ants, birds,and trees. Conservation Biology 22 (5): 1093–105.

Philpott, S. M., P. Bichier, R. Rice, and R. Green-berg. 2007. Field testing ecological and economicbenefits of sustainable coffee certification: Do or-ganic and fair trade do enough? Conservation Biology21 (4): 975–85.

Ponette-Gonzalez, A. G. 2007. 2001: A householdanalysis of Huastec Maya agriculture and land useat the height of the coffee crisis. Human Ecology 35(3): 289–301.

Qualset, C. O., P. E. McGuire, and M. L. Warburton.1995. Agrobiodiversity: Key to agricultural pro-ductivity. California Agriculture 49:45–49.

Ramırez, O. A., E. Somarriba, T. Ludewigs, and P.Ferreira. 2001. Financial returns, stability and riskof cacao-plantain-timber agroforestry systems inCentral America. Agroforestry Systems 51 (2): 141–54.

Robertson, G. P., and S. M. Swinton. 2005. Recon-ciling agricultural productivity and environmentalintegrity: A grand challenge for agriculture. Fron-tiers in Ecology and the Environment 3 (1): 38–46.

Rosa, H., S. Kandel, and L. Dimas. 2004. Compen-sation for environmental services and rural com-munities: Lessons from the Americas. InternationalForestry Review 6 (2): 187–94.

Scales, B. R., and S. J. Marsden. 2008. Biodiversity insmall-scale tropical agroforests: A review of speciesrichness and abundance shifts and the factors in-fluencing them. Environmental Conservation 35 (2):160–72.

Schroth, G., G. A. B. de Fonseca, C. A. Harvey, C.Gascon, H. L. Vasconcelos, and A. M. N. Izac,

eds. 2004. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation intropical landscapes. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Schroth, G., and C. Harvey. 2007. Biodiversityconservation in cocoa production landscapes: Anoverview. Biodiversity and Conservation 16 (8): 2237–44.

Selener, D. 1997. Participatory action research and socialchange. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Shattuck, A. K. 2005. Cures in the shade: Medici-nal plants of coffee agroecosystems of western ElSalvador and the participatory action research pro-cess. Undergraduate thesis, University of Califor-nia, Santa Cruz, CA.

Solis-Montero, L., A. Flores-Palacios, and A. Cruz-Angon. 2005. Shade-coffee plantations as refugesfor tropical wild orchids in central Veracruz, Mex-ico. Conservation Biology 19 (3): 908–16.

Somarriba, E., C. Harvey, M. Samper, F. Anthony,J. Gonzalez, C. Staver, and R. Rice. 2004. Bio-diversity in coffee plantations. In Agroforestry andbiodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes, ed. G.Schroth, G. Foseca, C. A. Harvey, C. Gascon, H.Vasconcelos, and A. M. N. Izac, 198–226. Wash-ington, DC: Island Press.

Somarriba, E., R. Valdivieso, W. Vasquez, and G.Galloway. 2001. Survival, growth, timber produc-tivity and site index of Cordia alliodora in forestryand agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 51(2): 111–18.

Sonwa, D. J., B. A. Nkongmeneck, S. F. Weise, M.Tchatat, A. A. Adesina, and M. J. J. Janssens. 2007.Diversity of plants in cocoa agroforests in the hu-mid forest zone of southern Cameroon. Biodiversityand Conservation 16 (8): 2385–400.

Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kessler, M., Barkmann, J., Bos,M. M., Buchori, D., Erasmi, S., Faust, H., et al.2007. Tradeoffs between income, biodiversity, andecosystem functioning during tropical rainforestconversion and agroforestry intensification. Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of theUnited States of America 104 (12): 4973–78.

Thrupp, L. A. 2000. Linking agricultural biodiversityand food security: The valuable role of agrobio-diversity for sustainable agriculture. InternationalAffairs 76 (2): 265–81.

UCA San Ramon. 2008. Plan estrategico de agroe-coturismo rural comunitario [Strategic plan forcommunity rural agroecotourism]. Internal report,UCA San Ramon, Nicaragua.

Vandermeer, J. D., A. Lawrence, A. Symstad, and S.Hobbie. 2002. Effect of biodiversity on ecosystemfunction in managed ecosystems. In Biodiversity andecosystem functioning: Synthesis and perspectives, ed.M. Loreau, S. Naeem, and P. Inchausti, 221–35.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Vandermeer, J., and I. Perfecto. 1995. Breakfast ofbiodiversity: The truth about rain forest destruction.Oakland, CA: Food First.



Wells, M., and T. O. McShane. 2004. Integratingprotected area management with local needs andaspirations. Ambio 33 (8): 513–19.

Westphal, S. M. 2008. Coffee agroforestry in the af-termath of modernization: Diversified productionand livelihood strategies in post-reform Nicaragua.In Confronting the coffee crisis: Fair trade, sustain-able livelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico and CentralAmerica, ed. C. M. Bacon, V. E. Mendez, S. R.Gliessman, D. Goodman, and J. A. Fox, 179–205.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wood, D., and J. M. Lenne. 1997. The conserva-tion of agrobiodiversity on-farm: Questioning theemerging paradigm. Biodiversity and Conservation 6(1): 109–29.

Wunder, S. 2007. The efficiency of payments for en-vironmental services in tropical conservation. Con-servation Biology 21 (1): 48–58.

V. ERNESTO MENDEZ is an Assistant Professorof Agroecology and Environmental Studies in theEnvironmental Program and Department of Plant &Soil Science at the University of Vermont, Burling-ton, VT 05401. E-mail: [email protected]. His re-search and teaching interests examine the interactionsamong agriculture, rural people’s livelihoods, and en-vironmental conservation in tropical and temperateagricultural landscapes.

CHRISTOPHER M. BACON is an S. V. Ciriacy-Wantrup postdoctoral fellow affiliated with the

Geography Department at the University of Cal-ifornia, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720. E-mail:[email protected]. He is an environ-mental social scientist and agroecologist working onissues related to rural livelihoods, alternative trade,and environmental issues in Central America.

MERYL OLSON is a PhD student in the De-partment of Plant and Soil Science at the Univer-sity of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405. E-mail:[email protected]. Her research focuses onfood security, agrobiodiversity, and farmers in tropi-cal agricultural landscapes.

KATLYN S. MORRIS is a PhD candidate in theDepartment of Plant & Soil Science at the Uni-versity of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405. E-mail:[email protected]. Her research interests in-clude the causes and responses to seasonal food inse-curity for coffee-producing households, and the envi-ronmental, economic, and social aspects of food cropproduction in rural areas.

ANNIE SHATTUCK is an analyst at the In-stitute for Food and Development Policy (FoodFirst), 398 60th Street, Oakland, CA 94618. E-mail:[email protected]. Her interests include agri-cultural biodiversity and rural livelihoods.


the professional geographer agrobiodiversity and shade ......de la biodiversidad, cooperativas de...

Documents