Shedding Light on Shade

Shedding Light on Shade Reconciling Livelihoods and Biodiversity in Coffee Agroforests Rosalien E. Jezeer Dit proefschrift werd mede mogelijk gemaakt met financiële steun van Hivos in het kader van het Business for Biodiversity programma, Academy of Ecosystem Services (Utrecht University) en Tropenbos International. Copyright: © Rosalien Jezeer ISBN: 978-90-8672-082-8 Design & Layout: Juanita Franco, Tropenbos International Photos: Rosalien Jezeer Illustrations: ©Jeneses Imre / ©Adobe Stock Shedding Light on Shade Reconciling Livelihoods and Biodiversity in Coffee Agroforests Licht werpen op schaduw Verenigen van biodiversiteit en bestaanszekerheid in koffie agroforests (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Iluminar las sombras Conciliación de los medios de subsistencia y la biodiversidad en sistemas agroforestales con café (con un resumen en español) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof. dr. H.R.B.M. Kummeling, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 13 juli 2018 des middags te 2.30 uur door Rosalien Elise Jezeer geboren op 26 juni 1986 te Arnhem Promotoren: Prof. dr. H.M. Junginger Prof. dr. R.G.A. Boot Copromotoren: Dr. P.A. Verweij Dr. M.J. Santos Table of contents 1. General Introduction 1 1.1. Intensification of smallholder agriculture in the tropics 2 1.2. Agroforestry systems 3 1.3. Potential to reconcile livelihoods and biodiversity conservation 4 1.4. Coffee and cocoa cultivation 5 1.5. Coffee cultivation 6 1.6. Objective and research questions 9 1.7. Outline of the thesis 10 1.8. Case study of smallholder coffee production in Peru 11 2. Shaded coffee and cocoa – double dividend for biodiversity and small-scale farmers 15 Abstract 16 2.1. Introduction 16 2.2. Methodology 18 2.3. Results 21 2.4. Discussion 26 2.5. Conclusion 32 2.6. Acknowledgements 33 3. Effects of shade and input management on coffee yield, biodiversity and carbon storage in smallholder plantations in San Martín, Peru 35 Abstract 36 3.1. Introduction 36 3.2. Materials and methods 39 3.3. Results 47 3.4. Discussion 50 3.5. Conclusions 54 3.6. Acknowledgements 55 4. Effects of shade and input management on economic performance of small-scale Peruvian coffee systems 57 Abstract 58 4.1. Introduction 58 4.2. Methods 61 4.3. Results 67 4.4. Discussion 74 4.5. Conclusions 79 4.6. Acknowledgements 79 5. Livelihood assets, experienced shocks and perceived risks on smallholder coffee management strategies in Peru 81 Abstract 82 5.1. Introduction 82 5.2. Methods 85 5.3. Results 92 5.4. Discussion 98 5.5. Conclusions 101 5.6. Acknowledgements 102 6. Synthesis and discussion 103 6.1. Synthesis 104 6.2. Discussion 107 6.3. Recommendations for practitioners and policy makers 114 7. Appendices 119 8. References 163 Summary 183 Samenvatting 189 Resumen 195 Acknowledgements 201 About the author 205 1 General Introduction Driven by a growing world population and higher overall living standard, global demand for agricultural crops is increasing (Tilman et al., 2011). Many of the world’s food is produced by smallholders, but they are facing increasing pressures from environmental degradation as well as from globalisation and climate change. Consequently, one of the main challenges of the coming decades is to develop agricultural systems that produce food and income to sustain smallholder livelihoods in the tropics, without compromising ecosystem functioning, including biodiversity conservation. There is a need for improved understanding of the relations between agricultural production, conservation of biodiversity and other ecosystem services, and smallholder livelihoods. The overall objective of this thesis is therefore to obtain a better understanding on possible trade-offs and double benefits between economic and environmental outcomes of smallholder management systems and to improve our understanding of farmer decision making. This first chapter presents the context — 1 — Shedding Light on Shade of the current debate and introduces coffee and cocoa agroforestry systems as models to explore possible trade-offs and double dividends. In this thesis, a case study of smallholder coffee systems is presented, and therefore, the introduction partly focuses on coffee systems. 1.1. Intensification of smallholder agriculture in the tropics Millions of smallholders in the tropics depend on tree crops such as palm oil, cocoa, rubber and coffee for their daily livelihoods (Schroth et al., 2011). Traditionally, these tree crops have been grown under forest canopies or intercropped with a diverse set of other trees, making use of local knowledge and locally available resources rather than relying on external inputs. In recent decades, however, there has been a trend towards intensification by increasing inorganic nutrients, introducing new crop varieties and replacing biological weed and pest control with pesticides to remove limitations to crop productivity. This movement towards conventional monoculture systems is driven by the expected higher crop yields and economic performance of intensified systems, aiming to increase short term income (Clough et al., 2011; Siebert, 2002). Although these intensification practices have been successful to meet increasing global food demands by increasing the productivity per unit area, these practices come at the expense of long-term maintenance of ecosystem services relevant for agricultural production (Foley et al., 2011). Intensified farming systems are known to cause environmental problems such as loss of biodiversity and soil fertility (Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2015), compromising the ecological resilience and long-term productivity of these intensified production systems. This holds especially true for smallholders in the tropics as they are often located in biodiversity-rich areas (Myers et al., 2000) and depend strongly on crop cultivation for their livelihoods. Smallholders are therefore particularly vulnerable to stressors such as pest and disease incidence and volatile market prices, while climate change is expected to exacerbate their vulnerability (Morton, 2007). The challenge is to develop agricultural systems that produce food and income to provide, or even improve, smallholder livelihoods in the tropics, without compromising ecosystem functioning, including biodiversity conservation. In response, there are agricultural approaches that seek to reconcile economic and environmental performance, in particular described in agro-ecological practices, i.e. the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agricultural systems (Gliessman, 1992). Where conventional intensification is directed towards high-input agriculture and low diversity systems which lead to a trade-off between economic and environmental performance, agro-ecological systems are often more diverse and rely less on external inputs. Rather, these systems rely more on biodiversity and other ecosystem services, in pursuit of achieving dual benefits or even synergies between local development and biodiversity conservation and associated ecosystem services (Altieri, 2002; Gliessman, 1992). — 2 — Chapter 1 1.2. Agroforestry systems Agroforestry systems (i.e., integration of trees and other large woody perennials into farming systems; Schroth et al., 2004) are often put forward as agroecological systems that provide a promising approach to deal with the twin challenges of local development and conservation of biodiversity and other ecosystem services (Atangana et al., 2014a; Perfecto et al., 2005; Philpott et al., 2007; Schroth et al., 2004; Waldron et al., 2012). Worldwide, agroforestry systems cover approximately 50% of the agricultural area (Kumar et al., 2014), and in many tropical landscapes agroforestry systems represent a large part of the agricultural area. At the same time, agroforestry systems are the major ecosystems that resemble natural forest in these tropical landscapes (Bhagwat et al., 2008; Schroth et al., 2004). There is ample evidence that agroforestry systems have a considerable potential to conserve biodiversity (Harvey et al., 2006; Moguel and Toledo, 1999; Rice and Greenberg, 2000), as complex agroforestry systems have been reported to sustain species richness equivalent to more than 60% of that of natural forests (Bhagwat et al., 2008; De Beenhouwer et al., 2013). Agroforestry systems are often applauded for their biodiversity conservation value, however, these systems are foremost intended to improve farmers’ livelihoods by increasing overall productivity, profitability and sustainability (Atangana et al., 2014b). According to the World Bank (2008), the improvement of these three aspects of smallholder farming is a key pathway out of poverty, emphasising the potential of agroforestry practices to alleviate poverty and strengthen smallholder resilience. Within coffee and cocoa systems, shade trees can provide multiple benefits (Tscharntke et al., 2011). First of all, not only is the overall biodiversity enhanced, but also functional biodiversity, which can increase productivity and ecological resilience. For example, cross-pollination can increase coffee yield by up to 50% compared with self-pollination (Krishnan et al., 2012; Tscharntke et al., 2011) and biological control can reduce pest or herbivore outbreaks (Kellerman et al., 2008; Perfecto et al., 2004; Philpott and Armbrecht, 2006). Second, shade trees play an important role in erosion control and weed

Load more