Ecological Applications, 14(3), 2004, pp. 642±654 ᭧ 2004 by the Ecological Society of America

LINKING SHADE COFFEE CERTIFICATION TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: BUTTERFLIES AND IN ,

ALEXANDRE H. MAS AND THOMAS V. D IETSCH1 School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1115 USA

Abstract. Shade coffee certi®cation programs have emerged over the past six years to verify that coffee marketed as ``shade grown'' is actually grown on farms that provide higher quality habitat for biodiversity. In spite of good intentions and an increasing market, little consensus exists on whether current criteria can successfully identify coffee farms of conservation signi®cance. This paper provides the ®rst ecological evaluation and compar- ison of shade-grown coffee criteria used by major certi®cation programs. Using vegetative data, we evaluated criteria developed by the Rainforest Alliance, the Smithsonian Migratory Center (SMBC), and the Specialty Coffee Association of America across a range of coffee agroecosystems in Chiapas, Mexico, to determine which management practices each program would certify. Fruit-feeding butter¯ies and forest bird found in these coffee agroecosystems were compared with nearby forest reserves as indicators of biodiversity and conservation potential. These agroecosystems fall into three categories: rustic, com- mercial polyculture, and shaded monoculture. The rustic system contained signi®cantly higher fruit-feeding butter¯y diversity and an avifauna more similar to that found in forest reserves than the other systems. This was also the only agroecosystem that met the criteria for all certi®cation programs, while the shaded monoculture fell short of all sets of criteria. This suggests that certi®cation programs are succeeding in discriminating between the extremes of shade coffee production. Certi®cation programs differed, however, in their treatment of the intermediate, commercial polyculture systems, re¯ecting different philos- ophies for conservation in managed ecosystems. Programs promoted by SMBC use high standards that would exclude all but the most diverse commercial polyculture or rustic systems to certify only those systems that support high levels of biodiversity. The program supported by the Rainforest Alliance only excludes the shaded monoculture while engaging the others in the move toward greater sustainability. The merits of each approach should be put to rigorous debate, and their ability to contribute to biodiversity conservation should be re¯ected in product marketing. This study suggests that further research can provide a stronger scienti®c basis and independent veri®cation for the certi®cation of green products that claim to enhance biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems. Key words: biodiversity; certi®cation; Chiapas, Mexico; coffee agroecosystems; forest birds; fruit-feeding butter¯ies; intensity gradient; market-based conservation; shade coffee.

BIODIVERSITY AND SHADE COFFEE PLANTATIONS educate the public have contributed to the development Traditional methods of coffee cultivation involve of a market for shade coffee in the United States es- growing shade-preferring varieties of coffee under di- timated at $10±$100 million (U.S. $) annually (CEC verse forest canopies. These practices have been in- 1999, Rice and McLean 1999). While the increasing creasingly replaced by practices that use sun-favoring market for shade coffee is grounds for optimism, hope coffee varieties grown more densely in full sun or under is tempered by the fact that, unlike organic and Fair the shade of a single species of tree (Perfecto et al. Trade coffees, which enjoy well codi®ed de®nitions 1996). Often referred to as ``rustic,'' these traditional and certi®cation standards, the de®nition of ``shade'' shade coffee plantations provide an important refuge coffee remains unclear (Rice and McLean 1999, Messer for biodiversity, especially compared to more intensive et al. 2000). agricultural practices (Perfecto and Snelling 1995, Mo- Clarifying this de®nition, as well as determining guel and Toledo 1996, Perfecto et al. 1996, Wunderle what kind of shade management contributes to biodi- and Latta 1996, Greenberg et al. 1997a, b, Mas and versity conservation, is critical for increasing consum- Dietsch 2003). Research and well-targeted efforts to ers' con®dence in shade coffee certi®cation programs. For example, some plantations in Central America have Manuscript received 10 July 2002; revised 20 May 2003; ac- a low density of heavily pruned Inga or Erythryna trees. cepted 18 June 2003; ®nal version received 8 August 2003. Cor- Although these plantations contain shade trees, they responding Editor: A. R. Townsend. are unlikely to be as effective at preserving biodiversity 1 Present address: Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, Na- tional Zoological Park, 3001 Connecticut Avenue NW, Wash- as rustic plantations that preserve the diversity and ington, D.C. 20008 USA. structural complexity of forests. In other words, not all 642 June 2004 COFFEE CERTIFICATION AND BIODIVERSITY 643 shade is created equal and not all plantations which possible. This program encourages farmers to adopt include a shade component, even those certi®ed or- best management practices and contains additional cri- ganic, are likely to provide signi®cant conservation teria other than those pertaining to the shade canopy, bene®ts. including regulation of chemical use, overall ecological To address the issue of how to better de®ne shade- integrity of the farm, and the living and working con- grown coffee, and to prevent cheaters in the system ditions of laborers on the farm (Rice and McLean and a crash in consumer con®dence, various farm cer- 1999). A workshop organized in 1997 by El Salvador's ti®cation programs have emerged over the past six newly created Ministry of the Environment and spon- years. These eco-labeling programs, each with distinct sored by the World Bank's Global Environment Facility goals developed and promoted by organizations like used ECO-O.K.'s coffee criteria as an initial framework Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, Conservation In- from which to build a new program for certifying ``bio- ternational, and Rainforest Alliance, as well as by diversity-friendly'' coffee in El Salvador. The resulting country-speci®c working groups, have brought togeth- criteria have since been modi®ed and are now used by er researchers, roasters, and farmers to establish more ECO-O.K. for all of their coffee certi®cation (C. Wille, speci®c criteria for shade coffee production (Rice and personal communication). McLean 1999). While ecologists have made progress The next program was developed by the Smithsonian on outlining relevant criteria (Rice and McLean 1999), Migratory Bird Center (SMBC) in an attempt to en- consensus has only recently emerged on general criteria courage conservation of habitat for Neotropical mi- (Consumer's Choice Council et al. 2001), and each cer- gratory birds in Latin America (Rice and McLean ti®cation program still relies on criteria that re¯ect their 1999). SMBCs program for certifying ``Bird-Friendly'' distinct program goals and that are supported by limited coffee uses rigorous criteria that were developed by a research (see Appendix for ecological criteria). In gen- working group at the First Sustainable Coffee Congress eral, these certi®cation programs are attempting to pro- in 1996 and relate exclusively to management of the vide economic incentives for farmers to maintain hab- shade canopy, though organic certi®cation is a prereq- itat characteristics that meet set criteria to provide hab- uisite to participation in the program. In February of itat for biodiversity within the coffee production sys- 1999, SMBC organized an expert workshop in Xalapa, tem. Previous research supports this approach to Mexico to develop another set of certi®cation criteria improving conservation within coffee agriculture (Per- speci®c to shade-grown coffee in Mexico (Commission fecto et al. 1996). However, there has been no direct for Environmental Cooperation 1999). The workshop, test of the hypothesis that coffee management systems funded by the Commission for Environmental Coop- which meet the speci®c criteria used by shade coffee eration, resulted in two new sets of standards, one of certi®cation programs support higher levels of biodi- which sets minimum requirements for coffee to be cer- versity than those that do not. ti®ed as Mexican Shade and another which certi®es Mas and Dietsch (2003) developed an index of man- exemplary farms, referred to here as Mexican Shade agement intensity that distinguishes between different PLUS (names are tentative and may change when this shade coffee agroecosystems along an intensity gra- program is put into effect). While the Mexican pro- dient using data on the vegetative and structural di- grams have not yet been formalized or implemented, versity of the shade canopy to examine the impacts of the criteria developed present some new and innovative shade management on butter¯y species richness. This ways of quantifying a coffee farm's shade canopy, and study evaluates each of these management systems us- thus merit inclusion in this study. ing vegetative data from the previous study to deter- The ®nal set of criteria included in this evaluation mine if the system would qualify for certi®cation by come from the draft de®nition of shade coffee proposed current shade coffee programs. The butter¯y data are by the Environment Committee at the 1999 meeting of then used with additional data on birds to evaluate how the Specialty Coffee Association of America (Rice and effective the criteria used by these certi®cation pro- McLean 1999). These criteria are not in use, but have grams are at achieving biodiversity conservation goals. been recommended as a working de®nition of shade coffee for the specialty coffee industry. A recent paper SHADE COFFEE CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS produced jointly by Conservation International, Con- Several shade coffee certi®cation programs have sumer's Choice Council, Rainforest Alliance, Smith- been developed since the early 1990s, each with a dif- sonian Migratory Bird Center, and the Summit Foun- ferent approach to engaging and certifying coffee pro- dation outlines a common understanding for how coffee ducers (for a full review of these programs and their production can promote ecosystem and wildlife con- certi®cation criteria see Mas 1999, Rice and McLean servation in to provide a conceptual umbrella 1999). The ECO-O.K. program (which extends to other over existing criteria, but speci®c certi®cation criteria agricultural crops as well) was developed by the Rain- were intentionally not described (Consumer's Choice forest Alliance with the general goal of promoting sus- Council et al. 2001). Unfortunately, the use of the term tainable agriculture using an inclusive approach that shade grown is increasingly used to market uncerti®ed uses attainable criteria to reach as many farmers as products to consumers seeking ``eco-friendly'' prod- 644 ALEXANDRE H. MAS AND THOMAS V. DIETSCH Ecological Applications Vol. 14, No. 3 ucts. While this may aid efforts to increase consumer da (Irlanda Production), as well as an area where the recognition in the short term, evaluation and certi®- owner is planting additional native overstory trees into cation of speci®c management practices linked to con- a commercial polyculture in an effort to restore a more servation bene®ts is necessary to create a credible mar- diverse, native overstory (Irlanda Restoration). New ket that can support higher prices for producers. trees in this area are still relatively young (ϳ10±15 years) and have not reached the stature to ®t the cat- SHADE COFFEE IN MEXICO egory that Moguel and Toledo (1999) would identify Mexico is well suited for the evaluation of shade as Traditional Polyculture. However, this treatment certi®cation programs because 89% of the area where may represent an important transition stage as farmers coffee is grown maintains some shade canopy, and 39% restore a greater diversity of native trees to the over- of the area is grown under diverse shade (Moguel and story, so it is referred to here as ``restoration.'' Toledo 1999). This is a striking ®gure when compared A neighboring farm, Finca Hamburgo, was also in- to two of the world's other top coffee producing coun- cluded in the study because it represented the more tries, Colombia and Brazil, which have converted at intensive shaded monoculture production system least 68% of their coffee to full-sun production (Rice (Hamburgo Production) using only Inga sp. for shade. and Ward 1996). Furthermore, the classi®cation system This system was not certi®ed organic but the owners for shaded coffee plantations that has in¯uenced the have greatly reduced agrochemical use, only applying certi®cation process was developed in Mexico (Toledo synthetic fertilizers infrequently during the study. All and Moguel 1996, Moguel and Toledo 1999). Mexico other treatments were certi®ed organic to minimize also has one of the longest traditions of small-farmer confounding effects from the use of chemicals hazard- cooperatives in Latin America (Celis et al. 1991). Cof- ous to and birds. Small reserves (20±30 ha) of fee cooperatives are among the most established and, relatively intact forest maintained by each owner were in the primary coffee growing regions of Chiapas, Oa- present and sampled at both sites (Irlanda Forest and xaca, and , these cooperatives have been in- Belen Forest). The reserves used were of an adequate novators in organic and fair trade production (Celis et size and shape to allow sample locations with minimal al. 1991, PeÂrezgrovas et al. 1997) and usually maintain edge effects. Unfortunately, most midelevation (500± communal lands in a forested reserve status. Mexico 1500 m) forest has already been converted to coffee produces more certi®ed organic coffee than any other agriculture, making comparisons to larger forest re- country and, while not the focus of this study, organic serves impossible. Larger forest patches are found re- coffee production techniques, which prohibit agro- gionally, but only at higher elevations, where these chemical use, provide an important complement to forests support a different ¯ora and fauna typically management of the shade overstory in conserving bio- found in cloud forest ecosystems above 1750 m ele- diversity, and as such are required for certi®cation by vation. Table 1 summarizes the treatments included in SMBC (Kortbech-Olesen 2000, Bray et al. 2002). the study. All sampling locations were situated near These factors make Mexico not only ideal for this 1000 m in elevation (Ϯ100 m). Sampling locations study, but also uniquely positioned to take proactive were randomly located and separated by a distance of steps to conserve traditional, shaded coffee farms. 125±200 m with a minimum 75 m distance to edge with another management type. Minimum distances METHODS were based on size constraints in reserve areas and the restoration treatment. Study sites Data for this study were collected at two sites on the Biodiversity sampling and analysis Paci®c side of the Sierra Madre mountain range in the During summer 1998, 10-min, 25-m ®xed-radius Soconusco district of Chiapas, Mexico, one in the mu- point counts were conducted at each sampling location nicipality of Tapachula and the other in Huixtla. Coffee (Hutto et al. 1986, Petit et al. 1994). There were four in this region has almost completely replaced mide- sampling locations per treatment (in total, two forest levation forests between 500 and 1500 m though many reserves and ®ve coffee management treatments). Each farms maintain small forest fragments or reserves. morning, beginning at dawn, point counts were visited Based on Moguel and Toledo (1999), the following in random order to minimize temporal bias. Multiple coffee management categories were included in the visits were used to improve the analytical connection study: Rustic, Commercial Polyculture, and Shaded between vegetation data from each sample location Monoculture. In Huixtla, two areas of coffee cultiva- with corresponding bird data (Dettmers et al. 1999, tion were sampled at Finca Belen, a rustic area with Drapeau et al. 1999). Each sample location was visited the original native overstory relatively intact (Belen on four separate days and all birds heard and seen were Rustic) and an area of commercial polyculture (Belen noted during each 10-min count with the exception of Production), with Inga sp. and Alchornia latifolia most ¯ying birds that did not begin or end ¯ight within the abundant in the overstory. In Tapachula, a similar area 25 m radius. These were the same sample locations of commercial polyculture was sampled at Finca Irlan- used to survey butter¯ies by Mas and Dietsch (2003). June 2004 COFFEE CERTIFICATION AND BIODIVERSITY 645

TABLE 1. Management treatments (per Moguel and Toledo 1999) included in the study of coffee farms in Chiapas, Mexico, with the corresponding reference names used in this paper.

Certi®ed Management treatment Name of farm organic? Reference name

Forest Belen NA forest Forest Irlanda NA forest Rustic Belen yes rustic Traditional polyculture Irlanda yes restoration Commercial polyculture Belen yes production Commercial polyculture Irlanda yes production Shaded monoculture Hamburgo no production

In that study, two standard butter¯y bait traps were set not overrepresent the conservation bene®ts from coffee as close as possible to the center of each sampling management for that species. Though for some con- location, one in the understory and one in the canopy, servation bene®ts, such as gene ¯ow between popu- for a period of eight days and baited with a mash of lations, a transitory individual may represent a signif- fermented plantain or banana before each sampling day. icant conservation contribution, this study focused on Traps were checked on alternate days and each location those conservation bene®ts accrued by regular use as- was visited at approximately the same time of day to sociated with breeding or foraging habitat. Hamburgo ensure an equal period of time between samples. Production, Irlanda Restoration and Irlanda Production Following bird and butter¯y sampling, the vegeta- were compared to the Irlanda Forest while Belen Rustic tion at each sampling location was characterized. The and Belen Production were compared with the Belen height and diameter at breast height (dbh) of all over- Forest. This index produces a fraction between 0 and story trees Ͼ3 cm dbh at each location were sampled 1 with higher numbers (closer to 1) suggesting that the within a 12 m radius. Understory trees and shrubs, avifauna in a given management type is less similar to including height and density of coffee, were sampled the avifauna found in its associated forest reserve. This within a 5 m radius. Percent canopy cover was esti- dissimilarity index is then converted to a similarity mated using the LAI 2000 Plant Canopy Analyzer (LI- index by subtracting the value from 1. Greater simi- COR, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA), and canopy structure larity to the forest avifauna indicates that a manage- was estimated using a method developed for determin- ment system is providing greater conservation bene®ts ing an approximate canopy pro®le for each sampling for those bird species most at risk from increasing man- location. A management index was then developed to agement intensity of coffee. Analysis of variance (AN- quantify the effects of management on the shade can- OVA) was used to compare management treatments opy, including all of the vegetation variables deter- using StatView v5.0.1 (SAS Institute 1998). mined to be affected by farm management activities. Butter¯y species richness was compared using ran- Slope, aspect, and the presence of epiphytes were also domization programs written by M. E. Siddall to per- noted (see Mas and Dietsch [2003] for greater detail mute the order of acquisition of species used in con- on vegetation sampling). structing species accumulation curves (for a descrip- Mobility may lead to different responses between tion and comparison of this method, see Payne et al. taxa, which result from variation in landscape position 2000). One hundred random permutations were per- rather than habitat differences produced by manage- formed to generate 100 estimates of total species rich- ment practices. A comparison of species richness of ness, and these estimates were then randomly reas- birds, butter¯ies, and ants in this same system sug- signed into two groups 10 000 times using the software gested that bird species richness in coffee shows a RANDMEAN (available online).2 RANDMEAN then stronger in¯uence of distance from forest edge (Per- evaluates how frequently it is possible to achieve the fecto et al. 2003). This is further confounded by the difference as great or greater than the actual difference regional trend of lower management intensity near for- observed, and uses this probability (Bonferroni trans- est reserves. To reduce this problem, bird diversity was evaluated using the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index formed at ␣ϭ0.05 to adjust for compounding error comparing each coffee management type and its as- rate) to derive the P values of statistically signi®cant sociated forest reserve. The Bray-Curtis index is cal- difference. culated using the abundance of each species that re- Evaluation of certi®cation programs duces the effect of a few transitory individuals from forest species not commonly found in a management This study focused on biodiversity associated with type (Bray and Curtis 1957, Magurran 1988). By ac- growing practices, so only certi®cation criteria that re- counting for the abundance of each species, the change late directly to the shade canopy are included in this produced by a single transitory individual observed in evaluation. Some grouping of similar criteria into gen- coffee produces only a small change in the index com- pared to the total abundance observed and thus will 2 URL: ͗http://research.amnh.org/ϳsiddall/rand.html͘ 646 ALEXANDRE H. MAS AND THOMAS V. DIETSCH Ecological Applications Vol. 14, No. 3 eral categories (see headings in the Appendix) was nec- the presence of a stratum of trees taller than 20 m. essary to allow comparison due to variation in wording Percent canopy cover, average height of canopy, and between programs. For example, all programs included percentage of trees with epiphytes present were all eas- criteria related to the ``backbone'' trees of the shade ily extracted from the data collected, and information canopy, which are the trees of the same species or on the season of pruning and restoration/conservation similar stature that dominate the shade on a given farm projects was taken from informal discussions with farm (SMBC 1998, CEC 1999, Rice and McLean 1999). The managers. ECO-O.K. program focused on whether these trees In all cases, if a program did not contain a criterion were perennial or deciduous, while in the other pro- under a certain category it was labeled as having ``no grams the criteria centered on what percentage of that speci®c requirement'' and not evaluated. In cases backbone was made up of a single species or of where criteria did exist, actual values for each man- tree. Since these criteria all relate to the composition agement system were compared to criteria require- of the backbone shade trees, they were grouped and ments of each program, and if they met the criteria they compared as such. received a ``pass,'' and if they could not meet the cri- Average canopy height is also measured slightly dif- teria, they received a ``fail.'' If a management system ferently by each certi®cation program. The Bird- came extremely close to meeting a criterion, it received Friendly program contains a criterion for the average a ``borderline'' mark, with the assumption that certi- height of the backbone, while the Mexican Shade pro- ®cation inspectors would make the ultimate decision gram refers to the average canopy height, excluding on passing or failure somewhat subjectively. After obvious emergent trees. For the sake of comparison, evaluating all of the criteria, results for each manage- these criteria were evaluated together, though it is im- ment system were combined to see if coffee grown in portant to bear in mind that they do not refer to pre- that system would be certi®ed or rejected by each cer- cisely the same thing. Similar subtleties differentiate ti®cation program. It is important to restate that this the comparison of structural diversity as measured by evaluation re¯ects only the subset of criteria in each presence of a stratum of emergent trees. The Mexican program that relate directly to the shade canopy, and Shade and ECO-O.K. programs both require this stra- management systems compared do not necessarily re- tum of emergent trees, and set a minimum height, but ¯ect distinct farms. the ECO-O.K. program additionally recommends that these emergent trees represent 20% of the canopy. The Selection of certi®cation programs Bird-Friendly program presents the most complicated Initially, we sought to provide an all-inclusive eval- version by requiring that 20% of trees be taller, and uation of certi®cation programs. However, as the con- 20% shorter than the backbone stratum. Again, for the cept of shade-grown coffee has grown, so have the sake of comparison, all versions were evaluated to- number of organizations marketing and certifying en- gether under the heading, ``Presence and Height of vironmentally sensitive products. Consequently, for Emergent Trees.'' this analysis we focused on third party certi®cation Since most of the criteria are measured on a per programs with publicly available criteria. Programs hectare basis, some manipulation was necessary to such as Seattle Audubon's Northwest Shade Coffee transform the data collected for this study into a form Campaign were not included because they allow self- that could be compared with the criteria. For tree den- certi®cation using nonspeci®c site visits and rely on sity per hectare, the total number of trees for all four criteria and certi®cation from a mixture of other pro- sampling locations within a management system were grams including those evaluated in this paper. Another calculated and then converted to a per hectare value. well-publicized program not included was Conserva- Diversity of shade tree species was collected on the tion International's Conservation Coffee collaboration basis of 0.18 hectares of area, so a species accumulation with the Starbucks Coffee Company because only guid- curve should ideally be used to project the expected ing principles have been published (available online),3 diversity of trees at an area of 1 ha. As a result, the and speci®c criteria testable using the methods de- tree species richness values included in this evaluation scribed here are not available. The same holds true for represent conservative estimates of the actual diversity. the recently published agreement on conservation prin- To calculate the composition of backbone shade ciples for coffee production (Consumer's Choice Coun- trees, percentage of trees at each sampling station that cil et al. 2001). were of one dominant species was calculated, as was RESULTS the percentage that were of the genus Inga, because this was the dominant genus used for coffee shade in Evaluation of certi®cation programs the region (A. H. Mas and T. V. Dietsch, personal ob- Table 2 presents the overall evaluation of the shade servation). To compare criteria relating to presence and management systems included in this study by each height of emergent trees, the percent of the canopy that was taller than the backbone or average height was 3 URL: ͗http://www.celb.org/pressreleases/ calculated, as well as the percent taller than 15 m and ConservationCoffeeFactsheet5-22.pdf͘ June 2004 COFFEE CERTIFICATION AND BIODIVERSITY 647

TABLE 2. Final certi®cation evaluations for the ®ve coffee management systems based on criteria of four shade coffee certi®cation programs and the Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA) de®nition of shade coffee.

Certi®cation BelRus IrlRes IrlPrd BelPrd HamPrd Status of program (5 out of 5)² (4 out of 5) (2 out of 5) (2 out of 5) (0 out of 5) criteria SCAA Draft Shade De®nition shade shade shade shade not shade draft (3 out of 3)³ (3 out of 3) (3 out of 3) (3 out of 3) (2 out of 3) Rnfrst Alliance ECO-O.K. certify certify certify border reject in use (8 out of 8) (8 out of 8) (8 out of 8) (7 out of 8) (5 out of 8) Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certify border reject reject reject in use (7 out of 7) (6 out of 7) (5 out of 7) (3 out of 7) (3 out of 7) Mexican Shade Coffee certify border reject reject reject proposed (7 out of 7) (6 out of 7) (4 out of 7) (4 out of 7) (2 out of 7) Mexican Shade Coffee PLUS certify reject reject reject reject proposed (7 out of 7) (4 out of 7) (4 out of 7) (1 out of 7) (2 out of 7) Note: Abbreviations are: BelRus, Belen Rustic; IrlRes, Irlanda Restoration; IrlPrd, Irlanda Production; BelPrd, Belen Production; HamPrd, Hamburgo Production; IrlFor, Irlanda Forest; and BelFor, Belen Forest. ² Indicates how many of the sets of criteria each management system is able to meet. ³ Indicates management system compliance with the criteria for each program. shade coffee certi®cation program based on the general sociated forest reserve. For Fig. 1, these values were categories shown in the Appendix (for evaluation based transformed from the average dissimilarity value for on individual criteria see Mas 1999). The only criterion each management practice (similarityBC ϭ 1 Ϫ not included is tree density per hectare, used only by dissimilarityBC) so the direction of response was the ECO-O.K., which every management system passed same as that shown for butter¯y species richness. Using easily. According to this evaluation, Belen Rustic is ANOVA, there were signi®cant differences in Bray- the only management system that could be certi®ed by Curtis dissimilarity values to the associated forest avi- all ®ve programs (Table 2). Hamburgo Production, on fauna among coffee management treatments but only the other hand, would be rejected by all programs. The Rustic coffee in Finca Belen had signi®cantly lower other three management systems (Irlanda Restoration, dissimilarity values than the other management prac- Irlanda Production, and Belen Production) had mixed tices (F ϭ 13.054, df ϭ 4, 15, P Ͻ 0.0001, Fisher's results (Table 2). PLSD (protected least signi®cant difference) critical difference of 0.082 for ␣ϭ0.05). Fig. 2 shows the Bird and butter¯y diversity analysis signi®cantly higher species richness in frugivorous but- Fig. 1 shows average Bray-Curtis similarity values ter¯ies found in Belen Rustic (adapted from Mas and of birds for each management type in relation to as- Dietsch 2003). Table 3 shows the abundance for each

FIG. 1. Average Bray-Curtis similarity index values for birds in each management system. These were originally calculated as dissimilarity values by comparing each sample location with the avifauna observed in the associated forest reserve at each farm. Belen Rustic was found to be more similar to remnant forest patches than all other management systems (␣ϭ0.05). Error bars represent ϩ1 SD. See Table 2 for abbreviations. 648 ALEXANDRE H. MAS AND THOMAS V. DIETSCH Ecological Applications Vol. 14, No. 3

FIG. 2. Estimated total species richness of fruit-feeding butter¯ies (adapted from Mas and Dietsch [2003]). The letters located in each bar indicate mean values that are statistically distinct from one another (␣ϭ0.05). Species richness was compared using the software VACSYS to permute the order of acquisition of species used in constructing species accumulation curves. We performed 100 random permutations to generate 100 estimates of total species richness, and these estimates were then randomly reassigned into two groups 10 000 times using the software RANDMEAN (see footnote 2). RANDMEAN then evaluates how frequently it is possible to achieve the difference as great or greater than the actual difference observed, and uses this probability (Bonferroni transformed at ␣ϭ0.05 to adjust for compounding error rate) to derive the P values of statistically signi®cant difference. See Table 2 for abbreviations. bird species in each coffee management system. coffee certi®cation and suggests that, if the Specialty Though the observed species richness does not show Coffee Association's de®nition of shade coffee is en- a clear pattern in relation to management intensity, es- forced, the most intensive management systems would timating the total species richness for each management be excluded from consideration and marketing as system does show a similar pattern to that found using shade-grown coffee, in spite of the fact that there may the Bray-Curtis, particularly for forest-associated birds be shade trees present. (Dietsch 2003). This said, an examination of the certi®cation eval- uations of the three intermediate systems reveals that DISCUSSION further work is necessary to re®ne and bring together Evaluation of coffee certi®cation programs the criteria used in certi®cation. This is most clear when These results provide the ®rst direct insight on the comparing the three programs developed by the SMBC ability of certi®cation programs to distinguish among (Bird-Friendly, Mexican Shade, and Mexican Shade management practices and identify those linked to PLUS) with the ECO-O.K. program. The only inter- higher levels of biodiversity, in this case for birds and mediate system that could meet the criteria of the fruit-feeding butter¯ies. Those seeking to promote mar- SMBC programs is Irlanda Restoration, which had a ket-based solutions to biodiversity loss in the tropics high enough species richness of shade trees and evi- should be encouraged that this initial examination dence of regeneration, although the average height of found Belen Rustic to be the only management system trees in this system (8.98 m) is considerably short of that meets the criteria of all certi®cation programs (Ta- the required 12.0-m minimum, suggesting that this sys- ble 2), as this was the only system that also had sig- tem could be certi®ed once the trees have had more ni®cantly higher diversity of fruit-eating butter¯ies and time to grow. This suggests that the criteria used by an avifauna more similar to that found in associated SMBC are making the distinction outlined in the Bird- forest reserves. Friendly program that ``more diverse'' commercial po- Continuing at a coarse level of analysis, it is also lyculture should be certi®ed, and ``less diverse'' should encouraging that Hamburgo Production did not meet not (Rice and McLean 1999). Furthermore, the results any of the ®ve sets of criteria, as Mas and Dietsch of this study suggest that the Mexican Shade program (2003) identi®ed this management system as signi®- is also achieving its stated goals, because only the most cantly more intensive than the others in the study. This rustic shade examined in this study meets the strict alone could mean a signi®cant step forward for shade standards of the PLUS program, while the baseline June 2004 COFFEE CERTIFICATION AND BIODIVERSITY 649 standards could certify diverse commercial polyculture used alone because by looking for the percentage of once the trees grow to suf®cient height (Table 2). trees taller than the backbone or average canopy trees, On the other hand, two of the three intermediate the measurement is against a sliding scale. For ex- systems meet the criteria of ECO-O.K., and Belen Pro- ample, the backbone could be 7.94 m, as in the case duction falls short only because of the absence of epi- of Hamburgo Production, or 12.50 m, as in the case of phytes (Mas 1999). The reason for this is that ECO- Belen Rustic. For this reason, every management sys- O.K. sets no requirement for the average height of trees, tem was able to meet this criterion (Mas 1999), sug- and the criterion stating that 20% of the canopy be gesting that this criterion should only be used in con- emergent trees taller than 15.0 m is included as a goal junction with a minimum backbone height, as is re- ``in the medium term'' not as a requirement (Rice and quired by the Bird-Friendly program. McLean 1999). While the details of these criteria in- An alternative variable that could be substituted in- dicate that farms could be certi®ed by ECO-O.K. that stead is the presence of trees taller than 15 m, currently could not be certi®ed by the SMBC programs, this recommended by ECO-O.K. and required by the Mex- decision is consistent with the overall goal of ECO- ican Shade programs. In addition to being a standard O.K. (Rice and Mclean 1999). ECO-O.K. has fashioned that would not change based on changes in the man- itself as an ``engagement program'' that does not set agement system, this variable was also found to be strict standards and turn away all those who cannot highly correlated with structure depth and with butter- meet them, but rather works to include farmers, es- ¯y diversity (Mas 1999). Therefore, this seems an im- pecially large producers, and encourage them toward portant criterion to include in the certi®cation process, greater sustainability (C. Wille, personal communica- and in combination with other variables like average tion). With this in mind, ECO-O.K. can also be said to tree height and canopy closure, probably makes for a be achieving its certi®cation goal of solidly endorsing reasonable approximation of structure depth. the exemplary farms, turning away the most intensively Although criteria for the coffee bushes are not cur- managed, and working to include those in between. rently part of any certi®cation program, Mas (1999) However, this study did not evaluate the effects of ag- indicated that coffee height was correlated with but- rochemical use permitted by the ECO-O.K. program, ter¯y species richness. Managing the height and den- which has been shown to have detrimental effects on sity of coffee bushes is not only a very site-speci®c biodiversity (O'Connor and Shrubb 1986, Avian Ef- process and related to coffee variety, but also draws fects Dialogue Group 1994, Freemark and Boutin 1995, on important tradition and superstition surrounding the Gard and Hooper 1996). productivity of a farm. In other words, it may be ac- Evaluation of speci®c criteria indicates the potential ceptable to set requirements for the height, density, and for several changes in the certi®cation process. Sepa- species richness of the trees that shade a coffee farm, rate analyses of the data in this paper suggest several but farmers are less likely to accept mandates for how criteria that warrant better representation in certi®ca- they manage their coffee plants. Since shade coffee tion programs because they are particularly important certi®cation programs are still in the early stages of for the diversity of butter¯ies and the presence of forest gaining acceptance from both consumers and produc- specialists: structure depth, average coffee height, and ers, the addition of coffee-related criteria to the cer- the presence of epiphytes (Mas 1999). Structure depth ti®cation agenda could be an unnecessary complica- is the canopy thickness measured from the lowest tion. However, the results of Mas (1999), combined branch of a canopy tree to the highest branch above with the predominance of coffee bushes in the under- the measurement location. Structural diversity of the story of any coffee agroforestry system, suggest that shade canopy has always been recognized as important further study should be encouraged into the relation- by certi®cation programs, though most programs rely ships between pruning and planting of coffee itself and on a combination of other variables to serve as a proxy associated biodiversity. Shade coffee certi®ers should (such as the percentage of trees taller than a certain also be alert to this connection, and sensitive to the height and the presence of a stratum of emergent trees). fact that, at some point in the evolution of these cer- The method to calculate structure depth described by ti®cation programs, coffee-related criteria may be nec- Mas and Dietsch (2003) involves time and equipment essary to achieve some conservation bene®ts. requirements that may be too costly for certi®cation. The practice of clearing epiphytes from trees is wide- Therefore, it is probably more practical to acknowledge spread in the management of coffee, in spite of the that structure depth is important for associated biodi- evidence for birds that the presence of epiphytes may versity and to identify related variables that can serve play an important role in supporting biodiversity on as proxies for this variable. coffee farms (Nadkarni and Matelson 1989, Richter Mas (1999) showed a high correlation between struc- 1998). At present, all certi®cation programs contain ture depth and all proxies for canopy structure except criteria prohibiting the removal of epiphytes from one variable, the percent of the canopy taller than av- shade trees (Mas 1999). The wording of all versions erage (r ϭ 0.049, P ϭ 0.839). This variable (used by of this criterion is dif®cult to enforce, however, and the Bird-Friendly program) would be problematic if the evidence of the importance of epiphytes suggests 650 ALEXANDRE H. MAS AND THOMAS V. DIETSCH Ecological Applications Vol. 14, No. 3

TABLE 3. Observed bird species with number of individuals found in each treatment. Scienti®c and English nomenclature is based on AOU (1998).

Total obser- Scienti®c name English name BelFor IrlFor BelRus IrlRes IrlPrd BelPrd HamPrd vations Buteo nitidus Gray Hawk 00010001 Columba ¯avirostris Red-billed Pigeon 040420212 Leptotila verreauxi White-tipped Dove 02022006 Aratinga strenua Paci®c Parakeet 0007140021 Piaya cayana Squirrel Cuckoo 10020104 Glaucidium brasilianum Ferruginous Pygmy- 00001001 Owl Campylopterus hemileu- Violet Sabrewing 00010001 curus Amazilia cyanura Blue-tailed Humming- 00120137 bird Amazilia rutila Cinnamon Humming- 00010001 bird Lampornis amethystinus Amethyst-throated 10000001 Hummingbird violaceus Violaceous Trogon 00001001 Trogon collaris Collared Trogon 40000004 Momotus momota Blue-crowned Motmot 405320014 Melanerpes aurifrons Golden-fronted Wood- 00000044 pecker Piculus rubiginosus Golden-olive Wood- 13010005 pecker Dryocopus lineatus Lineated Woodpecker 00030014 Synallaxis erythrothorax Rufous-breasted Spine- 00003115 tail Anabacerthia variegati- Spectacled Foliage- 10000001 ceps gleaner Automolus rubiginosus Ruddy Foliage-gleaner 50000005 Sittasomus griseicapil- Olivaceous Woodcree- 20000002 lus per Xiphorhynchus ¯avigas- Ivory-billed Woodcree- 11400006 ter per Myiopagis viridicata Greenish Elaenia 01000001 Mionectes oleagineus Ochre-bellied Flycatch- 10 10 4 1 0 0 0 25 er Rhynchocyclus breviros- Eye-ringed Flatbill 01000001 tris Tolmomyias sulphures- Yellow-olive Flycatcher 141446424 cens Platyrinchus cancromi- Stub-tailed Spadebill 10000001 nus Contopus cinereus Tropical Pewee 00110103 Empidonax ¯avescens Yellowish Flycatcher 01000001 Myiarchus tuberculifer Dusky-capped Fly- 00022015 catcher Pitangus sulphuratus Great Kiskadee 10000012 Megarynchus pitangua Boat-billed Flycatcher 00300003 Myiozetetes similis Social Flycatcher 00010012 Tityra semifasciata Masked Tityra 11000013 Chiroxiphia linearis Long-tailed Manakin 11000002 Calocitta formosa White-throated Magpie- 1201020116 Jay Cyanocorax yncas Green Jay 20500007 Thryothorus maculipec- Spot-breasted Wren 5 13 5 1 0 3 2 29 tus Thryothorus rufalbus Rufous-and-white Wren 3 4 11 2 0 6 0 26 Thryothorus pleurostic- Banded Wren 00025007 tus Thryothorus modestus Plain Wren 000644620 Troglodytes aedon House Wren 00002057 Henicorhina leucosticta White-breasted Wood- 682300019 Wren Catharus aurantiirostris Orange-billed Nightin- 697113229 gale-Thrush Turdus grayi Clay-colored Robin 1 10 6 16 12 5 19 69 Turdus assimilis White-throated Robin 8 12 4 0 0 0 0 24 Vireo plumbeus Plumbeous Vireo 20240008 Vireo ¯avoviridis Yellow-green Vireo 3 0 13 7 17 11 7 58 June 2004 COFFEE CERTIFICATION AND BIODIVERSITY 651

TABLE 3. Continued.

Total obser- Scienti®c name English name BelFor IrlFor BelRus IrlRes IrlPrd BelPrd HamPrd vations Hylophilus decurtatus Lesser Greenlet 20110206 Myioborus miniatus Slate-throated Redstart 50100006 Basileuterus culicivorus Golden-crowned War- 1095000024 bler Basileuterus ru®frons Rufous-capped Warbler 005633623 Cyanerpes cyaneus Red-legged Honey- 00021081636 creeper Euphonia af®nis Scrub Euphonia 00200002 Euphonia hirundinacea Yellow-throated Eu- 141201211 phonia Thraupis abbas Yellow-winged Tanager 001752116 Habia rubica Red-crowned Ant-Tan- 357100016 ager Piranga leucoptera White-winged Tanager 3073156438 Saltator atriceps Black-headed Saltator 654120119 Melozone biarcuatum Prevost's Ground-Spar- 00000055 row Melozone leucotis White-eared Ground- 15 4 15 1 0 4 0 39 Sparrow Sporophila torqueola White-collared Seed- 00101002 eater Volatinia jacarina Black-Blue Grassquit 00010012 Diglossa baritula Cinnamon-bellied 10000001 Flowerpiercer Dives dives Melodious Blackbird 00015006 Quiscalus mexicanus Great-tailed Grackle 00015006 Molothrus aeneus Bronzed Cowbird 00000022 Icterus chrysater Yellow-backed Oriole 00003003 Icterus gularis Altamira Oriole 00013004 Icterus pectoralis Spot-breasted Oriole 00011002 Total no. observations 118 114 124 117 127 68 99 767 Average no. individu- 7.38 7.13 7.75 7.31 7.94 4.25 6.19 6.85 als/point count Observed species rich- 34 23 28 40 27 18 26 69 ness Note: See Table 2 for abbreviations. that it would be worthwhile to investigate some ex- forests, Gordon and Ornelas 2000). However, in lieu panded and positive criterion that actually requires the of productivity data, similarity indices that include a presence of epiphytes. Standardizing this criterion will measure of abundance for each species, such as the be dif®cult because the ``norm'' of epiphyte presence Bray-Curtis index used for birds here, may provide a is highly variable, so further research is needed to de- better characterization of the forest fauna than those termine how best to add more stringent requirements based on species lists (Kempton 1979). Applying this to the certi®cation process for this important variable. index to birds as a target of conservation concern also ®nds greater similarity to the forest avifauna in Belen Bird and butter¯y diversity analysis Rustic (Fig. 1). Consequently, the biodiversity data For both butter¯ies and birds, this study suggests seem to mirror ®ndings in the vegetation data and sup- signi®cantly higher indications of conservation success port the hypothesis that management practices that in the management system that meets the most restric- maintain a more diverse shade canopy can support tive shade criteria (Belen Rustic). For butter¯ies, as higher levels of forest-associated biodiversity, and per- found by Mas and Dietsch (2003), estimated species haps more importantly, can be identi®ed by certi®ca- richness is on par with associated forests and signi®- tion criteria. cantly higher than other production systems (Fig. 2). This study sampled a gradient of management in- Using species richness as a gauge of conservation suc- tensity, controlling in a general sense for landscape cess has its limits, however. As pointed out by nu- position through elevation and farm selection (all farms merous authors in evaluating forest/ecosystem man- were located within larger coffee landscapes). Finding agement programs, the presence of a species does not signi®cant differences at one end of the gradient, in necessarily translate into a viable population or con- Rustic coffee, limits the generality of these results. servation success (temperate forests, Martin 1992, Despite a small sample size, signi®cant differences Donovan et al. 1995, Robinson et al. 1995; tropical were found for this system, but additional landscape- 652 ALEXANDRE H. MAS AND THOMAS V. DIETSCH Ecological Applications Vol. 14, No. 3 level factors not measured by this study could have Choice Council et al. 2001), and should be codi®ed produced these ®ndings. While pseudoreplication is an into certi®cation criteria as has been discussed (Xalapa important consideration in ®eld studies (Hurlbert meeting). Research is also needed to gauge the relative 1984), particularly in human-managed landscapes, bene®ts for such variables as reproductive success and valuable insights can still be gained from small studies annual survival from forest conservation (or restora- when combined with additional work (Oksanen 2001). tion) and those derived from improvements in coffee Further research is merited to test the indications shown management. This study suggests that despite reaching in this study and to explore additional factors that may common ground on general principles related to coffee in¯uence biodiversity patterns within coffee agroeco- certi®cation (Consumer's Choice Council et al. 2001), systems, such as climate and landscape context. these programs still differ in the shade management intensity they would certify, which could translate into Linking conservation bene®ts different conservation bene®ts. So, just as all shade is to certi®cation programs not created equal, all certi®ed shade-grown coffee pro- Forest or ecosystem management programs are eval- grams might not produce the same conservation ben- uated based on how well management practices make e®ts. progress toward speci®c conservation goals (Grumbine This study suggests that eco-labeling efforts that use 1994). As agricultural systems seek to include similar measurable criteria based on habitat characteristics can conservation goals, they too should be accepted or re- be veri®ed and monitored by surveying biodiversity. jected based on how well conservation bene®ts can be While academics cannot realistically serve as third- linked to management practices. In this study, a range party auditors, applied ecologists should test the un- of proposed certi®cation programs were evaluated derlying assumptions and hypotheses implicit in eco- based on how their criteria matched up against speci®c logically sustainable certi®cation efforts. Conservation management practices as measured by the vegetation biologists can help de®ne habitat use expectations as- found in each area. One approach toward identifying sociated with program goals and in designing moni- a successful certi®cation program is to certify man- toring programs appropriate for measuring these goals. agement practices that support a fauna more closely While birds of conservation concern have been ob- resembling what might be found in a less-managed served in coffee grown with a shade component forest from a similar landscape. In this case, those sets (Dietsch 2000), how these birds use coffee as habitat of criteria that best distinguish between the manage- has yet to be examined. The approaches presented here ment systems would certify practices that produce a are probably best used for program goals associated higher species richness for frugivorous butter¯ies and with differing levels of transitory habitat use such as an avifauna with greater similarity to associated forest foraging or dispersal. In order to evaluate whether vi- reserves. able habitat is provided for breeding populations of One limitation in linking conservation success to cer- organisms displaced by coffee production, more inten- ti®cation programs encountered by this study is that sive monitoring is required to gauge reproductive suc- programs are being evaluated in relation to one another. cess both expected in original forest and found in a In this case, rustic organic coffee contains relatively given coffee management system. Future work should more diverse fauna for forest birds and frugivorous focus on identifying benchmarks for biodiversity con- butter¯ies than the other management practices eval- servation associated with different habitat use expec- uated. Though associated forests are used in this study tations. In the meantime, this study suggests that con- to standardize comparisons, conservation bene®ts are sumer con®dence in shade coffee certi®cation is war- more dif®cult to predict without more concrete objec- ranted, especially for programs using the strongest cer- tives. A better approach would be to gauge each pro- ti®cation criteria. gram against objective conservation standards based on realistic and explicit conservation goals. These CONCLUSION goals can be derived from the levels of habitat use The results of this study suggest that shade coffee (breeding use, foraging habitat, or increased connec- certi®cation programs seem, on the whole, to be suc- tivity) associated with the management practice a pro- cessfully identifying coffee farms of conservation sig- gram is seeking to encourage. If goals include viable ni®cance, and with the inclusion of some of the ®ne reproduction, then certi®cation programs should in- tuning recommended previously, they could maximize clude criteria associated with protecting forest frag- the ecological relevance of their criteria. It is critical ments that may serve as population sources. to bear in mind, however, that this study relied on a Many farmers and farmer cooperatives include forest limited number of farms and focused on a range of fragments as part of their land management, which may coffee management systems within the Soconusco re- provide key resources for achieving particular conser- gion of Chiapas, Mexico. The results therefore repre- vation goals. The importance of a diverse landscape sent only a case study from one relatively small region mosaic was recognized in the recent agreement on con- in northern Latin America. Similar evaluations should servation principles for coffee production (Consumer's therefore be performed throughout the world's coffee June 2004 COFFEE CERTIFICATION AND BIODIVERSITY 653 growing regions, and more exhaustive, multisite anal- Bray, D. B., J. L. P. Sanchez, and E. C. Murphy. 2002. Social yses conducted to see where the general trends pre- dimensions of organic coffee production in Mexico: lessons for eco-labeling initiatives. Society and Natural Resources sented here hold true and where they falter. 15:429±446. The differences between certi®cation programs that Bray, J. R., and J. T. Curtis. 1957. An ordination of the upland emerged from this study re¯ect not a difference in the forest communities of S. Wisconsin. Ecological Mono- ability of each program to achieve its goals, but rather graphs 27:325±349. philosophical differences underlying conservation Celis, F., R. Cobo, A. GaÂrcia, P. LoÂpez S., J. Moguel, A. J. Olvera, L. PareÂ, L. P. Paredes, F. P. Arce, G. Ejea, and L. strategies for the coffee sector. The potential success HernaÂndez. 1991. Cafetaleros: la construccioÂn de la au- of these different approaches will depend on how each tonomõÂa. Coordinadora Nacional de Organizaciones Caf- affects consumer and producer behavior, an area re- etaleras, Tabasco 262±301, colonia Roma, MeÂxico, D.F. quiring more study (Messer et al. 2000). This paper CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation). 1999. cannot resolve the debate over whether conservation Measuring consumer interest in Mexican shade-grown cof- fee: an assessment of the Canadian, Mexican and US Mar- will be best achieved by including more large-scale kets. White paper prepared for the Commission for Envi- producers so as to work with them toward sustain- ronmental Cooperation, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. ability, or by setting standards high, and hoping a price Consumer's Choice Council, Conservation International, premium can encourage participation. What is worth Rainforest Alliance, Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, comment, however, are the ways that the products of and Summit Foundation. 2001. Conservation principles for coffee production. White paper prepared for the Con- all certi®cation programs are being marketed. In every sumer's Choice Council, Washington, D.C., USA. case, and even for uncerti®ed coffee, where roasters Dettmers, R., D. A. Buehler, J. G. Bartlett, and N. A. Klaus. are trying to capitalize on the concept of shade coffee, 1999. In¯uence of point count length and repeated visits the images invoked for customers are of the rustic farms on habitat model performance. Journal of Wildlife Man- that have been shown to support tropical biodiversity. agement 63:815±823. The results of this study suggest that it is only on these Dietsch, T. V. 2000. Assessing the conservation value of shade-grown coffee: a biological perspective using Neo- rustic farms that signi®cantly greater levels of bird and tropical birds. Endangered Species Update 17(6):122±124. butter¯y diversity are found. The debate on how to Dietsch, T. V. 2003. Conservation and ecology of birds in distinguish between shade coffee farms that contribute coffee agroecosystems of Chiapas, Mexico. Dissertation. to overall biodiversity conservation and those that com- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. promise it must continue. However, if coffee roasters Donovan, T. M., F. R. Thompson III, J. Faaborg, and J. R. Probst. 1995. Reproductive success of migratory birds in and retailers are interested in selling an image of shade- habitat sources and sinks. Conservation Biology 9:1380± grown coffee that includes tall forests rich in bird and 1395. butter¯y diversity, they may best maintain consumer Drapeau, P., A. Leduc, and R. McNeil. 1999. Re®ning the con®dence if they buy coffee certi®ed as coming from use of point counts at the scale of individual points in the rustic farms where this image seems to be best studies of bird-habitat relationships. Journal of Avian Bi- ology 30:367±382. represented. Freemark, K., and C. Boutin. 1995. Impacts of agricultural herbicide use on terrestrial wildlife in temperate land- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS scapes: a review with special reference to North America. We wish to thank Walter Peters and the ISMAM cooper- Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 52:67±91. ative for allowing us to conduct this study on their farms and Gard, N. W., and M. J. Hooper. 1996. An assessment of for giving us support throughout the time that we were con- potential hazards of pesticides and environmental contam- ducting the study. We also thank ECOSUR-Tapachula, Dr. inants. Pages 294±310 in T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch, Guillermo Ibarra-NuÂnÄez, and Alvaro Garcia-Ballinus for pro- editors. Ecology and management of Neotropical migratory viding logistical support and access to laboratory facilities, birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues. Oxford Uni- and Dr. Ivette Perfecto and Dr. John Vandermeer for advice versity Press, Oxford, UK. and consultation throughout the process of research and writ- Gordon, C. E., and J. F. Ornelas. 2000. Comparing endemism ing. Dr. Russell Greenberg from Smithsonian Migratory Bird and habitat restriction in Mesoamerican tropical deciduous Center also gave helpful comments on a ®nal version of this forest birds: implications for biodiversity conservation paper. Darci Andresen, Jay West, and Daniel Grif®th helped planning. Bird Conservation International 10:289±303. with data collection in the ®eld. Dr. Gary Fowler and Matthew Greenberg, R., P. Bichier, A. C. Angon, and R. Reitsma. Kotchen assisted with analysis. This study was partially fund- 1997a. Bird populations in shade and sun coffee planta- ed by the Latin American and Caribbean Study Program, the tions in Central Guatemala. Conservation Biology 11:448± School of Natural Resources and Environment and the Horace 459. Rackham Graduate School of the University of Michigan. In Greenberg, R., P. Bichier, and J. Sterling. 1997b. Bird pop- addition, this work partially funded by the Kalamazoo Au- ulations in rustic and planted shade coffee plantations of dubon Society and NSF grant no. CEB-9981526. eastern Chiapas, Mexico. Biotropica 29:501±514. Grumbine, R. E. 1994. What is ecosystem management? Con- LITERATURE CITED servation Biology 8:27±38. AOU (American Ornithologists' Union). 1998. Checklist of Hurlbert, S. H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Orni- ecological ®eld studies. Ecological Monographs 54:187± thologists' Union, Washington, D.C., USA. 211. Avian Effects Dialogue Group. 1994. Assessing pesticide Hutto, R. L., S. M. Pletschet, and P.Hendricks. 1986. A ®xed- impacts on birds. Final report of the Avian Effects Dialogue radius point count method for nonbreeding and breeding Group 1988±1993. Resolve, Washington, D.C., USA. season use. Auk 103:593±602. 654 ALEXANDRE H. MAS AND THOMAS V. DIETSCH Ecological Applications Vol. 14, No. 3

Kempton, R. A. 1979. Structure of species abundance and tri-taxa comparison in shade coffee in southern Mexico. measurement of diversity. Biometrics 35:307±322. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:1239±1252. Kortbech-Olesen, R. 2000. Export opportunities of organic Perfecto, I., R. A. Rice, R. Greenberg, and M. E. Van der food from developing countries. International Federation Voort. 1996. Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for bio- of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Tholey-The- diversity. BioScience 46:598±608. ley, Germany. [Online: ͗http://www.ifoam.org/orgagri/ Perfecto, I., and R. Snelling. 1995. Biodiversity and the trans- worldorganics 2000 conference.html͘.] formation of a tropical agroecosystem: ants in coffee plan- Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measure- tations. Ecological Applications 5:1084±1097. ment. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, Petit, L., D. Petit, V. A. Saab, and T. E. Martin. 1994. Fixed- USA. radius point counts in forests: factors in¯uencing effec- Martin, T. E. 1992. Breeding productivity considerations: tiveness and ef®ciency. Pages 51±59 in C. J. Ralph, S. what are the appropriate habitat features for management? Droege, and J. Sauer, editors. Monitoring bird population Pages 455±473 in J. M. Hagan III and D. W. Johnston, trends by point counts. USDA Forest Service General Tech- editors. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant nical Report PSW-GTR-149. landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., Rice, P. D., and J. McLean. 1999. Sustainable coffee at the USA. crossroads. White paper prepared for the Consumer's Mas, A. H. 1999. Butter¯ies as biodiversity indicators and Choice Council, Washington, D.C., USA. shade coffee certi®cation in Chiapas, Mexico. Thesis. Uni- Rice, R. A., and J. R. Ward. 1996. Coffee, conservation, and versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. commerce in the Western Hemisphere. Smithsonian Mi- Mas, A. H., and T. V. Dietsch. 2003. An index of management gratory Bird Center and Natural Resources Defense Coun- intensity for coffee agroecosystems to evaluate butter¯y cil, New York, New York, USA. [Online: ͗http://www. species richness. Ecological Applications 13:1491±1501. nrdc.org/health/farming/ccc/cptinx.asp͘.] Messer, K. D., M. J. Kotchen, and M. R. Moore. 2000. Can Richter, C. 1998. Breeding success and nest sites of the com- shade-grown coffee help tropical biodiversity? A market mon bush-tanager (Chlorospingus opthalmicus opthalmi- perspective. Endangered Species Update 17(6):125±131. cus) in shaded coffee plantations of Veracruz, Mexico. The- Moguel, P., and V. M. Toledo. 1996. El cafeÂenMeÂxico: ecologõÂa, cultura indõÂgena y sustentabilidad. Ciencias 43: sis. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 40±51. Robinson, S. K., F. R. Thompson III, T. M. Donovan, D. Moguel, P., and V. M. Toledo. 1999. Biodiversity conser- Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional forest frag- vation in traditional coffee systems in Mexico. Conser- mentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Sci- vation Biology 12:1±11. ence 267:1987±1990. Nadkarni, N. M., and T. J. Matelson. 1989. Bird use of epi- SAS Institute. 1998. StatView. Version 5.0.1. SAS Institute, phyte resources in Neotropical trees. Condor 91:891±907. Cary, North Carolina, USA. O'Connor, R. J., and M. Shrubb. 1986. Farming and birds. SMBC (Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center). 1998. Shade Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. management criteria for ``Bird-Friendly'' coffee. Smith- Oksanen, L. 2001. Logic of experiments in ecology: is pseu- sonian Migratory Bird Center, Smithsonian Institution, doreplcation a pseudoissue? Oikos 94:27±38. Washington, D.C., USA. Payne, R. B., J. L. Woods, M. Siddall, and C. S. Parr. 2000. Toledo, V. M., and P.Moguel. 1996. Searching for sustainable Randomization analyses: mimicry, geographic variation coffee in Mexico: the important of biological and cultural and cultural evolution of song in brood-parasitic straw- diversity. Pages 163±173 in R. A. Rice, A. M. Harris, and tailed whydahs, Vidua ®scheri. Ethology 106:261±282. J. McLean, editors. Proceedings from the First Sustainable PeÂrezgrovas, V., R. Marvey L., W. Anzueto A., F. RodrõÂguez Coffee Congress. Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, L., and E. GoÂmez H. 1997. El cultivo de cafe orgaÂnico en Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. La UnioÂn Majomut. Red de GestioÂn de Recursos Naturales Wunderle, J. M., and S. C. Latta. 1996. Avian abundance in y FundacioÂn Rockefeller, MeÂxico. sun and shade coffee plantations and remnant pine forest Perfecto, I., A. Mas, T. Dietsch, and J. Vandermeer. 2003. in the Cordillera Central, Dominican Republic. Ornithol- Conservation of biodiversity in coffee agroecosystems: a ogia Neotropical 7:19±34.

APPENDIX Certi®cation criteria evaluation tables for shade coffee farms are available in ESA's Electronic Data Archive: Ecological Archives A014-009-A1.