Contributed Paper
Biodiversity Conservation in Agricultural Landscapes:
Challenges and Opportunities of Coffee Agroforests
in the Western Ghats, India
CLAUDE A. GARCIA,∗ † SHONIL A. BHAGWAT,‡ JABOURY GHAZOUL,§ CHERYL D. NATH,†
KONERIRA M. NANAYA,† CHEPUDIRA G. KUSHALAPPA,∗∗ YENUGULA RAGHURAMULU,††
ROBERT NASI,‡‡ AND PHILIPPE VAAST§§
∗
CIRAD – UPR 36, TA 10/D, Campus de Baillarguet, 34398 Montpellier, Cedex 5, France, email [email protected]
†French Institute of Pondicherry, 11 St. Louis Street, PB 33, 605001 Pondicherry, India
‡School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom
§Institute of Terrestrial Ecosystems, Department of Environmental Sciences, ETH Zurich, Zurich 8092, Switzerland
∗∗
College of Forestry, University of Agricultural Sciences (Bangalore), Ponnampet, 571216, Kodagu district, Karnataka, India
††Central Coffee Research Institute, Coffee Board, Coffee Research Station Post, 577 177, Chikmagalur District, Karnataka, India
‡‡Environmental Services & Sustainable Use of Forests Programme, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), P.O. Box
0113 BOCBD - Bogor 16000, Indonesia
§§CIRAD - UPR 80-ETP, TA 10/D, Campus de Baillarguet, 34398 Montpellier, Cedex 5, France
Abstract: The new approaches advocated by the conservation community to integrate conservation and
livelihood development now explicitly address landscape mosaics composed of agricultural and forested land
rather than only protected areas and largely intact forests. We refer specifically to a call by Harvey et al. (2008)
to develop a new approach based on six strategies to integrate biodiversity conservation with sustainable
livelihoods in Mesoamerican landscape mosaics. We examined the applicability of this proposal to the coffee
agroforests of the Western Ghats, India. Of the six strategies, only one directly addresses livelihood conditions.
Their approach has a clear emphasis on conservation and, as currently formulated risks repeating the failures
of past integrated conservation and development projects. It fails to place the aspirations of farmers at the core
of the agenda. Thus, although we acknowledge and share the broad vision and many of the ideas proposed by
this approach, we urge more balanced priority setting by emphasizing people as much as biodiversity through
a careful consideration of local livelihood needs and aspirations.
Keywords: integrated conservation and development projects, livelihoods, landscape mosaics, coffee agroforestry, Western Ghats
Conservación de Biodiversidad en Paisajes Agrı́colas: Retos y Oportunidades de Agrobosques de Café en los Ghats
Occidentales, India
Resumen: Los nuevos enfoques recomendados por la comunidad de conservación para integrar la conservación y el desarrollo ahora abordan explı́citamente los mosaicos paisajı́sticos compuestos de tierras
agrı́colas y forestales en lugar de solo áreas protegidas y bosques casi intactos. Basado en seis estrategias para
integrar la conservacion de la biodiversidad con modos de vida sustentables en los mosaicos paisajisticos de
Mesoamerica. Nos referimos especı́ficamente a la llamada de Harvey et al. (2008) para desarrollar un enfoque
nuevo basado en seis estrategias para congraciar la conservación de la biodiversidad con modos de vida sustentables en los mosaicos paisajı́sticos de Mesoamérica. Examinamos la aplicabilidad de esta propuesta en los
Paper submitted February 27, 2009; revised manuscript accepted June 15, 2009.
1
Conservation Biology, Volume **, No. **, ***–***
C 2009 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01386.x
2
Conservation in Indian Coffee Agroforests
agrobosques de café de los Ghats occidentales en la India. Solo una de las seis estrategias mencionadas aborda
directamente las condiciones de vida. La propuesta tiene un claro énfasis en la conservación y, tal como está
formulada actualmente, falla en colocar las aspiraciones de los campesinos en el centro de la agenda. Corre
pues el riesgo de repetir los fracasos de pasados proyectos integrados de conservación y desarrollo. Por lo tanto,
aunque reconocemos y compartimos la amplia visión y muchas de las ideas de esta llamada, insistimos en
una definición de prioridades balanceada que enfatice a la gente tanto como a la biodiversidad mediante
una consideración cuidadosa de las necesidades y aspiraciones de los habitantes locales.
Palabras Clave: agroforesterı́a de café, Ghats Occidentales, medios de vida, mosaicos paisajı́sticos, proyectos
integrados de conservación y desarrollo
Introduction
Mosaics of agricultural or agroforestry land interspersed
with remnant forest patches or secondary forests are
now the norm in many tropical countries. The conservation community realizes that agroforestry systems, where
crops such as cocoa, coffee, and rubber are grown under
the shade of or in association with native forest trees,
sustain rural livelihoods and support high amounts of
biodiversity (Schroth et al. 2004). Along with this recognition, there is a growing consensus that protected areas
alone are an insufficient solution to biodiversity conservation (Lindenmayer & Franklin 2002; Lindenmayer et al.
2006).
Acknowledging these two realities, calls have been
made to shift the focus of conservation efforts to complex landscape mosaics (e.g., Perfecto et al. 1996; Somarriba et al. 2004; Bhagwat et al. 2008). We refer specifically to recent calls by Harvey et al. (2008) and Chazdon
et al. (2009), who advocate a conservation approach that
builds alliances between ecologically sustainable agriculture and existing conservation efforts in protected areas
to manage human-modified landscapes so as to enhance
biodiversity conservation and promote sustainable livelihoods. They call for participatory and multidisciplinary
approaches in research and management. They recognize farmers as stakeholders in conserving biodiversity
and actively solicit them as partners.
We considered the challenges and opportunities of the
strategies proposed by Harvey et al. (2008) in coffee agroforestry landscapes in South India. The insights we draw
from real-life examples from Kodagu District (Karnataka
State) do not necessarily apply across all agroforestry
landscapes in tropical countries, but they do provide an
opportunity to test the general applicability of Harvey
et al.’s (2008) approach.
Coffee Agroforestry Systems in the Western
Ghats, India
The Western Ghats is a biodiversity hotspot (Myers
et al. 2000; Conservation International 2008) of similar conservation importance to the coffee-producing region of Mesoamerica (Somarriba et al. 2004), the cocoa-
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. **, 2009
producing regions of the Guinean forest of West Africa,
and the fragmented Atlantic forest landscape of Brazil
(Schroth et al. 2004). India produces 4% of the world’s
coffee and is the fifth largest producer (International Coffee Organization 2008). One-third comes from the district of Kodagu in the state of Karnataka (Coffee Board
of India 2008). In Karnataka 3% of the coffee estates are
larger than 10 ha, and these estates comprise 32% of the
area planted in coffee. A few large corporate plantations
manage thousands of hectares. The small holdings (<2
ha) represent 58% of the total number of holdings and
22% of the area planted in coffee (Coffee Board of India
2008). In Kodagu coffee is one of the major drivers of the
regional economy, the landscape, and even the cultural
identity of the district.
Before the development of coffee, rice was the main
crop, and it was cultivated in terraced fields in the lowlands. Adjoining the rice paddies were large tracts of wet
evergreen and moist deciduous forests. These “domestic” forests (Michon et al. 2007) provided farmers with
a variety of goods and services, such as transfer of fertility from forest to farmland in the form of green manure,
provision of firewood, timber, nontimber forest products, and habitat for cultivation of cardamom (Elettaria
cardamomum) and pepper (Piper nigrum) (Ramakrishnan et al. 2000). With the global commodification of
coffee, rice paddies became less valuable and over the
last 40 years many forests have been converted into coffee estates (Garcia et al. 2007). Initially restricted to the
low-elevation moist deciduous forests, coffee estates have
expanded to the west and spread into the montane evergreen forest area (Fig. 1). Coffee cultivation now extends up to the fringes of the protected areas. From 1977
to 1997 there was 30% loss of forest cover in Kodagu
while the area under coffee cultivation doubled (Table 1),
predominantly at the expense of privately owned forest
fragments (Garcia & Pascal 2006). Today, coffee plantations occupy 33% of the district (Fig. 1). During the
last two decades the canopy cover of coffee estates has
also changed. Coffee in the Western Ghats is traditionally grown under the shade of native trees to protect the
plants during the long dry season (November–March).
When forests were converted to coffee estates, planters
usually replaced the undergrowth with coffee plants, but
retained most of the original canopy trees (Ramakrishnan
Garcia et al.
3
Figure 1. Landscape dynamics of Kodagu district in (a) 1977, (b) 1997, and (c) 2007. The map from 1977 is
derived from Landsat images, and maps from 1997 and 2007 are from IRS P6 LISS III images. In all cases, land
uses were reclassified by manual digitization. The expansion of coffee cultivation has taken place predominantly
on privately owned land. The area under forest is formally controlled by the state forest department (both reserve
forests and protected areas) and has remained largely intact.
et al. 2000; Decroix & Chretien 2007). The shift from
Arabica (Coffea arabica) to Robusta coffee (Coffea
canephora var robusta), motivated by the easier management, better pest resistance of Robusta varieties (Raghuramulu 2006), and the massive development of irrigation
systems, has reduced the need for dense shade cover.
Increasing use of chemical fertilizers, as in Mesoamerica
(Perfecto et al. 1996), has replaced earlier use of green or
organic manure. Less dependent on the ecosystem services provided by native tree cover, many planters have
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. **, 2009
Conservation in Indian Coffee Agroforests
4
Table 1. Evolution of land-use cover in Kodagu district between 1977
and 2007.
1977
1997
2007
Land use
km2
%
km2
%
km2
%
Cultivated
Coffee
Evergreen
forests
Deciduous
forests
Water bodies
Total
705
615
2038
17
15
50
805
1201
1511
19.5
29
37
854
1337
1358
21
32.5
33
745
18
569
14
539
13
1
4105.6
0
100
19
4106
0.5
100
19
4106
0.5
100
greatly reduced canopy cover in their coffee plantations
in a bid for increased yields, and native trees are being
replaced by fast-growing marketable exotic species such
as Grevillea robusta (Cheynier 2006).
Despite these trends, coffee agroforestry systems still
play an important role in biodiversity conservation in
the district (Bhagwat et al. 2005a). Like their counterparts in the Mesoamerican corridor, they contribute to
landscape-level connectivity between remaining forest
patches. Even with high human density (150 inhabitants/km2 ; Census of India 2001), this landscape still provides habitat to large flagship species such as elephants
(Elephas maximus; Nath & Sukumar 1998) and tigers
(Panthera tigris; Mahanty 2003), and the species richness of native canopy cover is higher than most other
coffee-based systems (Table 2). Nevertheless, trends at
the landscape level clearly point toward increased intensification of the cultivation system and a further loss
of biodiversity as in Central America (Somarriba et al.
2004; Vaast et al. 2005; Harvey et al. 2008). Understanding the drivers behind these trends will help determine
the usefulness of integrative approaches in this part of
the globe.
Integrating Agricultural Landscapes with
Biodiversity Conservation
Harvey et al. (2008) propose six strategies and an action plan to conserve biodiversity and sustain rural liveli-
hoods. The strategies are (1) identify and prioritize rural
hotspots; (2) identify and mitigate key threats to biodiversity; (3) conserve remaining forest habitats; (4) protect, diversify, and sustainably manage tree cover; (5)
promote and conserve traditional ecologically based agricultural practices; and (6) restore degraded land through
reforestation or natural regeneration. We appraised the
relevance of these strategies to the coffee agroforestry
systems of Western Ghats. We identified strengths and
weaknesses of the action plan and explored how it could
be adapted to local circumstances. We based our arguments on the preliminary results of a series of research
projects that include seven surveys (Table 3) and extensive interactions with the farmers and other stakeholders
within the district. These projects are in progress, but
available reports are on the website of the French Institute of Pondicherry (http://www.ifpindia.org/ManagingBiodiversity-in-Mountain-Landscapes.html).
Strategies
1. Identify and prioritize rural hotspots where conservation of biodiversity and rural livelihoods can be achieved
jointly.
This strategy seeks to identify, with stakeholders’ participation, “priority landscapes where action for conservation and agricultural sustainability will bring the
greatest results” and “rural hotspots, where traditional
smallholder livelihoods are most vulnerable.” Here, rural
hotspots are landscapes that have high diversity, high levels of human pressure, and high agricultural value locally.
Kodagu district is a good candidate because it has
one national park, three wildlife sanctuaries, and statecontrolled forests covering one-third of the district’s geographical area. The coffee belt, covering more than half of
the remaining area, forms a natural corridor between the
moist deciduous forests to the east and the wet evergreen
forests to the west. In this agroforestry matrix, there are
over 1000 sacred forests that are informally managed by
local communities (Bhagwat et al. 2005a; Garcia & Pascal
2006). Parts of civil society, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), government officials, including the Karnataka Forest Department, and scientists (including the
Table 2. Tree diversity in coffee agroforestry systems in Kodagu and in similar systems elsewhere in the world.
Country
India
Cameroon
Ecuador
Mexico
Region
Species
richness (%)a
Similarity (%)b
Reference
Kodagu
Southwestern
Western
Veracruz
121
35–36
53–81
97
62
5–13
21–47
87
Bhagwat et al. 2005a
Bobo et al. 2006
Lozada et al. 2007
Villavicencio & Valdes 2003
a Values derived from published data reporting species richness in agroforestry systems and in neighboring forest reserves. Values >100 suggest
agroforestry systems with species richness higher than that of neighboring forest reserve due to the presence of nonforest species.
b Values derived from published data reporting similarity in species composition between agroforestry systems and neighboring forest reserves.
Differences in methods among studies mean the numerical comparisons shown here should be seen as only a rough guide.
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. **, 2009
Garcia et al.
5
Table 3. Details of databases and survey samples referred to in the text in our study of coffee agroforests in Western Ghats.
Database
Date
Sample size
Tree management
2006
58
Management practices and typology
2007
60
Agroecological knowledge
Forest management
2007
2007
220
35
Practices and micro-economy
2008
114
Human–elephant conflict
2008
20
Coffee estate management practices
2008
120
∗ Reports
Stratification
occupation (planters, timber
merchants, forest
department officials, NGO
representatives)
planters randomly distributed
across the watershed
occupation (planter,worker)
membership of forest villages
committees
planters only on basis of
holding size (<2.5 ha;
2.5–10 ha; >10 ha)
planters randomly distributed
in high human–elephant
conflict areas of the district
planters randomly distributed
across the district.
Reference
Cheynier 2006∗
Decroix & Chretien 2007∗
On-going CAFNET Project
Laval 2008∗
On-going CAFNET project
Bal et al. 2008∗
V. Boreux, unpublished
can be accessed at www.ifpindia.org/Managing-Biodiversity-in-Mountain-Landscapes.html
authors) believe it is possible to reconcile farming and
biodiversity conservation in the area.
But who are the stakeholders to be consulted and who
will help set priorities? Local communities in Kodagu include wealthy coffee planters; village elites; farmers with
medium and small holdings; landless poor; small-business
owners; a range of castes and religions; recent immigrants; long-term residents and indigenous communities;
educated and uneducated men and women; government,
private, and community institutions; and companies and
NGOs. Many among these groups and institutions may
share the vision of integrating conservation with traditional smallholder livelihoods, but many others have alternative and conflicting visions. Given the range of stakeholders and power imbalances, identifying rural hotspots
where “conservation priorities and rural development
priorities overlap” may be more complex than Harvey
et al. (2008) may have anticipated. For example, a proposal to create a Greater Talakavery Wildlife Sanctuary
connecting and merging the three wildlife sanctuaries on
the wet evergreen forest belt, proposed by a consortium
of NGOs and Forest Department officials in 2007, was
defeated by local coffee farmers who feared further interference with their livelihood rights, despite the fact that
the new protected area would have been created solely
on government-controlled forest land (Chinnappa 2007).
Chazdon et al. (2009) recognize the problems such divergent stakeholder points of view can cause when they
call for “equity of participation among stakeholders.”
Targeting Kodagu as one such hotspot and implementing the actions and strategies discussed here can provide
a model on which other regional initiatives all along the
Western Ghats can build on. But, this needs to be done in
a truly participatory manner with all local stakeholders or
the initiative will meet with the same fate as the Greater
Talakavery Sanctuary proposal.
2. Identify and mitigate key threats to biodiversity conservation within priority agricultural landscapes.
A number of studies have significantly improved our
understanding of the landscape dynamics in Kodagu and
identified the threats they pose to biodiversity (e.g. Ramakrishnan et al. 2000; Bhagwat et al. 2005b; Garcia et al.
2007). But understanding threats does not reverse trends.
For example, the action of planting multipurpose trees
on farms as an alternative source of firewood fails to
recognize that the poorest members of society are unlikely to have access to these resources. The land-owning
farmers in Kodagu and all over Southeast Asia often get
their energy through the flick of a switch and have little
incentive to plant trees for fuel. The landless population,
including tribal groups (8% of the total population (Census of India 2001)), migrant workers (over 10% of total
workforce), and other landless, temporary laborers, have
no legal access to firewood from state-controlled forests
or from private lands unless they are working for an estate
owner. In short, the ones who could plant trees do not
need to, whereas the ones who need to cannot do so.
This example shows that mitigation of threats to biodiversity might well be the largest single challenge in implementing Harvey et al.’s (2008) agenda. Threats to biodiversity pose “wicked” problems (sensu Rittel & Webber
1973), and their mitigation requires involvement of government, NGOs, landowners, and most importantly sections of the local communities that depend most heavily
on wild natural resources and lack livelihood alternatives
and political leverage (Allen & Gould 1986; Laval 2008).
3. Conserve remaining native habitat within the agricultural matrix.
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. **, 2009
6
Small forest fragments in Kodagu are either
community-managed sacred forests (Devarakadu: god’s
forest in local language) maintained by virtue of their religious and symbolic value or private forest patches (Garcia
& Pascal 2006). Maintaining them obviously makes good
sense in terms of biodiversity conservation because their
role in increasing landscape connectivity is well established in Kodagu (Bhagwat et al. 2005a). But the conservation of these forest patches and their permanence in
the landscape entails opportunity costs. The estimated
benefit–cost ratio of the coffee estates of Kodagu ranges
from 2.6 to 3.2 with external costs, such as wildlife damage, factored in (Ninan 2007). The benefits that can be
obtained from coffee and pepper alone explain why the
private forest patches are converted into plantations as
soon as capital is available. At present, only wealthy individuals who are not dependent on the income generated
by these patches can afford to keep them forested. The
sacred forests are themselves subject to a lot of pressure,
and few maintain their spatial integrity (Garcia & Pascal
2006).
In addition, forest patches are a source of nuisances
for the nearby plantations because they generate ecosystem “disservices.” For example, they attract elephants to
coffee estates (Nath & Sukumar 1998). Elephants cause
3–10 human casualties a year and cost the community
INR 882,000 (US$17,700) in crop-raiding compensations
per year (Kulkarni et al. 2007; Bal et al. 2008). The forest patches also serve as hosts for pests and diseases, as
reported from Australia (Blanche et al. 2002).
A cursory examination could therefore conclude that
the less wealthy households maintain more forest cover
and hence more biodiversity in their estates, but this is so
only because of the lack of capital and not because of a
specific management decision. Despite the existence of
mechanisms that make payment conditional on preservation of forests, any economic reward granted to these
households for their role in conserving natural habitats
could actually provide them the needed leverage to become a “credible threat” to biodiversity (sensu Wunder
2007).
Farmers need to be given the choice to join such incentive schemes for conserving native habitat within the
agricultural matrix knowing that if they maintain forested
patches, they will receive on a timely basis previously
defined financial rewards commensurate to the opportunity costs incurred. Mechanisms of ensuring conditionality must be efficient and transparent. This will in turn
increase transaction costs, incur monitoring and enforcement costs, and raise the problem of who will pay.
4. Protect, diversify, and sustainably manage tree cover
within the agricultural matrix.
In Kodagu, coffee farmers are replacing native trees
with fast-growing exotic Grevillea robusta, which is disastrous for biodiversity but excellent for farmer profits.
Farmers increase their income with fast-rotation timber
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. **, 2009
Conservation in Indian Coffee Agroforests
harvest, through the increased productivity of Robusta
coffee, and from pepper vines that climb the stems of
Grevillea (Ghazoul 2007a).
Two main factors shape the decisions to retain or fell
trees in a Kodagu coffee estate: tree rights and shade management. Farmers need to obtain permits to fell, transport, and sell trees, but rights vary from estate to estate.
Owners of estates with “redeemed” land tenures have the
right to dispose of trees for their full commercial value.
In estates under “unredeemed” tenures, the trees remain
under the control of the Karnataka Forest Department
(KFD), and farmers must pay the seignoriage value before applying for a felling permit. Some species have a
higher degree of protection than others (Karnataka Tree
Preservation Act of 1976). Valuable species, such as rosewood (Dalbergia latifolia) and teak (Tectona grandis),
are sold through auctions controlled by the KFD. Exotic
species, such as Grevillea robusta, bear no such restrictions and can be felled and marketed easily. In response
to these cumbersome regulations and the alleged corruption encountered when applying for permits, an informal
sector has developed whereby timber, particularly rosewood, is illegally sold, bypassing administrative burdens
and official permits, at a fraction of its value (Reddy 1999;
The Hindu 2006; Cheynier 2006). Other strategies used to
avoid administrative hassles are to debark and selectively
kill trees and systematically remove natural regeneration,
even of valuable timber species.
Shade management is the second driver behind the
dynamics of canopy cover in coffee estates. The conversion from Arabica to Robusta has had an impact on
the density of the canopy cover. Moreover, planters who
have opted for sprinkler irrigation to induce coffee flowering have opened up the canopy because trees reduce
the efficiency of sprinkler systems, and protection from
desiccation provided by a closed canopy is no longer
needed (Decroix & Chretien 2007). Increased yields due
to reduced competition for light and water in the first
years following thinning add to incentives to reduce tree
cover.
Unlike in Mesoamerica (Somarriba et al. 2004; Vaast
et al. 2005; Harvey et al. 2008), these trends suggest
that conservation priorities in the Western Ghats are
more about preventing further loss of existing diversity
than reintroducing diversity in agroforestry systems. Currently, there are strong incentives to open up the canopy
and supplant native, protected species with exotic, marketable ones. Earlier initiatives that have led to diversification of the cropping system, through introduction of
pepper for example, have had a large positive effect on
the livelihood of farmers, but have contributed substantially to reduction in tree diversity of the canopy cover because Grevillea robusta is overwhelmingly described by
farmers as a good stand for pepper vines. Regulatory approaches will need to be complemented with strong economic incentives and minimize administrative burdens
Garcia et al.
to encourage cultivation and management of native trees
within plantations.
5. Promote and conserve indigenous, traditional, and
ecologically based agricultural practices.
The implicit assumption behind this strategy is that
smallholders will welcome the preservation of their traditional livelihood systems. Traditional livelihood systems
do not exist in isolation, and their practitioners respond
to changing socioeconomic circumstances to maximize
their economic and social welfare. Thus, traditional livelihoods may be threatened by their practitioners as they
pursue more economically rewarding livelihood options.
This is clearly the case in Kodagu. The people have a
strong cultural affinity to the landscape and forest, but
local farmers have chosen to transform it in response to
new market opportunities. Many farmers also have hopes
that their children will capitalize on new opportunities
rather than preserve historical traditions.
Surveys of ecological knowledge of the planters and
estate workers show high awareness of the role played
by trees and forests in the landscape (F. Sinclair and G.S.
Mohan, personal communication). Farmers are conscious
of the role tree cover plays in providing suitable microclimate for coffee bushes, preventing soil erosion, increasing soil fertility, and controlling pests and diseases,
but the benefits of chemical fertilizers are also widely
appreciated, and their use is widespread and intensive
(300–600 kg·ha−1 ·year−1 ) (Decroix & Chretien 2007).
Still, very small landowners (<1 ha) are generally “organic by default,” whereas only a small proportion (< 1%)
of medium and large planters choose to become organic
farmers (Raghuramulu 2006).
Organic practices can be adopted out of choice or out
of necessity. Except for one, all 180 Kodagu coffee farmers we surveyed used synthetic pesticides, herbicides,
and fungicides (Table 3; Decroix & Chretien 2007; V.
Boreux, unpublished data). A few have adopted organic
farming on a small section of their land. Only one farm is
entirely organic. Without a significant premium for local
organic coffee, organic farming is likely to prove more
time consuming, more difficult, less productive, and less
profitable than intensive coffee-farming systems (Van der
Vossen 2005), and the farmers know that. The promotion
of traditional and ecofriendly systems will remain wishful
thinking unless obstacles such as those described above
are removed. Possible solutions include promotion of sustainable products such as timber and nontimber forest
and agroforest products (e.g., pepper, cardamom, Coorg
orange, and honey) (Garcia et al. 2007).
6. Restore degraded unproductive lands through reforestation, natural regeneration, and enrichment planting.
Reforestation, enrichment planting, and fostering natural regeneration are activities that have already been
developed in Kodagu. The National Afforestation Programme (NAP) was initiated in 2002 to promote sustainable forest development “to meet the requirements
7
of local people who live in a close vicinity and adjacent forest land” (Karnataka Forest Department 2002). In
Kodagu the targeted areas included protected areas, reserve forests, and sacred forests. Following official guidelines, the program opted for a “participatory approach”
and enlisted local people and forest officials to organize the reforestation of “degraded forests and adjoining lands.” Villagers were expected to take part in forest management by helping the KFD in the design of
a microplan; forming an Ecodevelopment Committee,
and implementing management activities according to
the plan (Karnataka Forest Department 2002). The Forest Department, however, retained most decision making
rights. Consequently, microplans were influenced heavily by state priorities and had little regard for local needs
and priorities, such as access to nontimber forest products or grazing allotments (Laval 2008).
Additionally, “unproductive” lands are seldom that unproductive and generally provide a variety of ecosystem
services, including pasture for cattle and firewood, for the
most fragile households of the villages (Garcia & Pascal
2006). Restoration of this land may lead to the exclusion of vulnerable individuals from resources necessary
for their survival or, more likely, to failure of restoration
efforts because previous uses of the forest will continue
when enforcement is lax.
Resolving competing claims over rights, access, and
control of the land and natural resources will determine
the success of any measure promoted. A careful examination of the social and economic drivers behind the
dynamics observed in the field is needed for the agenda
to meet its objectives.
Discussion
The concepts developed by Harvey et al. (2008) are reminiscent of integrated conservation and development programs (ICDP). We express concern that the lessons of
their shortcomings (Garnett et al. 2007) are not being
heeded in the enthusiasm to develop new approaches
to managing landscape mosaics. Two primary contributing factors for the low success rate of ICDPs are the
imbalance between conservation and development priorities among individual projects (i.e., ICDPs were never
truly integrated) and the failure to recognise rural community complexities and realities, including local aspirations (Wells & McShane 2004).
Recognizing Farmers’ Aspirations
Out of the six strategies identified to conserve biodiversity and sustain rural livelihoods in agricultural landscapes, only one (strategy 5) directly addresses livelihood conditions. Even then, it seeks to conserve traditional agricultural practices, which may or may not be
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. **, 2009
Conservation in Indian Coffee Agroforests
8
economically rational. The emphasis is clearly on conservation, and this failure to place the aspirations of farmers
at the center of the approach reflects a key error made in
implementation of many ICDPs.
In recent years new opportunities for farmers have
been created by increasing food commodity prices. This
and better access to markets and agrochemicals has
prompted local growers in many parts of the world, including Kodagu, to convert diverse agroforestry systems
into more intensive and simplified systems, including
monoculture plantations (Beer et al. 1997), a trend set
to continue in the coming decades (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).
Conversion of diversified agricultural systems to more
intensive monocultures is often a choice made by farmers. Given the current context of agricultural policies,
trade relations, and research priorities, it generally makes
perfect rational economic sense to replace diverse agroforestry systems with clonal rubber or oil–palm plantations. In Sumatra farming communities often agree to
lease seven-tenths of their land to oil–palm companies
and convert the remaining three-tenths to oil palm for
their own use (Feintrenie & Levang 2009). Profits may
be less per hectare than traditional agroforestry, but the
income is stable and allows farmers to engage in other
off-farm earning activities. We do not advocate such a
model, but point out that unless conservationists recognize and appreciate these dynamics and offer similarly favorable alternatives, the conservation agenda is unlikely
to be backed up by the farmers themselves. Unless the
institutional and economical context shifts toward an increased concern for the well-being of consumers, producers, and the landscapes they inhabit, why would they do
otherwise?
Exploring Alternatives
Harvey et al. (2008) propose five actions for implementation of an agenda that spans socioeconomic, legal, and
political sectors. Some of these are being explored in
Kodagu to reconcile agricultural production, biodiversity
conservation, and rural livelihoods. These are establishments of direct payment-for-ecosystem-services schemes
on the basis of quality and quantity of water flowing
downstream from the plantations; creation of geographical indications on products originating from the landscape (oranges, coffee, cardamom, honey, pepper) (Garcia et al. 2007); promotion of ecofriendly labels on coffee (e.g., RainForest Alliance coffee; local Aane Kaapi
[Elephant’s coffee], promoting preservation of elephant
habitat on the basis of the bird-friendly coffee certification developed by the Smithsonian Institution) (Kushalappa et al. 2007); and use of a “landscape label” on a
broad range of goods and services derived from the landscape through which funds from future initiatives such
as the U.N. Collaborative Programme on Reduced Emis-
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. **, 2009
sions from Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD), might be delivered to communitybased projects (Ghazoul et al. 2009). Each of these approaches is beset with a range of difficulties in their
acceptability, implementation, coordination, and costs.
This is not to say that the difficulties are insurmountable. We also recognize that the willingness of farmers
to conserve biodiversity is not in itself sufficient. Political
and legal structures are required that recognize farmers’
values and allow for their expression, particularly to allow for strengthened local and regional alliances among
farmers, foresters, policy makers, and conservation
biologists.
Conclusion
The trend of intensification in coffee agroforestry in Latin
America has caused concerns about the future of agroforestry globally. Kodagu is one region that currently
faces a similar trend of intensification. We argue for
greater recognition of people within the conservation
agenda (Kaimowitz & Sheil 2007) and full acknowledgment of the complexities associated with doing so (Ghazoul 2007b).
The history of ICDPs has taught us that solutions without compromise are rare (Terborgh et al. 2002; Wells &
McShane 2004). Realities dictate that stopping or reversing common threats, such as illegal logging, encroachment, and excessive agrochemical use requires some
truly original thinking and transdisciplinary approaches.
We emphasize the importance of recognizing limitations
of past and existing approaches and not repeating the
same mistakes.
We agree with much of what Harvey et al. (2008) seek
to achieve, but we anticipate complex realities that will
undermine the likelihood of success of their agenda. We
do not abandon the possibility that agricultural production can be compatible with biodiversity conservation
and rural livelihoods in Kodagu and elsewhere throughout the tropics, but we urge such approaches to better
balance development and conservation. Chazdon et al.
(2009) call for greater participation of rural resource
users in conservation research. They acknowledge that
successful conservation strategies require an understanding of the constraints and drivers behind local stakeholders’ management decisions. We wholeheartedly agree
and call for even greater emphasis on these points. Harvey et al. (2008) and Chazdon et al. (2009) advocate for
an alliance with farmers and local resource users, and we
too believe such an alliance is a condition sine qua non
to the success of biodiversity conservation in agricultural
landscapes. But farmers and resource users will only join
in if it is in their best interest. Their needs and aspirations need to be clearly recognized and appear early on
Garcia et al.
in the agenda, particularly when their interests conflict
with conservation-oriented interests.
Acknowledgments
Financial support for this paper came from Agence
Nationale de la Recherche (The French National Research Agency) under the Programme Agriculture
et Développement Durable (project ANR-06-PADD014, POPULAR) and Programme Biodiversité (project
ANR-05-BDIV-002, BIODIVALLOC) and from the European Commission under the Program on Environment in Developing Countries (project CAFNET—
Europaid/ENV/2006/114–382/TPS). We thank three
anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of the paper.
Literature Cited
Allen, G. M., and E. M. Gould. 1986. Complexity, wickedness, and
public forests. Journal of Forestry 84:20–23.
Bal, P., C. Nath, and C. Garcia. 2008. Drivers of human elephant interactions in coffee agro-forestry landscapes in Kodagu (Western Ghats),
India. MS thesis. French Institute of Pondicherry, Pondicherry, India.
Beer, J., R. Muschler, D. Kass, and E. Somarriba. 1997. Shade management in coffee and cacao plantations. Agroforestry Systems
38:139–164.
Bhagwat, S. A., C. G. Kushalappa, P. H. Williams, and N. Brown. 2005a.
A landscape approach to biodiversity conservation of sacred groves
in the Western Ghats of India. Conservation Biology 19:1853–
1862.
Bhagwat, S. A., C. G. Kushalappa, P. H. Williams, and N. Brown. 2005b.
The role of informal protected areas in maintaining biodiversity
in the Western Ghats of India. Ecology and Society 10(1):8. Also
available from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art8/.
Bhagwat, S. A., K. J. Willis, H. J. B. Birks, and R. J. Whittaker. 2008.
Agroforestry: a refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends in Ecology &
Evolution 23:261–267.
Blanche, R., R. Bauer, S. Cunningham, and R. Floyd. 2002. Services
and disservices of rainforest insects to crops in North Queensland.
Cooperative Research Centre of Tropical Rainforest Ecology and
Management, Cairns, Queensland.
Bobo, K. S., M. Waltert, N. M. Sainge, J. Njokagbor, H. Fermon, and
M. Mühlenberg. 2006. From forest to farmland: Species richness
patterns of trees and understorey plants along a gradient of forest
conversion in southwestern Cameroon. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:4097–4117.
Census of India. 2001. Basic data sheet, district Kodagu. Office of the
Registrar General, Delhi. Available from www.censusIndia.net/ (accessed 20/08/2008).
Chazdon, R. L., et al. 2009. Beyond reserves: a research agenda for conserving biodiversity in human-modified tropical landscapes. Biotropica 41:142–153.
Cheynier, L. 2006. Emergence of a private forestry sector in the Western
Ghats. MS thesis. CIRAD, Montpellier, France.
Chinnappa, J. 2007. Greater Talacauvery National Park plan opposed.
The Hindu, Madikeri, 14 August.
Coffee Board of India. 2008. Database en coffee. Economic and Market
Intelligence, Bangalore, India.
Conservation International (CI). 2008. Biodiversity hotspots – Western
Ghats – overview. CI, Arlington, Virginia. Available from http://
www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/ghats/Pages/default.
aspx (accessed June 2008).
9
Decroix, M., and F. Chretien. 2007. Agriculture et biodiversité. Caractérisation des systèmes agroforestiers à base de café. MS thesis.
Institut des Régions Chaudes, Montpellier, France.
Feintrenie, L., and P. Levang. 2009. Sumatra’s rubber agroforests: advent, rise and fall of a sustainable cropping system. Small-Scale
Forestry DOI: 10.1007/s11842–009-9086–2.
Garcia, C., D. Marie-Vivien, C. Kushalappa, P. G. Chengappa, and K.
M. Nanaya. 2007. Geographical indications and biodiversity in the
Western Ghats, India. Can labeling benefit producers and the environment in a mountain agroforestry landscape? Mountain Research
and Development 27:206–210.
Garcia, C., and J. P. Pascal. 2006. Sacred forests of Kodagu: ecological
value and social role. Pages 199–229 in G. Cederlöf and K. Sivaramakrishnan, editors. Ecological nationalisms: nature, livelihoods,
and identities in South Asia. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Garnett, S. T., J. Sayer, and J. Du Toit. 2007. Improving the effectiveness of interventions to balance conservation and development: a conceptual framework. Ecology and Society: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art2/.
Ghazoul, J. 2007a. Challenges to the uptake of the ecosystem service
rationale for conservation. Conservation Biology 21:1651–1652.
Ghazoul, J. 2007b. Placing humans at the heart of conservation. Biotropica 39:565–566.
Ghazoul, J., C. Garcia, and C. G. Kushalappa. 2009. Landscape
labelling: a concept for next-generation payment for ecosystem service schemes. Forest Ecology and Management DOI:
10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.038.
Harvey, C. A., et al. 2008. Integrating agricultural landscapes with biodiversity conservation in the mesoamerican hotspot. Conservation
Biology 22:8–15.
International Coffee Organization (ICO). 2008. Coffee market report.
ICO, London.
Kaimowitz, D., and D. Sheil. 2007. Conserving what and for whom? Why
conservation should help meet basic human needs in the tropics.
Biotropica 39:567–574.
Karnataka Forest Department. 2002. Creation of the forest development agency in Madikeri forest division 2002–2003 to 2006–2007
under National Afforestation Programme. DCF Madikeri Division,
Madikeri, Karnataka, India.
Kulkarni, J., P. Mehta, D. Boominathan, and S. Chaudhuri. 2007. A study
of man-elephant conflict in Nagarhole national park and surrounding
areas of Kodagu district in Karnataka, India. Envirosearch, Pune,
India.
Kushalappa, C., C. Garcia, Y. Raghuramulu, and K. M. Nanaya. 2007.
Elephants also like coffee: coffee and environmental services in
the Western Ghats of India. Poster in Multi-strata agroforestry systems with perennial crops: making ecosystem services count for
farmers, consumers and the environment. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa
Rica.
Laval, M. 2008. People elephants and forests: collective action to manage an environmental wicked problem in Kodagu, Western Ghats.
MS thesis. Agroparistech, Montpellier, France.
Lindenmayer, D., and J. F. Franklin. 2002. Conserving forest biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Lindenmayer, D. B., J. F. Franklin, and J. Fischer. 2006. General management principles and a checklist of strategies to guide forest biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 131:433–445.
Lozada, T., G. H. J. de Koning, R. Marché, A.-M. Klein, and T. Tscharntke. 2007. Tree recovery and seed dispersal by birds: comparing
forest, agroforestry and abandoned agroforestry in coastal Ecuador.
Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 8:131–140.
Mahanty, S. 2003. Insights from a cultural landscape: lessons from landscape history for the management of Rajiv Gandhi (Nagarahole)
National Park. Conservation & Society 1:23–47.
Michon, G., H. de Foresta, P. Levang, and F. Verdeaux. 2007. Domestic forests: a new paradigm for integrating local communities’
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. **, 2009
10
forestry into tropical forest science. Ecology and Society: http://
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art1/.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeler, C. G. Mittermeler, G. A. B. d. Fonseca,
and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotpsots for conservation priorities.
Nature 403:853–858.
Nath, C. D., and R. Sukumar. 1998. Elephant -human conflict in Kodagu,
southern India: distribution patterns, people’s perceptions and mitigation methods. Asian Elephant Conservation Centre, Bangalore.
Ninan, K. N. 2007. The economics of biodiversity conservation: valuation in tropical forest ecosystems. Earthscan, London.
Perfecto, I., R. A. Rice, R. Greenberg, and M. E. Van Der Voort. 1996.
Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience
46:598–608.
Raghuramulu, Y. 2006. Diversification in coffee exporting countries. India case study. in P. Greenhalgh, A. Tallontire, J. Davi and U. Kleih,
editors. The potential for diversification in coffee exporting countries. Natural Resources Institute University of Greenwich, Chatham
Kent, United Kingdom.
Ramakrishnan, P. S., U. M. Chandrashekara, C. Elouard, C. Z. Guilmoto, R. K. Maikhuri, K. S. Rao, S. Sankar, and K. G. Saxena. 2000. Mountain biodiversity, land use dynamics, and traditional ecological knowledge. Oxford & IBH Publishing, New Delhi,
Calcutta.
Reddy, A. N. Y. 1999. Kodagu district under socio ecological stress:
report on large scale illicit feelings and other irregularities, salient
findings and recommendations. Centre for Environmental Law Education, Research and Education (CEERA), National Law School of
India University, Bangalore.
Rittel, H. W. J., and M. M. Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory
of planning. Policy Sciences 4:155–169.
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. **, 2009
Conservation in Indian Coffee Agroforests
Schroth, G., G. A. B. d. Fonseca, C. Harvey, C. Gascon, H. L. Vasconcelos, and A.-M. N. Izac editors. 2004. Agroforestry and biodiversity
conservation in tropical landscapes. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Somarriba, E., C. Harvey, M. Samper, F. Anthony, J. Gonzalez, C. Staver,
and R. A. Rice. 2004. Biodiversity conservation in neotropical coffee
(Coffea arabica) plantations. Pages 198–226 in G. Schroth, G. A. B.
da Fonseca, C. Harvey, C. Gascon, H. L. Vasconcelos, and A.-M. N.
Izac, editors. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical
landscapes. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Terborgh, J., C. v. Schaik, L. Davenport, and M. Rao, editors. 2002.
Making parks work: strategies for preserving tropical nature. Island
Press, Washington, D.C.
The Hindu. 2006. Panel to look into illegal tree felling. The Hindu,
Bangalore Edition, 23 March 2006.
Vaast, P., J. Beer, C. Harvey, and J. Harmand. 2005. Environmental services of coffee agroforestry systems in Central America: a promising
potential to improve the livelihoods of coffee farmers’ communities.
Pages 35–39 in CATIE, editor. Integrated management of environmental services in human-dominated tropical landscapes. Tropical
Agriculture Research and Higher Education Center, Turrialba, Costa
Rica.
Van Der Vossen, H. A. M. 2005. A critical analysis of the agronomic and
economic sustainability of organic coffee production. Experimental
Agriculture 41:449–473.
Villavicencio, L., and H. J. I. Valdes. 2003. Análisis de la estructura
arbórea del sistema agroforestal rusticano de café en san miguel,
Veracruz, México. Agrociencia 37:413–423.
Wells, M. P., and T. O. McShane. 2004. Integrating protected area management with local needs and aspirations. AMBIO: A Journal of the
Human Environment 33:513–519.
Wunder, S. 2007. The efficiency of payments for environmental services
in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology 21:48–58.