Ambio

, Volume 45, Issue 8, pp 946–955 | Cite as

Does environmental certification in coffee promote “business as usual”? A case study from the Western Ghats, India

Report

Abstract

Conservation initiatives are designed to address threats to forests and biodiversity, often through partnerships with natural-resource users who are incentivized to change their land-use and livelihood practices to avoid further biodiversity loss. In particular, direct incentives programmes that provide monetary benefits are commended for being effective in achieving conservation across short timescales. In biodiversity-rich areas, outside protected areas, such as coffee agroforestry systems, direct incentives, such as certification schemes, are used to motivate coffee producers to maintain native tree species, natural vegetation, restrict wildlife hunting, and conserve soil and water, in addition to encouraging welfare of workers. However, despite these claims, there is a lack of strong evidence of the on-ground impact of such schemes. To assess the conservation importance of certification, we describe a case study in the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot of India, in which coffee growers are provided price incentives to adopt Rainforest Alliance certification standards. We analyse the conservation and social outcomes of this programme by studying peoples’ experiences of participating in certification. Despite high compliance and effective implementation, we find a strong case for the endorsement of ‘business as usual’ with no changes in farm management as a result of certification. We find that such ‘business as usual’ participation in certification creates grounds for diminishing credibility and local support for conservation efforts. Working towards locally relevant conservation interventions, rather than implementing global blueprints, may lead to more meaningful biodiversity conservation and increased community support for conservation initiatives in coffee landscapes.

Keywords

Agroforestry Asia Certification Incentives Perceptions 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support of Dr C.G. Kushalappa and faculty of Forestry College, Ponnampet (University of Agricultural Sciences), India. This study would not have been possible without the collaboration of the many farmers and the financial support of the William Vaughan Lewis, Philip Lake, SMUTS and Lundgren Research Awards from the University of Cambridge and The Rufford Small Grants for Nature Conservation.

References

  1. Bacon, C.M. 2010. Who decides what is fair in fair trade? The agri-environmental governance of standards, access, and price. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37: 111–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bal, P., C.D. Nath, K.M. Nanaya, C.G. Kushalappa, and C. Garcia. 2011. Elephants also like coffee: Trends and drivers of human-elephant conflicts in coffee agroforestry landscapes of Kodagu, Western Ghats, India. Environmental Management 47: 789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhagwat, S., C.G. Kushalappa, P.H. Williams, and N. Brown. 2005. The role of informal protected areas in maintaining biodiversity in the Western Ghats of India. Conservation Biology 19: 1853–1862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhagwat, S., K.J. Willis, J.B. Birks, and R.J. Whitaker. 2008. Agroforestry: A refuge for tropical biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23: 261–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackman, A., and M. Naranjo. 2010. Does ecocertification have environmental benefits: Organic coffee in Costa Rica. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 10–25.Google Scholar
  6. Blackman, A., and J. Rivera. 2010. The evidence base for environmental and socioeconomic impacts of ‘sustainable’ certification. Discussion Paper, Resources for the Future, RFF DP 10–17(March 2010).Google Scholar
  7. CBI. 2016. Data trends on coffee production in India. Coffee Board of India. Accessed April 12, 2016, from http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/about.
  8. Davies, R., and J. Dart. 2005. The ‘most significant change’ (MSC) technique. A guide to its use. Accessed April 12, 2016, from http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf.
  9. Depommier, D. 2003. The tree behind the forest: Ecological and economic importance of traditional agroforestry systems and multiple uses of trees in India. Inernational Society for Tropical Ecology 44: 63–71.Google Scholar
  10. Desjeux, Y. 1999. Contribution des arbres d’ombrages des caféiers à l’approvisionnement en bois de feu des petits planteurs du Coorg, (Karnataka, Inde du Sud). ENITA: Mémoire de fin d’études.Google Scholar
  11. Garcia, C., S. Bhagwat, J. Ghazoul, C.D. Nath, K.M. Nanaya, C.G. Kushalappa, Y. Raghuramulu, R. Nasi, and P. Vaast. 2009. Biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes: Challenges and opportunities of coffee agroforests in the Western Ghats, India. Conservation Biology 24: 479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garcia, C.A., S.A. Bhagwat, J. Ghazoul, C.D. Nath, M.N. Konerira, K.G. Cheppudira, Y. Raghuramulu, R. Nasi, and P. Vaast. 2010. Biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes: Challenges and opportunities of coffee agroforests in the Western Ghats, India. Conservation Biology 24: 479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 258: 1889–1895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giovannucci, D., and S. Ponte. 2005. Standards as a new form of social contract? Sustainability initiatives in the coffee industry. Food Policy 30: 284–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giovannucci, D., A. Byers, and L. Pascal. 2008. Adding value: Certified coffee trade in North America. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, MPRA Paper No. 17174.Google Scholar
  16. Hatanaka, M., C. Bain, and L. Busch. 2005. Third-party certification in the global agrifood system. Food Policy 30: 354–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ICO. 2016. Total production by exporting countries, international coffee organisation. Accessed April 12, 2016, from http://www.ico.org/prices/po-production.pdf.
  18. Jha, S., C.M. Bacon, S.M. Philpott, R.A. Rice, V.E. Mendez, and P. Lederach. 2011. A review of ecosystem services, farmer livelihoods, and value chains in shade coffee agroecosystems. In Integrating agriculture, conservation and ecotourism: Examples from the field, 141–208. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, H.L., and C.Y. Lee. (eds.). (2007). Building supply chain excellence in emerging economies, vol. 98. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  20. Linton, A. 2005. Partnering for sustainability: Business-NGO alliances in the coffee industry. Development in Practice 15: 600–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marie-Vivien, D., C.A. Garcia, C.G. Kushalappa, and P. Vaast. 2014. Trademarks, geographical indications and environmental labelling to promote biodiversity: The case of agroforestry coffee in india. Development Policy Review 32: 379–398.Google Scholar
  22. Mittermeier, R.A., N. Myers, J.B. Thomsen, G.A. Da Fonseca, and S. Olivieri. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots and major tropical wilderness areas: Approaches to setting conservation priorities. Conservation Biology 12: 516–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Muradian, R., and W. Pelupessy. 2005. Governing the coffee chain: The role of voluntary regulatory systems. World Development 33: 2029–2044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Muschler, R.G. 2001. Shade improves coffee quality in a sub-optimal coffee-zone of Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems 85: 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A. Da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. RA. 2016. Rainforest alliance: Our mission. Accessed April 12, 2016, from http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/about.
  27. Rani, P., B. Sathish, G.S. Mohana, S. Chittiappa, and C.G. Kushalappa. 2011. Field gude—trees of coffee agroforestry systems in Kodagu. Ponnampet: CAFNET Project, Forestry College.Google Scholar
  28. Rao, V. 2011. impact of grevillea robusta composition on bird diversity in coffee plantations in Cauavery Watershed Area of Coorg district. Coorg: French Institute of Pondicherry.Google Scholar
  29. Raynolds, L. T., D. Murray, and A. Heller. 2007. Regulating sustainability in the coffee sector: A comparative analysis of third-party environmental and social certification initiatives. Agriculture and Human Values 24: 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. SAN. 2010. Sustainable agriculture standard. San Jose, Costa Rica: Sustainable Agriculture Network.Google Scholar
  31. SAN. 2015. SAN/Rainforest Alliance impacts report: Evaluating the effects of the SAN/Rainforest Alliance certification systems of farms, people and the environment. Accessed April 12, 2016, from http://www.san.ag/biblioteca/docs/SAN_RA_Impacts_Report.pdf.
  32. Sathish, B., C. Kushalappa, and S. Wall. 2006. An insight into the socio-economic view of coffee based agroforestry systems of Kodagu: A small scale forestry Small-scale forestry and rural development: the intersection of ecosystems, economics and society. In Proceedings of IUFRO 3.08 Conference, hosted by Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, Galway, Ireland, 18–23 June 2006., National Council for Forest Research and Development (COFORD).Google Scholar
  33. Siedenburg, J., A. Martin, and S. McGuire. 2012. The power of “farmer friendly” financial incentives to deliver climate smart agriculture: A critical data gap. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9: 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tscharntke, T., J.C. Milder, G. Schroth, Y. Clough, F. DeClerck, A. Waldron, R. Rice, and J. Ghazoul. 2015. Conserving biodiversity through certification of tropical agroforestry crops at local and landscape scales. Conservation Letters 8: 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vaast, P., R. Van Kanten, P. Siles, B. Dzib, N. Franck, and J. M. Harmand. 2006. Shade: A key factor for coffee sustainability and quality, 887–896. Association for Science and Information on Coffee.Google Scholar
  36. Wells, M.P., and T.O. McShane. 2004. Integrating protected area management with local needs and aspirations. Ambio 33: 513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Forest Management and Development (ForDev)ZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations