Biodiversity Conservation in Agricultural Landscapes

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 Conservaci´ on de Biodiversidad en Paisajes Agr´ıcolas: 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 conservaci´ on y el desarrollo ahora abordan expl´ıcitamente los mosaicos paisaj´ısticos compuestos de tierras agr´ıcolas y forestales en lugar de solo a ´ reas 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 espec´ıficamente a la llamada de Harvey et al. (2008) para desarrollar un enfoque nuevo basado en seis estrategias para congraciar la conservaci´ on de la biodiversidad con modos de vida sustentables en los mosaicos paisaj´ısticos 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 conservaci´ on y, tal como est´ a 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 conservaci´ on y desarrollo. Por lo tanto, aunque reconocemos y compartimos la amplia visi´ on y muchas de las ideas de esta llamada, insistimos en una definici´ on de prioridades balanceada que enfatice a la gente tanto como a la biodiversidad mediante una consideraci´ on cuidadosa de las necesidades y aspiraciones de los habitantes locales.

Palabras Clave: agroforester´ıa de café, Ghats Occidentales, medios de vida, mosaicos paisaj´ısticos, proyectos integrados de conservaci´ on 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 (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.


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 (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.


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 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 (