Lee H. Gross Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont

leehgross@gmail.com

Participatory Research to Support Rural Livelihoods and Ecosystem Services Conservation in the Pico

Duarte Coffee Region of the Dominican Republic

Presentation Overview

1. Introductory video (2 min)

2. Theoretical & Conceptual Frameworks (8 min)

3. Research Objectives, Questions & Hypotheses (5 min)

4. Methods (5 min)

5. Results (15 min)

6. Discussion (5 min)

7. Recommendations (5 min)

Ecosystem functions represent “the capacity of natural processes and components to

provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly (DeGroot, 1992). The The

goods and services provided by ecosystems are goods and services provided by ecosystems are referred to as ecosystem services referred to as ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 1997),

and they are considered to be essential for and they are considered to be essential for sustaining human life” sustaining human life” (Daily et al., 1997).

Ecosystem functions represent “the capacity of natural processes and components to

provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly (DeGroot, 1992). The The

goods and services provided by ecosystems are goods and services provided by ecosystems are referred to as ecosystem services referred to as ecosystem services (Costanza et al., 1997),

and they are considered to be essential for and they are considered to be essential for sustaining human life” sustaining human life” (Daily et al., 1997).

What are ecosystem services?

Service Status

Food crops livestock capture fisheries

aquaculture wild foods

Fiber timber +/–

cotton, silk +/–

wood fuel Genetic resources Biochemicals, medicines Fresh water

Service StatusRegulating Services

Air quality regulation

Climate regulation – global

Climate regulation – regional and local

Water regulation +/–

Erosion regulation

Water purification and waste treatment

Disease regulation +/–

Pest regulation

Pollination

Natural hazard regulation

Cultural Services

Spiritual and religious values

Aesthetic values

Recreation and ecotourism +/–

Provisioning Regulating & Cultural

Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Zhang et. al., 2008

Status of Ecosystem Services

What is a livelihood?

The concept of livelihoods has been defined as ‘comprising people, their capabilities and

their means of living (e.g. food, income and assets), which can be tangible or intangible’

Chamber, R. and G. Conway (1992) . Bebbington added a cultural component to the material and economic focus

behind livelihood assets, simply defining livelihoods as “the way people make a living

and how they make it meaningful”(Bebbington, 2000).

The concept of livelihoods has been defined as ‘comprising people, their capabilities and

their means of living (e.g. food, income and assets), which can be tangible or intangible’

Chamber, R. and G. Conway (1992) . Bebbington added a cultural component to the material and economic focus

behind livelihood assets, simply defining livelihoods as “the way people make a living

and how they make it meaningful”(Bebbington, 2000).

Source: Department For International Development, Chambers, R. & G. Conway, 1992; Bebbington, 1999; Sen,1981; Sayer et. al 2008

Sources: MEA, 2005; Perfecto & Vandermeer, 2008; Scherr & McNeely 2007

A new conservation paradigm:

A landscape approach

Study Area: River Yaque del Norte watershed

Research Objectives•To document and analyze the livelihood strategies

of coffee farmers in the region. (Chambers and Conway, 1992)

•Through a participatory process with local farmers to examine existing organizational models to better support farmer’s perceived needs (Bacon et. al., 2008)

•To analyze the relationship between ecosystem services conservation and farmer livelihoods. (Jackson et. al., 2008)

Research Questions•What is the contribution of shade coffee plantations

to the conservation of ecosystem services?

•What social networks and economic factors (livelihoods) affect the ecosystem services conservation potential of smallholders and their cooperatives?

•How do national and international market forces and actors, affect coffee farmer livelihoods and ecosystem services conservation?

Research Hypotheses•Shade coffee plantations can support both farmer

livelihoods and ecosystem services conservation

•Farm management and size impacts coffee system tree and fruit species diversity

•National and international market forces and actors, such as the coffee prices and international organizations affect shade coffee farmer livelihoods and ecosystem services conservation

Methods: Data Collection

Baseline information collected through:• 2 Community focus groups• 42 Household interviews• 17 Biodiversity transects• Interviews with key stakeholders

Methods: Community focus groups

✓ Introduction ✓Rapid rural appraisal (IUCN, 2008) ✓ Technical assistance

Methods: Household interviews

Sample: Members of ASCAJA

• Small, medium & large producers

• Conventional, organic & transitional

42 households in 9 communities

Survey elements included •savings•income•farm management •consumption•labor•infrastructure• conservation practices• subjective well-being

• debt• coffee• prices• food security

• education• health

Methods: Coffee plot biodiversity transects

50 m m

Transect

Parcel

20 m

PRISMA, 2004

Sample Zone

Transect

Methods: Biodiversity metrics

1. Species Richness - # of different species

2. Species Abundance - # of plants per species in a given area

3. Species Diversity•used Shannon Diversity Index (Magurran, 2004)

•calculated in Estimates 8.0 Software (Colwell, 2006) takes both species abundance and evenness into accountBook for ID: Liogier, A. 1978. Arboles Dominicanos. Academia de ciencias de La Republica Dominicana. Comision de Biologia. Rama de Botanica Vol III.

Cecropia schreberiana

Traditional/Commercial Polycultures

Shade Monoculture/Sun CoffeeMoguel & Toledo,

1999

Inga vera

Coffea Arabica: typica

Banana (Musa paradisiaca) & Plantain

Common Dominican Shade Coffee Agroforestry System

Tree composition

Sun Coffee: with rare

isolated trees or without tree

canopy. Some Shade Monoculture:

Canopy dominated with one species or genus of tree

(e.g. Inga spp.)

Commercial polyculture:

mostly planted canopy trees

(timber and fruit trees) and N-

fixing legumes, few very a

genera

Traditional polyculture coffee: some

forest trees and some planted

timber and fruit trees

Potential Ecosystem Services Offered

Minimal soil erosion control

and organic matter

incorporation from coffee leaf

litter

Alternative food/ timber sources, pollination, pest

control, biodiversity

Alternative food/ timber sources, pollination, pest

control, biodiversity,

natural disaster protection,

climate regulation

Reviewed inPhilpott et al.

2008

Jha and Vandermeer

2010, Philpott et al. 2008

Jha and Vandermeer

2010, Philpott et al. 2008,

Méndez et al. 2007

% of Total Land Area Pico

Duarte Region36% 64%

Results: Coffee production systems, ecosystem services & the landscape

Philpott et al. 2008; Jha et al. (forthcoming)

Species Latin Name Native Abundance Primary UseGuama Inga vera yes 1137 Timber tree

Yautia Xanthosoma sagittifolium yes 181 Food

Guineo Musa paradisiaca yes 149 Fruit tree

Tayota Sechium edule no 103 Agricultural crop

Pino Pinus occidentalis yes 33 Timber tree

Platano Musa paradisiaca no 24 Food

Naranja Citrus sinensis yes 12 Fruit tree

Penda Citharexylum fructicosum yes 11 Timber tree

Aguacate Persea americana yes 10 Fruit tree

Higuelas 9

El Memiso de Paloma (Mata de Memiso)

Trema micranthum yes 8 Ornamental

Palo Santo Bulnesia sarmientoi no 7

Granyumbo (yagrumo) Cecropia schreberiana yes 7 Timber/Ornamental

Cana Sabal domingensis yes 6 ornamental

Bambo Bambusa vulgaris no 6 Timber tree

Guayaba Psidium guajava yes 5 Fruit tree

Higuero Crescentia cujete yes 5 Fruit tree

Copey Clusia rosea Jacq. yes 5 Ornamental

Yuca Manihot esculenta yes 4 Food

Sapodilla Manilkara zapota yes 4 Fruit tree

Yarey Copernicia berteroana yes 3 Ornamental

Violeta Melia azedarach no 2 Timber tree

Pingamosa 2

Jaba 2

Chinola Passiflora edulis yes 2 Fruit tree

Mango Mangifera indica 2 Fruit tree

Manacla 1

Vija 1

Pelia 1

Limones Citrus limon yes 1 Fruit tree

Vealito Melia azedarach 1

Lechosa Carica papaya 1

Pies de gallo 1

Manacla 1

Unidentified Tree 1

Unidentified Thorny Tree 1

Raspberry Rubus no 1 Fruit tree

Species Latin Name Native Abundance Primary Use

Guama Inga vera yes 1137 Timber tree

YautiaXanthosoma sagittifolium

yes 181 Food

Guineo Musa paradisiaca yes 149 Fruit tree

Tayota Sechium edule no 103 Agricultural crop

Pino Pinus occidentalis yes 33 Timber tree

Platano Musa paradisiaca no 24 Food

Naranja Citrus sinensis yes 12 Fruit tree

PendaCitharexylum fructicosum

yes 11 Timber tree

Aguacate Persea americana yes 10 Fruit tree

39 species, 1849 total abundance

Results: Dominican farmer typology

Modern • Contract labor• Significant capital• Principal source of income: coffee, commercial and industrial activities• Level of farm technology: high

Moderately Technified

• Family labor. Contract for certain activities,

all the harvest.• Limited capital• Principal source of income: coffee.

Level of farm technology: medium

Traditional

• Family Labor. Contract only for certain activities,

almost all of the harvest.

• No capital.

• Principal source of income: activities outside the farm and family.

• Level of farm technology: low

n=6

n=14

n=22

0.12 to 2 ha

2 to 5 ha

5 + ha

Results: Smallholders & the Pico Duarte Landscape

Results: Results: livelihood & income sourceslivelihood & income sourcesLivelihoodLivelihood % CommentsComments

CoffeeCoffee 100100 Fifty-seven percent of households Fifty-seven percent of households received less than 50% of their received less than 50% of their income from coffee and less than 15% income from coffee and less than 15% received 75-100% from coffee. received 75-100% from coffee.

FruitFruit 4040 Banana, avocado, orange, lemonBanana, avocado, orange, lemon

Other workOther work 3535 Day labor; more important for small Day labor; more important for small producers. producers.

Gov. Gov. supportsupport

3333 ““tarjeta” welfare provided by tarjeta” welfare provided by governmentgovernment

ViveresViveres 3131 Starchy vegetables for Starchy vegetables for consumption/saleconsumption/sale

Tayota Tayota squashsquash

2828 Lucrative cash crop in Manabao Lucrative cash crop in Manabao

AnimalsAnimals 2121 Pigs, chickens, cattle, rabbit Pigs, chickens, cattle, rabbit

RemittanceRemittancess

1212 Mostly from domestic migration by Mostly from domestic migration by family members to nearby citiesfamily members to nearby cities

WoodWood 99 Harvested from shade coffee plots Harvested from shade coffee plots

Results: Percent of Livelihood by Income Source

Results: education of family members by age & gender

5-10 years 11-17 years 18+ years

Male

Fem Male Fem Male Fem

None 5 2 1 - 12 6

1-2 primary 6 9 8 7 33 23

High School - - 4 2 8 6

University - - - - 4 1

• Household heads: 54% had 1-6yrs, 16% none, 23% could not

read and write

• All: 70% of respondents know how to read and write

• Teenagers: 68% primary school, 27% high school

Results: Coffee yield, price paid (pergamino), gross return, production cost magnitude

Coffee typeYield kg/ha

Range kg/ha

Price $/lb

Gross $

Prod cost

Certified Organic (13)

407 13 - 706 1.15 814 ++

Conventional (11) 511 79 - 1071

1.07 1094 +

Transitional (18)

569 21 - 996 1.09 1139 +++

ANOVA F=.452, df= 2, P=.640

F=.730, df=2,

P=.488

• With cost of production at $0.44/lb (CODOCAFE, 2008).

Conventional producers net income = $250 annually, which corroborates the conditions of economic poverty for most households

Results: Consumption of the household

Results: Savings, land tenure and credit

=Livelihood and Landscape

Vulnerability

Results: Producers perceived ecosystem services benefits of

shade coffee systems

Swinton et. al., 2007

Discussion: shade coffee plantations can support both farmer livelihoods and the conservation of native tree and plant species. Hypothesis accepted

• Sales of fruit accounted for 40% of household income

• Over 39 species identified, 70% of which were native

• Diversity indices showed moderate species richness relative to other studies in Mesoamerica (Mendez et. al. 2010; Philpott et al. 2008).

(F=.48, df=1, P=.830)

Discussion: Farm management and size impacts coffee system tree and fruit species diversity.

Hypothesis rejected

Discussion: national and international market forces and actors, such as the coffee prices and international organizations affect shade coffee farmer livelihoods and ecosystem services conservation. Hypothesis accepted

Tota

l P

rod

ucti

on

2000 -

2009

Conclusions: Coffee, conservation and poverty

• Farmers recognize the role of their shade coffee systems in maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem services.

• Results highlight trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and farmer livelihoods in coffee production (Philpott et. al; 2007).

• Producer’s ability to maintain farm diversity is constrained by livelihood challenges, resulting in poverty (ONAPLAN, 2005; CRMG, 2002).

hispaniolan parrot

Recommendations: National & regional development policy

Beyond commodity approach

Context matters

Incorporate diverse set of

livelihood strategies

Capture price premiums (Galtier, 2008)

Invest in social capital

Local / Farm Level

National / Regional Level

Global Level

Carbon Sequestration Biodiversity PreservationMigratory Bird Habitat

• Coffee Companies• Int. Conservation Organizations• Dominican Government• Trade Organizations & Certifiers

• HINDRI - Hydroelectric• Ministry of Agriculture and

Environment• Provincial Government• Development Organizations

USAID/GTZ• Nearby cities, Jarabacoa

Water Service FunctionsErosion ControlRecreationScenic Viewshed

Nitrogen fixationWood productsPest ControlErosion ControlProduction

• Farmers• Laborers • Local Communities• Cooperatives/Association

Recommendations: Ecosystem services of shade coffee landscapes and their

stakeholders in the Pico Duarte region

Farmer’s Association: Farmer’s Association: Disorganization, Disorganization, coordinated farm management, quality coordinated farm management, quality control, not exporting or receiving price control, not exporting or receiving price premiums, lack infrastructure and technical premiums, lack infrastructure and technical expertise, economic pressures to abandon expertise, economic pressures to abandon coffeecoffee

Researcher: Researcher: Livelihood and ecosystem Livelihood and ecosystem services questions, graduate degreeservices questions, graduate degree

Coffee Company: Coffee Company: Supply issues, social and Supply issues, social and environmental commitment, poor environmental commitment, poor communication with farmers association, communication with farmers association, lack of knowledge about area lack of knowledge about area

Shared Goals: more organization,

increased supply, new markets, technical support,

higher quality coffee, sustainable farmer

livelihoods, conservation of landscape and ecosystem

functions

P.A.R Participatory Action Research

Gracias a todos!

• Advisors: Drs. Jon Erickson and V. Ernesto Mendez • Committee member: John Hayden• The University of Vermont: Alan Howard, ARLG and Gund colleagues• Vermont Coffee Company: Paul Ralston• Finca Alta Gracia: Bill Eichner, Julia Alvarez, Alex, Dylan, Eli and Ria• Instituto Dominicano de Investigaciones Agropecuarias y Forestales • The Conservation and Research Foundation

Bacon, C. M., V. E. Méndez & J. A. Fox (2008) Cultivating sustainable coffee: persistent paradoxes. pp. 337-372. In C. M. Bacon, V. E. Méndez, S. R. Gliessman, D. Goodman & J. A. Fox (eds.) Confronting the coffee crisis: Fair Trade, sustainable livelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico and Central America. Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.

Chambers, R. and G. Conway (1992) Sustainable rural livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21 st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: IDS

Jackson LE, Pascual U, & Hodgkin T (2007) Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 121, 196-210.

Jaffe, R. & C. M. Bacon (2008) From differentiated coffee markets towards alternative trade and knowledge networks. pp. In C. Bacon, V. E. Méndez, S. R. Gliessman, D. Goodman & J. A. Fox (eds.) Confronting the coffee crisis: Fair Trade, sustainable livelihoods and ecosystems in Mexico and Central America. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA.

Méndez, V. E., C. Bacon, S. Petchers, D. Herrador, C. Carranza, L. Trujillo, C. Guadarrama-Zugasti, A. Cordón & A. Mendoza (2008) Sustainable coffee from the bottom-up I: effects of Fair Trade and organic certification on small-scale farmer households in Central America and Mexico. in review at World Development

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Island Press, Washington, DC. (2005).

Perfecto, I. & J. Vandermeer (2008a) Biodiversity conservation in tropical agroecosystems - A new conservation paradigm. pp. 173-200. In Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology 2008. 1134. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Swinton, S.M., Lupi, F.G., Robertson, P., Hamilton, S. K., (2007). Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics 64, 245-252.

References

Appendix

Ecosystem threats: Unsustainable farming practices

Recommendations: PES

• Payments for Ecosystem Services scheme is viable (Heindrichs, 2008)

• Water supply schemes offer most promise (Southgate and Wunder, 2009)

• Lack of land tenure requires attention from public sector

• Equity and transparency is needed in design (Corbera, 2007)

• Diversify income and reduce poverty (Gross, 2010)

Salto de Jimenoa

Recommendations: Ecosystem Services Modeling

Results: Livelihood Analysis

Alta Gracia Foundation

Vermont Coffee Company

Ecosystem Services Modeling

Payments for Ecosystem Services

Heindrichs, 2008

Villa et. al., 2008

Participatory Action

Research: Vermont Coffee Co. & ASCAJA

Recommendations: Invest in social capital

• University of Vermont• Alta Gracia

Foundation• Vermont Coffee

Company• ASCAJA & IDIAF• Development

Organizations

Small producers < 2.5 hectares

Large producers > 35 hectares

Medium producers 2.5 < x < 35 hectares

Small producers < 2.5 hectares

Large producers > 2.5 hectares

Farm ProductsBananaYucaEggplantEggsCornSquash

Other sourcesDay laborSmall business

Farm ProductsBanana YucaEggplantEggsSquashPigCowRabbitAvocadoPapayaLemonMandarinRaspberry

Other sourcesDay laborSmall businessContractsSalary Work

Coffee

Coffee

Large producer

Small producer

Income (on-farm/off-farm)

Small producers < 2.5 hectares

Large producers > 2.5 hectares

Farm productsVegetablesCornBeansGrass for animalsHerbal TeaAnimals“Viveres”CornPlataneBanana

Forest ProductsWood for constructionFirewood for cooking

WaterCoffee

Farm productsVegetablesCornEucalyptusLettuceBeansTomatoBananaPlatanoYucaLimonPapayaAvacado“Viveres” Sugar Cane

Forest ProductsWood for ConstructionFirewood for cooking

LivestockChickenPigGoatCowRabbit

Coffee

Small producer

Large producer

Non cash-consumption

Contextual Processes: Dominican Coffee Sector –

International & Domestic

Total Production 2000 - 2009

Small producer < 2.5 hectares Medium producer 2.5 < x < 35 hectares

(R2 =0.00045, df = 1, P ≤ 4.029).

Study Area: River Yaque del Norte Watershed

Results: Producer Size & Management Characteristics

Globally, small producers manage btw 1-3 hectares