Coffee and Conservation: a Global Context and the Value of Farmer Involvement

In a recent issue of Conservation Biology, Rappole et al. (2003) argued that promoting shade-grown coffee threatens some forest ecosystems (particularly highland pineoak forests) and discussed reasons why the shade coffee movement is misleading in terms of biodiversity conservation. Here, we argue that in the larger global agricultural context, and if promoted correctly, shade coffee does not present a significant threat to forest conservation but instead may advance conservation goals. Furthermore, we present an alternative way for conservationists to reduce future threats from shade-grown coffee via linkage of rigorous shade certification with fair-trade certification programs. Conservation value is frequently measured by assessing species richness or number of forest species inhabiting disturbed areas. Recently, much attention has been focused on measuring biodiversity loss across agricultural intensification gradients, particularly in coffee agroecosystems. Rustic or traditional coffee farms conserve a large number and proportion of forest species (e.g., Perfecto et al. 1996; Greenberg et al. 1997), and differences in shade management strongly affect species richness (Perfecto & Snelling 1995; Calvo & Blake 1998; Perfecto & Vandermeer 2002). However, some species are lost even with the smallest habitat modifications, and species composition in shade-coffee farms is not identical to that of forest (Rappole et al. 2003). This said, shade-coffee production, in Mexico in particular, may not present a significant threat to forests. Much forest habitat (up to 76% of rain forest and 50% of pine-oak forest) within the elevational band optimal for coffee production has already been displaced or affected by some form of coffee agroecosystem (Moguel & Toledo 1999). Additionally, one forest specialist at risk as assessed