IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i2p121-d487821.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fostering a Wildlife-Friendly Program for Sustainable Coffee Farming: The Case of Small-Holder Farmers in Indonesia

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Campera

    (Nocturnal Primate Research Group, School of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK
    Little Fireface Project, Cipaganti, West Java 40131, Indonesia)

  • Budiadi Budiadi

    (Department of Silviculture, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia)

  • Esther Adinda

    (Little Fireface Project, Cipaganti, West Java 40131, Indonesia)

  • Nabil Ahmad

    (Little Fireface Project, Cipaganti, West Java 40131, Indonesia)

  • Michela Balestri

    (Nocturnal Primate Research Group, School of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK)

  • Katherine Hedger

    (Little Fireface Project, Cipaganti, West Java 40131, Indonesia)

  • Muhammad Ali Imron

    (Department of Forest Resources Conservation, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia)

  • Sophie Manson

    (Nocturnal Primate Research Group, School of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK
    Little Fireface Project, Cipaganti, West Java 40131, Indonesia)

  • Vincent Nijman

    (Nocturnal Primate Research Group, School of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK)

  • K.A.I. Nekaris

    (Nocturnal Primate Research Group, School of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK
    Little Fireface Project, Cipaganti, West Java 40131, Indonesia)

Abstract

There is an urgent need for a global transition to sustainable and wildlife-friendly farming systems that provide social and economic equity and protect ecosystem services on which agriculture depends. Java is home to 60% of Indonesia’s population and harbors many endemic species; thus, managing agriculture alongside human well-being and biodiversity is vital. Within a community of ~400 coffee farmers in the province of West Java, we assessed the steps to develop a wildlife-friendly program until reaching certification between February 2019 and October 2020. We adopted an adaptive management approach that included developing common objectives through a process of stakeholder consultation and co-learning. We firstly investigated via interviews the expectations and the issues encountered by 25 farmers who converted to organic production in 2016. Their main expectations were an increase in income and an increase in coffee quality, while they had issues mainly in finding high quality fertilizers, reducing pests, and increasing productivity. We used this information to establish a problem-solving plan for the transition to community-wide wildlife-friendly practices. As part of the adaptive evaluation, we assessed the quality of coffee plantations before and after the implementation of coproduced actions. The quality of coffee significantly improved after our interventions to reduce the coffee berry borer, especially in the fields that started as inorganic and converted to organic. We uncovered additional issues to meet the standards for certification, including banning hunting and trapping activities and increasing coffee quality for international export. We describe the coproduced actions (agroforestry, conservation education, local law, organic alternatives) and phases of the program and discuss the potential barriers. We provide novel evidence of adaptive management framework successfully used to implement management actions and reach shared goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Campera & Budiadi Budiadi & Esther Adinda & Nabil Ahmad & Michela Balestri & Katherine Hedger & Muhammad Ali Imron & Sophie Manson & Vincent Nijman & K.A.I. Nekaris, 2021. "Fostering a Wildlife-Friendly Program for Sustainable Coffee Farming: The Case of Small-Holder Farmers in Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:121-:d:487821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/121/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/121/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    2. Ibanez, Marcela & Blackman, Allen, 2016. "Is Eco-Certification a Win–Win for Developing Country Agriculture? Organic Coffee Certification in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 14-27.
    3. Benjamin T. Phalan, 2018. "What Have We Learned from the Land Sparing-sharing Model?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-24, May.
    4. Perfecto, Ivette & Vandermeer, John & Mas, Alex & Pinto, Lorena Soto, 2005. "Biodiversity, yield, and shade coffee certification," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 435-446, September.
    5. Sri Maryati & Tommy Firman & An Nisaa’ Siti Humaira & Yovita Tisarda Febriani, 2020. "Benefit Distribution of Community-Based Infrastructure: Agricultural Roads in Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-18, March.
    6. Bolwig, Simon & Gibbon, Peter & Jones, Sam, 2009. "The Economics of Smallholder Organic Contract Farming in Tropical Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1094-1104, June.
    7. Edi Dwi Cahyono & Salsabila Fairuzzana & Deltanti Willianto & Eka Pradesti & Niall P. McNamara & Rebecca L. Rowe & Meine van Noordwijk, 2020. "Agroforestry Innovation through Planned Farmer Behavior: Trimming in Pine–Coffee Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-20, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meemken, Eva-Marie & Veettil, Prakashan Chellattan & Qaim, Matin, 2017. "Toward Improving the Design of Sustainability Standards—A Gendered Analysis of Farmers’ Preferences," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 285-298.
    2. Christian Grovermann & Sylvain Quiédeville & Adrian Muller & Florian Leiber & Matthias Stolze & Simon Moakes, 2021. "Does organic certification make economic sense for dairy farmers in Europe?–A latent class counterfactual analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 1001-1012, November.
    3. Giuliani, Elisa & Ciravegna, Luciano & Vezzulli, Andrea & Kilian, Bernard, 2017. "Decoupling Standards from Practice: The Impact of In-House Certifications on Coffee Farms’ Environmental and Social Conduct," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 294-314.
    4. Meemken, Eva-Marie & Spielman, David J. & Qaim, Matin, 2017. "Trading off nutrition and education? A panel data analysis of the dissimilar welfare effects of Organic and Fairtrade standards," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 74-85.
    5. Ruifeng Liu & Zhifeng Gao & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Lijia Shi & Les Oxley & Hengyun Ma, 2020. "Can “green food” certification achieve both sustainable practices and economic benefits in a transitional economy? The case of kiwifruit growers in Henan Province, China," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(4), pages 675-692, October.
    6. Barham, Bradford L. & Weber, Jeremy G., 2012. "The Economic Sustainability of Certified Coffee: Recent Evidence from Mexico and Peru," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 1269-1279.
    7. Ruifeng Liu & Zhifeng Gao & Gongan Yan & Hengyun Ma, 2018. "Why Should We Protect the Interests of “Green Food” Certified Product Growers? Evidence from Kiwifruit Production in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, December.
    8. Takahashi, Ryo & Todo, Yasuyuki, 2017. "Coffee Certification and Forest Quality: Evidence from a Wild Coffee Forest in Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 158-166.
    9. Bravo-Monroy, L. & Potts, S.G. & Tzanopoulos, J., 2016. "Drivers influencing farmer decisions for adopting organic or conventional coffee management practices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 49-61.
    10. Takahashi, Ryo & Todo, Yasuyuki, 2013. "Impact of a Shade Coffee Certification Program on Forest Conservation:A Case Study from a Wild Coffee Forest in Ethiopia," Working Papers 55, JICA Research Institute.
    11. Takahashi, Ryo, 2021. "How to stimulate environmentally friendly consumption: Evidence from a nationwide social experiment in Japan to promote eco-friendly coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    12. Glover, Steven & Jones, Sam, 2019. "Can commercial farming promote rural dynamism in sub-Saharan Africa? Evidence from Mozambique," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 110-121.
    13. Chiputwa, Brian & Spielman, David J. & Qaim, Matin, 2015. "Food Standards, Certification, and Poverty among Coffee Farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 400-412.
    14. Thi Minh Chi Nguyen & Li-Hsien Chien & Shwu-En Chen, 2015. "Impact of certification system on smallhold coffee farms` income distribution in Vietnam," Asian Journal of Agriculture and rural Development, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 5(6), pages 137-149, June.
    15. Myoungjin Oh & Jungwoo Shin & Pil‐Ju Park & Sunmee Kim, 2020. "Does eco‐innovation drive sales and technology investment? Focusing on eco‐label in Korea," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(8), pages 3174-3186, December.
    16. Sebastian Kunte & Meike Wollni & Claudia Keser, 2017. "Making it personal: breach and private ordering in a contract farming experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(1), pages 121-148.
    17. Wollni, Meike & Andersson, Camilla, 2014. "Spatial patterns of organic agriculture adoption: Evidence from Honduras," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 120-128.
    18. Loconto, Allison & Desquilbet, Marion & Moreau, Théo & Couvet, Denis & Dorin, Bruno, 2020. "The land sparing – land sharing controversy: Tracing the politics of knowledge," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    19. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    20. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:121-:d:487821. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.