Certification of wild coffee in Ethiopia: Experiences and challenges (Article submitted to Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, April 2007) K.F. Wiersum1*, T.W. Gole2, F. Gatzweiler3, J. Volkmann4, E. Bognetteau5 and Olani Wirtu6 1
Forest and Nature Conservation Policy group, Wageningen University, the Netherlands Ethiopian Coffee Forest Forum (ECFE), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 3 Center for Development Research, Bonn University, Germany 4 Amber Foundation, Freiburg, Germany 5 Sustainable Livelihood Action, Wageningen, the Netherlands 6 NTFP Southwest Ethiopia Research & Development Project, Mizan Teferi, Ethiopia * Corresponding author, E-mail
[email protected] 2
ABSTRACT Coffea arabica originates from montane forests in South and Southwest Ethiopia, which form part of Eastern Afromontane biodiversity hotspot region. Wild coffee refers to coffee that grows and regenerates spontaneously in these forests and that is genetically different from commercial cultivars. Wild coffee is collected as a non-timber forest product from little disturbed forest coffee systems as well as more intensively managed semi-forest coffee systems; in addition coffee is also produced in garden systems and plantations often using landraces or cultivars. Recently several programmes have started to conserve the coffee forests and the coffee genetic variety. In 2003 a first initiative was started to market forest coffee in Germany as a certified authentic product; this initiative was followed by additional schemes for forest coffee as an environmentally friendly and socially responsible product. As in the coffee market already well established criteria for coffee quality exist, the forest coffee certification schemes depart from these existing criteria. In order to obtain premium prices, it is important to fulfill the consumers demand for good cup-quality and to use quality criteria regarding production systems as additional marketing criteria. In developing those additional criteria questions arise as to the precise objective of forest coffee certification: does it concern the certification of a product originating in the forest or with natural product authenticity and/or the certification of a sustainable production practice in biodiverse organic production systems and/or the certification of a socially-responsibly produced and marketed product. And also as to what extent it is efficient and effective to develop different certification schemes and different marketing strategies for forest-based, organically grown, and/or socially responsible produced NTFPs and their crop equivalents. In order conserve the unique characteristics of the Ethiopian coffee forests as well as prevent confusion due to co-existence of different certification schemes, it might be considered to base certification on an area-based approach focused on the sustainable management of forested landscapes involving both forests and environmentally responsible agricultural lands. Key words: forest coffee, garden coffee, organic production, fair trade, biodiversity, genetic diversity
1
INTRODUCTION As demonstrated by the certification of timber, certification is increasingly being accepted as a tool to defining standards for social and environmental performance in forest management. Certification started in response to consumer demands for sustainably produced timber, but since the early 2000 it is gradually being extended to include non-timber forest products (NTFPs) (Shanley et al., 2002). NTFP certification is more problematic than timber certification, because of several reasons (Shanley et al., 2002; Karki and Rawat, 2003): • There exists a huge variety in NTFP products ranging from plant to animal products and including both complete individuals or only specific organisms. Consequently, it is not possible to set a simple set of criteria on ecological sustainability, but criteria must be product category-specific. • NTFPs production systems range from extraction from open-access natural forests to controlled production in managed forests and to cultivation in a variety of (mixed) plantations and agroforestry systems (Belcher et al., 2005; Ros-Tonen and Wiersum, 2005). In the case of several products there is no clear dividing-line but only a gradual continuum between nature products or domesticated products. • The quality of many NTFPs depend to a much greater extent than timber on proper storing, transportation and processing. Consequently, sustainability should not only be defined in respect ecological sustainability and socially responsible production methods in respect to the production systems, but may have to be extended to socially and environmentally responsible manufacturing systems. Thus, the certification of NTFPs deserves in many cases a wider set of criteria than considered in timber certification. As a result of the wide variety of production and manufacturing conditions to be considered in NTFP certification, gradually different certification schemes have been developed. In similarity to timber certification some schemes focus primarily on the role of NTFP production in relation to sustainable forest management, but other schemes approach certification from the perspective of organic production or from the perspective of socially responsible manufacturing and trade. Four major types of NTFP certification schemes can be distinguished (Taylor, 2005; Chowdhury et al., 2005): • Certification based on sustainable forest management criteria • Certification based on organic crop production criteria • Certification based on Fair Trade criteria • Certification based on area-based schemes. Arabica coffee as example of different approaches to NTFP certification Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica) offers an excellent example of the various challenges faced in developing a certification system for NTFPs (Chowdhury et al., 2005; Schmitt and Grote, 2006). The species originates from Southwestern and Southeastern Ethiopia, where it occurs as a gregarious sub-canopy species in the Afromontane forest at an altitude between 1,000 and 2,000 meter (Tadesse and Nigatu, 1996). The coffee forest areas are part of the Eastern Afromomtane Biodiversity Hotspot area, which is one of 34 global biodiversity conservation priority areas in the world. Due to the favorably brewing
2
characteristics of the coffee beans, the species has a long history of use in Ethiopia. Already in the 8th and 9th century the species was introduced to Yemen, from where it was further distributed to Asia and Latin America in the late 17th century; at present about 66% of the world coffee production comes from Coffea Arabica (Gole et al., 2000; Mekuria et al., 2004) The important role which coffee plays in the Ethiopian culture is illustrated not only by the intricate coffee ceremonies that are still common, but also by the development of different coffee production systems ranging from forest extraction to cultivation in commercial plantations (Chekun, 1995; Gole et al., 2000). Although the species has gradually become domesticated, collection of wild coffee as a non-timber forest product still remains significant. The term wild coffee is used as referring to coffee that grows and regenerates spontaneously in its natural (although sometimes manipulated) forest habitat and is genetically different from known commercial cultivars. During the last decade, the potential of wild coffee production as a means towards forest and biodiversity conservation in general and coffee genetic conservation specifically has received increasing attention (Gole et al., 2000; Gole et al., 2001; Gatzweiler, 2005). The conservation of the coffee gene pool is essential for future breeding to further enhance global coffee production, e.g. with respect to resistance to pests and diseases, lower caffeine contents and increased yields (Hein and Gatzweiler, 2006). Several development projects1 have been initiated to preserve the genetic diversity of wild coffee by developing models for sustainable wild coffee production. These efforts are not only focusing on improved forest conservation and management, but also on improved marketing as a means to increase the incomes of smallholder coffee producers in the remote areas where wild forest coffee still occurs. In this context attention has been given towards certification of wild forest coffee for either the fair trade, the organic or the speciality coffee markets (Schmitt and Grote, 2006).As a result of these activities, Ethiopian wild coffee has attracted trader’s and consumer’s attention in Europe and the USA, and at present an estimated 100 Mt of wild coffee are traded internationally. These experiences provide an interesting example of the various approaches and challenges in developing certification of non-timber forest products. This article reviews these experiences. The following questions will be addressed: • What type of coffee production systems exist, ranging from natural forests to commercial plantations? • What coffee certification systems have been suggested and on which principles were they based? • What are the main experiences gained with the development of wild coffee certification and which challenges still have to be faced in its further operationalization? • What lessons can be learned from these experiences regarding the scope for certification of non-timber forest products?
3
ETHIOPIAN COFFEE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS Within Ethiopia a variety of coffee production systems can be found. In its area of origin such as the Kaffa region (from which the coffee derives its name) coffee is still collected in natural forests. These coffee forests form an important part of the remnant forest blocks found in Ethiopia. In several highland areas the production of forest coffee is a major household activity supplying between 20 and 50% of all household income; this livelihood activity is supplemented by subsistence agricultural production and collection of other forest products. The presence of wild coffee and its economic importance for the local community has contributed to the conservation of the coffee genetic resources and the forest biodiversity. Nonetheless, due to a variety of reasons, including immigration and opening up of lands for commercial estates, the conservation of these forests is not assured. In different areas the coffee forests are considerably fragmented. In the Kaffa Zone for example, the percentage of forest cover in the wild coffee producing municipalities (Kebeles) that provide coffee to the Kaffa Forest Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union ranges from 28 % to 80 % with an average of 59%. In order to assure that the wild coffee genetic resources are not lost, recently three coffee gene reserves have been established; these will be managed through a community-based participatory forest management approach (Gatzweiler, 2005). Due to the economic importance of coffee, the coffee forests are often consciously managed to stimulate coffee production through activities such as thinning of overstorey trees, removal of ground vegetation, stimulating coppice shoots and/or transplanting of naturally regenerated or artificially raised coffee seedlings (Schmitt, 2006; Senbeta and Denich, 2006). Depending on intensity of management, level of coffee domestication, and diversity of shade trees and other plants different forest-based coffee productions are distinguished: 1) Forest coffee system: collection of natural stands of coffee in open access areas of little disturbed rainforest. 2) Semi-coffee forest system: limited management interventions in plots with customary individual access rights, using natural regeneration of coffee plants, complemented with wild coffee seedlings from the forest. Due to the stimulation of coffee the overall species richness is lower in these production systems than in the less disturbed forest coffee systems (Senbeta and Denich, 2006) , 3) Garden coffee systems with more intensive management: coffee plants are mostly regenerated from selected wild seedlings or with nursery-raised cultivars. The original forest species mostly are limited to shade trees and in addition a variety of other crops, such as fruit trees, tubers, spices and false banana (Enset ventricosum) are grown ((Teketay and Tegineh, 1991; Tesfaye Abebe et al, 2006). 4) Smallholder and estate plantations. In general, the forest and semi-forest systems include a high number of tree species, the number of overstorey trees is generally higher than any other comparable coffee production system in the world. The productivity of the coffee in these systems is generally low, mainly due to the low intensity coffee management and limited interference in forest cover. The estimated average yield from forest, semi-forest, garden and plantation systems are in the order of 50-150, 100-200, 400-500 and 450-570 kg/ha
4
respectively. From the total Ethiopian coffee production about 10% is obtained from forest coffee systems, 35% from semi-forest coffee systems, 35% from garden coffee systems and 20% from plantations (Gole et al., 2000). This variety in production systems illustrates that it is difficult to establish a clear dividing-line between wild forest coffee and cultivated coffee. The gradual shift between wild and cultivated coffee does not only impact on the structure and species richness of the production systems, but also the genetic diversity of coffee (Gole et al., 2001). As indicated by recent research (Geletu, 2006) most wild coffee regions possess their own genotypes with high levels of genetic variety within regions. However, coffee management practices involve a gradual domestication of the coffee plants, and with increasing management intensity a gradual decrease in the original genetic diversity occurs. Whereas in wild forest coffee systems mainly wild genotypes are present, in semi-forest coffee and garden systems landraces predominate, and in plantations cultivars (Table 1). Consequently, ideally ‘wild forest coffee’ should be interpreted as referring not only to a low level of disturbance of forest structure and regeneration, but also to a low level of human interference with the natural gene flow. However, such a definition is difficult to apply in coffee certification schemes, as it requires clear and easy to apply standards on how much human interference is still acceptable in a natural forest environment as well as on the desired genetic composition of coffee.
Wild genotypes Landraces Cultivars
Forest coffee Semi-forest system coffee system Very Occasionally common Hardly Common present Hardly Not very present common
Garden coffee system Not very common Common
Plantation
Common
Common
Hardly present Occasionally
Table 1 Genetic composition of coffee grown in different production systems
FOREST COFFEE CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS In view of the fact that it is not easy to unequivocally define and identify wild forest coffee it is not surprising that rather than focusing attention exclusively on schemes to certify wild forest coffee as a non-timber forest product derived from a natural forest environment, various other approaches are being experimented to certify coffee from forest-based production systems. These started when in 2003 in a cooperative effort of the two German conservation and development organizations GEO Schützt den Regenwald and the Amber Foundation a start was made with the import and sale of Ethiopian forest coffee in Germany as a
5
specialty product. The scheme was explicitly presented as concerning wild coffee from its area of origin and as contributing towards the conservation of original coffee forest by providing the local smallholder forest owners incomes from their traditional coffee systems (Klingholz, 2003). Thus, an explicit relation between forest conservation and livelihood improvement was indicated. The scheme involved cooperation with both government organisations such as the Kaffa Zone Agricultural and Natural Resources Development Desk and with unions of coffee farmers cooperative, This first initiative to establish a market for wild coffee in Germany gained much public attention. Its success triggered some attempts of fraudulent free riding by some coffee traders who also claimed to sell Ethiopian wild coffee. But it also stimulated the development of follow-up development projects (Schmitt and Grote, 2006; Bognetteau et al., 2007) to further develop this market and to upscale the relatively small-scale initial effort. As the Forest Stewardship Council has not yet established a base in Ethiopia, these efforts did not focus on certification of wild forest coffee as deriving from sustainably managed forests, but rather on schemes for socially responsible and environmentally friendly production systems. In addition to the fact that such schemes were already operating in Ethiopia and offered opportunities for certification under short timeframes and relatively low costs, there was an important additional argument to select schemes which were primarily market-oriented rather than forest conservation oriented. In order to be acceptable at the international market good coffee quality and a careful manufacturing to assure good taste are essential. Consequently, certification aimed at supporting smallholders to enter either mainstream and specialty markets with good potential for obtaining premium price, should be cognizant of the fact that not only the origin and production process of coffee is important, but also quality standards for the product. As the established coffee trading networks are most familiar with these requirements, it was decided to work with two internationally-established schemes for marketing responsible produced coffee, i.e. the Utz Kapeh system for socially and ecologically responsible trade and the organic production certification system. These schemes are essentially focused on agricultural coffee production systems rather than forest-based coffee production systems, and forest conservation is not a specific criteria in these schemes. Nonetheless, it was considered that the schemes provided a good opportunity for obtaining premium prices and that the references to the origin of the coffee could serve as an additional marketing tool enabling the forest coffee to gain a specific market niche. It was hypothesized that this would assure the Ethiopian forest coffee producers would obtain increased incomes, and that this would recreate an incentive to conserve the coffee forests. The Utz Kapeh certification programme was initiated in 1997. It started as an initiative of some large Guatemalan coffee producers and the Ahold Coffee Company and later became an independent NGO with the objective to stimulate further market penetration of organic and Fair Trade products. It is an example of a voluntary regulatory system for governing the coffee chain (Muradian and Pelupessy, 2005) and is based on the general principle that coffee production should be socially responsible, environmentally sustainable and economically feasible. Traceability and responsibility along the market chain are key issues in the certification process. The Utz Kapeh Code of conduct has been
6
benchmarked as equivalent to the EurepGap Coffee Reference Standard. Both Estates and smallholder groups can be certified. Utz Kapeh does not only certify the production standards, but also facilitates the matching between producers and buyer through a webbased tracking and tracing system and information on registered producers and buyers. End buyers include both mainstream and specialty roasters. Premium prices are being paid to producers, but the precise amount depends on direct negotiation between buyer and seller. Web-based market information on premiums is provided as a means to facilitate these negotiations. The Utz Kapeh certification activities in Ethiopia started in 2004 and in 2005-2006 five certificates were given for a total area of 12.337 hectares in the SW Ethiopian highlands. The certified coffee production systems consists of plantations managed by two companies (15% of the area) and three state-owned plantations (60% of the area), and of semi-forest management systems of about 1000 smallholders (25% of the area) organized in two coffee cooperatives. In addition several Coffee Farmers Unions also market their coffee under the organic certification system. This certification ensures that products claiming to be organic are actually produced according to organic farming principles. Principles and criteria for certification are set by IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements), in order to achieve one clear certification system within an extending global market. The aim of organic certification is to support and strengthen biological production processes without use of chemical inputs. Certification also helps producers to access organic markets and obtain premium prices, but this is highly depending on market dynamics. The first organic coffee certification in Ethiopia dates from 1999. Although an estimated 90% of the coffee produced in Ethiopia is de facto organic, only a very small fraction (about 0.1%) of this coffee is certified as such (Mekuria et al., 2004). No official information is available on the type of production systems involved, but most of this production is probably produced in garden systems. Only in one case the scheme has been explicitly used to certify forest coffee production. However, on the basis of experiences gained with marketing of forest coffee, it has been suggested that organic certification was almost a must for the specialty coffee market segment and that double certification under both the responsible trading and organic production approaches could potentially lead to increased prices.
DIFFICULTIES AND CHALLENGES IN WILD COFFEE CERTIFICATION Due to its economic importance, within the coffee sector there has been given a lot of attention to defining coffee quality (Slob and Oldenziel, 2003). According to the Speciality Coffee Association of America (quoted in Mekuria et al., 2004) overall coffee quality refers to not only the coffee taste (organoleptic cup-quality), but also to the quality of life of its producers and the quality of the environment in which the crop is produced. As demonstrated by the earlier description of the schemes operating in Ethiopia, the major coffee certification schemes focus specifically on the environmental and social quality of the production systems, but with the implicit understanding that the
7
cup-quality of coffee has to be maintained. An important question is whether to develop forest coffee certification within the frameworks of existing marketing schemes for responsible forest production or under new schemes focused specifically on the need to conserve the forest environment. Environmental requirements Regarding the environmental quality of coffee production, the existing coffee certification schemes depart from the interpretation that coffee production is an agricultural activity; consequently regarding production environment attention has mainly been focused on organic coffee production. Originally, attention was mainly given to organic production in the sense of not using chemical inputs, but recently in Central America also efforts are undertaken by FSC and the Rainforest Alliance to certify biodiversity-friendly production systems in the form of polycultures with a diverse shade canopy (Gobbi, 2000; Perfecto et al., 2005). However, up till the present no specific scheme has been developed to stress the uniqueness of wild coffee in its natural forest environment in respect to biodiversity at genetic level. In view of the relatively small area of origin of coffee compared to the present area of coffee cultivation, it might be questioned whether a scheme which focuses specifically biodiversity at genetic diversity holds much promise or whether this would unduly compete with alternative biodiversityfriendly production schemes. Hence, it might be more realistic to position wild coffee production as a special form of biodiversity-friendly production in general rather than as an original non-timber forest products with unique genetic diversity. A second important difficulty in defining wild forest coffee in a strict manner, is the fact that due to the co-existence of several coffee production systems farmers often collect coffee from different areas with a range of management practices, cultivation intensities and genetic diversities. They may collect coffee berries from forest coffee systems consisting of mainly wild coffee specimen, from semi-forest plots with replanted stands or from home gardens, where the use of landraces and cultivars is common. Thus, the specific branding of wild coffee as a forest product requires that techniques are developed for authentication of wild coffee. In this context progress has been made with the development of a bio-molecular approach for genetic fingerprinting of coffee (Zeltz et al., 2005; Geletu, 2006), which distinguish the various regional patterns in the genetic makeup of wild coffee. By using genetic fingerprinting, wild coffee stands could be mainly defined by the authenticity of genetic patterns. This methodology is at present being tested for the standardized typecasting of the regional origin of wild coffee. The typecasts resulting from the genetic fingerprinting can prove the origin of coffee at a regional meso level. It cannot (as yet) attest whether coffee berries belong to a certain wild genotype or whether it originates from a particular forest patch or a neighbouring coffee garden. Such techniques could also be used to prevent fraud, e.g. by farmers growing cultivars in the forests and presenting those as wild coffee. Social requirements Regarding the social quality of coffee production, as illustrated by the earlier description of the certification schemes in Ethiopia, especially in the fair trade oriented coffee certification schemes much attention is focused on the stimulation of smallholder
8
systems. This emphasis on proper benefit-sharing by smallholders is much more pronounced than in the present certification systems for basically timber-based sustainable forest management. As within Ethiopia smallholder coffee producers are by law required to sell their products through cooperatives, this has facilitated in setting up certification schemes. However, for the participatory management of the recently established coffee forest reserves, formal community-based organisations need to be established because the customary user-rights to semi-forest coffee plots are not recognized by the government. The Ethiopian laws define all forest lands as public estate, and only recently the government has introduced the possibility for participatory management by officially recognized forest user groups. Hence, the question arises how best to dovetail the official requirements regarding formation of forest user groups and regarding coffee cooperatives (Gatzweiler, 2006). As indicated by the Ethiopian experiences, an important factor influencing effective benefit-sharing of smallholders in forest coffee production is their ability to meet the international standards for coffee quality. Within the coffee sector well-developed quality standards exist which form the basis for effective coffee marketing. The Ethiopian experiences show that the introduction of certification systems without enhancement of the quality of the harvesting and post-harvest handling practices will not be successful. Coffee quality is of paramount importance, and without improvement of the grade and cup quality of the forest coffee, it is difficult for the smallholder producers to access the different niche markets and negotiate premium prices. Consequently, certification organisations should not limit their activities to assessing quality production standards, but actively assist within a policy of social responsibility towards smallholders by providing extension and training in order that the intended beneficiaries of certification can really participate in and profit from the scheme. Certification of wild coffee in itself will not constitute an effective marketing tool which could motivate local farmers to sustainably manage the coffee forests and conserve the coffee biodiversity, unless improved cup quality and an appropriate marketing strategy can substantially increase premium prices for it. Another social aspect to consider is that the smallholders living in forest areas are often involved in multi-enterprise activities. This does not only mean that they may be engaged in both the extraction of wild product as well as the cultivation of (semi)domesticated crops of the same product, but also that they may collect different types of forest products depending on the season and livelihood needs. For instance, in the coffee forest region of Ethiopia not only wild coffee forms an important NTFP, but also honey. Similarly to coffee production several honey production systems are present ranging from wild honey collection to traditional bee management in log-hives which are hung in forest trees and to modern beehive management in homegardens. In some areas efforts are undertaken to also certify such local honey production, but these efforts require separate arrangements than the certification of coffee (Bognetteau et al., 2007). This creates high transaction costs for the smallholder producers, and it should be considered whether the various products can be certified under one general scheme.
9
CONCLUSION As a result of the growing acceptance of certification as a means to assure that timber is produced in sustainably managed forests, attention is now being given towards the extension of the certification system towards non-timber forest products. As illustrated by the experiences in respect of the certification of forest-derived wild coffee the extrapolation of timber certification to certification of non-timber forest products is problematic, especially in respect to products which originate in the forests, but which have already become domesticated due to their high market demands. In such cases, a diversity of production systems may exist ranging from forest-based systems to agroforestry systems and plantations. These systems do not only vary in respect to structure and species composition, but also in respect to use of management inputs including genetic make-up of artificial regeneration. Under such circumstances it is not easy to define clear boundaries between forest, garden and agricultural systems and their respective products. Moreover, producers may mix the products from the various production systems. In view of the complex and co-existing production systems for commercially attractive NTFPs, questions arise as to the main objectives of NTFP certification. Is it the certification of a product originating in the forest or with natural product authenticity and/or the certification of a sustainable production practice in biodiverse organic production systems and/or the certification of a socially-responsibly produced and marketed product? And to what extent will it be efficient and effective to develop different certification schemes and different marketing strategies for forestbased, organically grown, and/or socially responsible produced for a specific NTFP and its crop equivalents. In deciding upon such questions it should be born in mind that certification is often conceived of as a market tool, with production characteristics being used to attract consumer’s attention. For several of the widely cultivated forest-derived crops already crop-based certification systems for environmentally and socially responsible certification systems exist. Thus, also the question of whether it is effective to add a specific forest-oriented certification system becomes relevant. In answering this question it is important to realize that the production-oriented certification systems are additional to the basic sector standards for product quality. These product quality standards for forest-derived products such as coffee are more specific than the quality standards for timber. The potential premium prices to be paid to producers often depend more on the product quality and uniqueness (such as cup quality in the case of coffee), with stories on production systems only serving as an addition to the marketing story. Hence, it is not realistic to base certification of commercially interesting NTFPs only on standards regarding forest management conditions. While adding the sustainable forest management story to the marketing story on product quality requires specialized marketing skills which are not yet available in several conservation-oriented organizations working in the field of certification of forest management. An important reason for developing wild coffee certification in Ethiopia is the idea that it might contribute towards the conservation of the coffee forests which form part of one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots. It is hoped that the certification will help in public
10
recognition of the unique characteristics of the Ethiopian Afromontane region. An intriguing question is to whether this objective can best be met through certification of a combined product/production system approach or through an area-based approach focused on the sustainable management of forested landscapes involving both forests and environmentally responsible agricultural lands. Such a multi-functional landscape approach would not only solve the problems of having to delineate forest-based and agricultural-based products, but would also prevent duplications of efforts in the case that within an area different NTFPs and its domesticated derivates are produced, which under the present product-based certification system each require their own certification system.
NOTE 1 The four main development programmes are the EU financed ‘Coffee Improvement Programme Phase 4’, a BMBF (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research) sponsored collaborative research programme of Ethiopian and German scientists and organizations on ‘Conservation and use of wild populations of Coffea arabica in the montane rainforest of Ethiopia’, a PPP (private-public partnership) project on ‘Use and conservation of wild Coffea arabica’ financed by GTZ, private trade companies and NGOs, and the mainly EU-financed collaborative project ‘NTFP Southwest Ethiopia Research and Development project’ implemented by Ethiopian, British and Dutch scientists and organizations.
REFERENCES Belcher, B., Ruiz-Perez, M. and Achiawan, R. (2005) Global patterns and trends in the use and management of commercial NTFPs: implications for livelihoods and conservation. World Development 33(9): 1435-1452. Bognetteau, E., Abebe Haile and Wiersum, K.F. (2007). Linking forests and people, a potential for sustainable development of the Southwest Ethiopian highlands. Proceedings International Conference on Participatory Forest Management, Biodiversity and Livelihoods in Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, March 19-21, 2007. Chekun, T. (1997) The culture of coffee in Ethiopia. Agroforestry Today Jan-March 1997, p. Chowdhury. Q., Van de Graaf, R., Hazenberg, S., Erniwati, E., Maris, W. and Tesfaye, P., (2005) Options for certification of coffee and honey for poverty alleviation and forest conservation. Non Timber Forest Product Research and Development Project in S-W Ethiopia, Mizan Teferi, Ethiopia, Student Research Series No. 2. Gatzweiler, F.W. (2005) Institutionalising biodiversity conservation – The case of Ethiopian coffee forests. Conservation and Society 3(1): 201-223. Gatzweiler, F.W. (2006) Organizing a public ecosystem economy for sustaining biodiversity. Ecological Economics 59 (3): 296-304. Geletu, K.T. (2006) Genetic diversity of wild Coffea arabica populations in Ethiopia as a contribution to conservation and use planning. Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen, Germany, Ecology and Development Series No. 44.
11
Gobbi, J.A. (2000) Is biodiversity-friendly coffee financially viable? An analysis of five different coffee production systems in western El Salvador. Ecological Economics 33: 267-281. Gole, T.W., Denish, M., Teketay, D. and Vlek, P.L. (2000) Human impacts on the Coffea arabica gene pool in Ethiopia and the need for its in situ conservation. In: J. Engels, V.R. Rao, A.H.D. Brown and M. Jackson (eds), Managing plant diversity. Proceedings of an international conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, p.237-247. Gole, T.W.M., Demel, T., Denich, M. and Bosch, T. (2001) Diversity of traditional coffee production systems in Ethiopia and their contribution to conservation of genetic diversity. Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development, Deutscher Tropentag 2001, Bonn, Germany Hein, L. and Gatzweiler, F. (2006) The economic value of coffee (Coffea arabica) genetic resources. Ecological Economics 60: 176-185. Karki, M. and Rawat, R.B.S. (2003) Definitions, good practices and certification. Elsevier, Encyclopedia of Forest Science, p. 1357-1367. Klingholz, R.2003. (Where the wild berries grow). Geo 01/2003: 44 – 60 (in German): Mekuria T., Neuhoff, D. and Kopke, U. (2004) The status of coffee production and the potential for organic conversion in Ethiopia. Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development, Deutscher Tropentag 2004, Berlin, October 5-7, 2004. Muradian R. and Peluppessy, W. (2005) Governing the coffee chain: the role of voluntary regulatory systems. World Development 33(2): 2029-2044 Perfecto, I., Vandermeer J., Mas, Al and Soto Pinto, L. (2005) Biodiversity, yield, and shade coffee certification. Ecological Economics 54: 435-446. Ros-Tonen, M.A.F. and Wiersum, K.F. (2005) The scope for improving rural livelihoods through non-timber forest products: an evolving research agenda. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 15: 120-148. Schmitt, C.B. (2006). Montane rainforest with wild Coffea arabica in the Bonga region (SW Ethiopia): plant diversity, wild coffee management and implications for conservation.Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen, Germany, Ecology and Development Series No. 48. Schmitt, C. and Grote, U. (2006). Wild coffee production in Ethiopia: the role of coffee certification for forest conservation. Report project ‘Conservation and use of wild populations of Coffea arabica in the montane rainforest of Ethiopia’, Bonn, Germany. Senbeta, F. and Denich, M. (2006) Effects of wild coffee management on species diversity in the Afromontane rainforests of Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management 232(1): 68-74. Shanley, P., Pierce, A.R., Laird, S.A. and Guillen, A. (eds) (2002). Tapping the gree market: certification and management of non-timber forest products. Earthscan, London, 480 p. Slob, B. and Oldenziel, J. (2003) Coffee and codes. Overview of codes of conduct and ethical trade initiatives in the coffee sector. SOMO, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Tadesse, M. and Nigatu, L. (1996) An ecological and ethnobotanical study of wild or spontaneous coffee, Coffea arabica in Ethiopia. In: J.G. van der Maesen et al (eds), The biodiversity of African plants, p. 277-294.
12
Taylor, P.L. (2005) In the market but not of it: Fair Trade coffee and Forest Stewardship Council certification as market-based social change. World Development 33(1): 129-147. Teketay, D. and Tegineh, A. (1991) Traditional tree based agroforestry in coffee producing areas of Harerge, Eastern Ethiopia. Agroforestry Systems 16: 257-267. Tesfaye Abebe, Wiersum, K.F., Bongers, F. and Sterck, F. (2006). Diversity and dynamics in homegardens of southern Ethiopia. In: B.M. Kumar and P.K.R. Nair (eds) Tropical homegardens, a time-tested example of sustainable agroforestry. Springer, Advances in agroforestry Vol. 3, p.123-142. Zeltz, P., Schneider, S., Volkmann, J. and Willmund, R. (2005) (Control of the origin of wild coffee from the Ethiopian rain forest with the help of genetic fingerprints). Deutsche Lebensmittel Rundschau 101(3): 89-92 (in German).
13
