Carbon and economic performance of coffee agroforestry systems in Costa Rica and Nicaragua

206 Pages·2013·10.96 MB·English

!

Carbon and economic performance of
coffee agroforestry systems in Costa Rica
and Nicaragua

Martin Raimo Andreas Noponen

School of the Environment, Natural Resources and Geography
Bangor University, United Kingdom
&
Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Centre (CATIE)
Turrialba, Costa Rica

A dissertation submitted in fulfillment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Bangor University & CATIE Graduate School

August 2012

i
Declaration and consent

Details of the Work
I hereby agree to deposit the following item in the digital repository maintained by Bangor
University and/or in any other repository authorized for use by Bangor University.
Author Name:…………………………………………………………………………………..
Title: ……………………………………………………………………………………………
Supervisor/Department: ...........................................................................................................................
Funding body (if any): ...............................................................................................................................
Qualification/Degree obtained:…………………………………………………………….....
This item is a product of my own research endeavours and is covered by the agreement below in
which the item is referred to as “the Work”. It is identical in content to that deposited in the
Library, subject to point 4 below.
Non-exclusive Rights
Rights granted to the digital repository through this agreement are entirely non-exclusive. I am
free to publish the Work in its present version or future versions elsewhere.
I agree that Bangor University may electronically store, copy or translate the Work to any
approved medium or format for the purpose of future preservation and accessibility. Bangor
University is not under any obligation to reproduce or display the Work in the same formats or
resolutions in which it was originally deposited.
Bangor University Digital Repository
I understand that work deposited in the digital repository will be accessible to a wide variety of
people and institutions, including automated agents and search engines via the World Wide Web.
I understand that once the Work is deposited, the item and its metadata may be incorporated
into public access catalogues or services, national databases of electronic theses and dissertations
such as the British Library’s EThOS or any service provided by the National Library of Wales.
I understand that the Work may be made available via the National Library of Wales Online
Electronic Theses Service under the declared terms and conditions of use
(http://www.llgc.org.uk/index.php?id=4676). I agree that as part of this service the National
Library of Wales may electronically store, copy or convert the Work to any approved medium or
format for the purpose of future preservation and accessibility. The National Library of Wales is
not under any obligation to reproduce or display the Work in the same formats or resolutions in
which it was originally deposited.
Statement 1:
This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being
concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree unless as agreed by the University for
approved dual awards.

Signed ………………………………………….. (candidate)
Date ……………………………………………..

ii
Statement 2:
This thesis is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. Where
correction services have been used, the extent and nature of the correction is clearly marked in a
footnote(s).
All other sources are acknowledged by footnotes and/or a bibliography.

Signed …………………………………………. (candidate)
Date …………………………………………….

Statement 3:
I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying, for inter-
library loan and for electronic storage (subject to any constraints as defined in statement 4), and
for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations.

Signed …………………………………………. (candidate)
Date …………………………………………….

Statement 4:
Choose one of the following options
a) I agree to deposit an electronic copy of my thesis (the Work) in the Bangor University (BU)
Institutional Digital Repository, the British Library ETHOS system, and/or in any other repository
authorized for use by Bangor University and where necessary have gained the required permissions for the
use of third party material.
b) I agree to deposit an electronic copy of my thesis (the Work) in the Bangor University (BU)
Institutional Digital Repository, the British Library ETHOS system, and/or in any other repository
authorized for use by Bangor University when the approved bar on access has been lifted.
c) I agree to submit my thesis (the Work) electronically via Bangor University’s e-submission system,
however I opt-out of the electronic deposit to the Bangor University (BU) Institutional Digital
Repository, the British Library ETHOS system, and/or in any other repository authorized for use by
Bangor University, due to lack of permissions for use of third party material.
Options B should only be used if a bar on access has been approved by the University.

iii
In addition to the above I also agree to the following:
1. That I am the author or have the authority of the author(s) to make this
agreement and do hereby give Bangor University the right to make available the Work in
the way described above.
2. That the electronic copy of the Work deposited in the digital repository and
covered by this agreement, is identical in content to the paper copy of the Work
deposited in the Bangor University Library, subject to point 4 below.
3. That I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the Work is original and, to
the best of my knowledge, does not breach any laws – including those relating to
defamation, libel and copyright.
4. That I have, in instances where the intellectual property of other authors or
copyright holders is included in the Work, and where appropriate, gained explicit
permission for the inclusion of that material in the Work, and in the electronic form of
the Work as accessed through the open access digital repository, or that I have identified
and removed that material for which adequate and appropriate permission has not been
obtained and which will be inaccessible via the digital repository.
5. That Bangor University does not hold any obligation to take legal action on
behalf of the Depositor, or other rights holders, in the event of a breach of intellectual
property rights, or any other right, in the material deposited.
6. That I will indemnify and keep indemnified Bangor University and the National
Library of Wales from and against any loss, liability, claim or damage, including without
limitation any related legal fees and court costs (on a full indemnity bases), related to any
breach by myself of any term of this agreement.

Signature: ………………………………………………………
Date : …………………………………………………………..

iv
Abstract
Coffee agroforestry systems (CAFS) sustain the livelihoods of many people globally at the same
time as providing important ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration that help mitigate
climate change. These systems vary in their composition (especially density and species of shade
tree) and management. Changes made to enhance their productivity will affect their climate
change mitigation potential. With growing food demand and diminishing availability of
agricultural land due to global population growth, as well as an increasing threat from global
climate change the trade-offs between the socio-economic and net carbon sequestration

performance in CAFS are important.
The carbon sequestration and socio-economic performance of a range of CAFS varying in
composition and management were assessed in Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Measurements and
modelled estimates were made of (i) greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from coffee cultivation
(the carbon footprint (CF)), (ii) carbon sequestration potential into above-ground biomass and
soil organic stocks and (iii) socio-economic performance (productivity and profitability), and
their trade-offs analysed.
The effects of agronomic management (conventional versus organic) and shade type
(ranging from timber trees to full sun) on the CF of two long-standing CAFS experiments in
Costa Rica Nicaragua demonstrated that management is the best predictor of the CF whereas
shade type has a minor effect. The greatest contributor to the overall CF was N O emissions
2
from the input of N in applied organic and inorganic fertilisers. Shade systems with high levels of
N input from leguminous tree pruning had the highest CF. Total soil organic carbon (SOC)
decreased over the first nine years of coffee bush and shade tree establishment in these
experiments, although this differed amongst soil layers. Organically managed systems tended to
have an increase in SOC in the top 10 cm of soil, though organic and conventional systems had
similar (larger) decreases in SOC in deeper soil. Shade type and above-ground biomass had a
smaller effect on SOC.
Comparison of the CF of these experimental CAFS treatments with their C sequestration
potential showed that increases in GHG emissions from production intensification can be
compensated for or even outweighed by the increase in C sequestration into above-ground
biomass, especially for shaded systems. However, if less productive, lower intensity CAFS are
extended onto an area of currently forested land in order to compensate for the shortfall in
profitability (compared with higher-intensity, higher-yielding systems), this land-use change
causes additional GHG emissions from deforestation. This results in net GHG emissions for the
whole system for the majority of shade types tested.
Evaluation of the C and socio-economic performance of coffee farms in the regions around
the two experimental sites showed that due to the huge variation amongst CAFS there is no
single strategy for climate change mitigation that could successfully be applied across the range
of farms. Instead it will be necessary to carry out accurate and site-specific farm assessments to
inform advice and decisions on system improvement tailored to the needs of individual farms
and environmental settings.
The findings of this research suggest that there is a place in the C market for CAFS, however
their design and management will determine the overall net benefits that can be achieved.

v
!

Acknowledgements
It’s been one heck of a journey to get to this point, one that I would never have dreamt of when
I set out to take on this challenge. There are an enormous number of people without whom I
would have struggled to make this a successful and (most of the time!) exciting experience.
I am most grateful to my supervisors, John Healey, Jeremy Haggar, Gabriela Soto and of
course the late Gareth Edwards-Jones who each, in their individual ways, continually supported
me with their knowledge, enthusiasm, encouragement and not least with their valuable time. I
cannot thank you enough for that.
I’d also like to thank everyone else at Bangor University who helped me in one way or
another throughout my Ph.D. Particular thanks go to Davey Jones who kindly let me use his soil
labs and made sure that my sampling design and methodology were up to the job; Paul, Freya
and Neil for inspiring discussions over many cups of tea; and my ‘adopted family’ of Ana and
Maria who were fantastic officemates.
In Costa Rica and Nicaragua a huge thanks goes to all the people who helped me with field
work – I know it was very tough at times but I couldn’t have done it without you; Elvin and
Ledis Navarette who made the Nicaraguan farm studies and experiment sampling absolute bliss
and are a joy to work with; Romain, Esthefanie, Luis and all the others who leant me a helping
hand during my months in Costa Rica; Carlos and Jimena for being true friends.
To all the other great and wonderful friends I made during my time in Wales, Costa Rica,
Nicaragua and last in York – thank you for making sure that I did not forget there was life
beyond my studies. It’s been a privilege to have had you around and I am very grateful for that.
In particular I would like to thank Dilwyn and Mari Evans who let me use their workshop where
I was often able to hide away for a few hours and draw new inspiration through my love for
furniture making.
I would like to thank my sponsors CAFNET, Coalbourn Trust, ESRC and NERC who
made this study possible and provided me with the necessary financial support.
And last but not least I am most indebted to my parents and most of all my wonderful wife-
to-be Nicola and our little son Sami, without whom this journey would never have been possible.
Many, many thanks for all your patience, love and support – you have and always will be a true
inspiration to me.

vi
!

Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... v!
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... vi!
Abbreviations and acronyms ................................................................................................................... xiv

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1!
1.1.! Background .................................................................................................................................... 1!
1.2.! Aims and objectives ..................................................................................................................... 2!
1.3.! Thesis structure ............................................................................................................................. 3

2 The operational framework for assessing the climate change mitigation
potential of coffee agroforestry systems ........................................................................ 5!
2.1.! The Carbon Market ...................................................................................................................... 5!
2.1.1.! Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5!
2.1.2.! Structure ................................................................................................................................. 6!
2.2.! Regulatory or compliance market .............................................................................................. 7!
2.2.1.! Emissions Trading (ET) ...................................................................................................... 7!
2.2.2.! Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) .......................................................................... 8!
2.2.3.! Joint Implementation (JI) .................................................................................................... 8!
2.3.! The Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) ...................................................................................... 8!
2.4.! Key elements of offsets ............................................................................................................. 10!
2.5.! Criticism of carbon offsets ........................................................................................................ 11!
2.6.! Carbon markets and co-benefits .............................................................................................. 12!
2.7.! Forestry and its role in carbon offsetting ................................................................................ 13!
2.8.! Mitigation and adaptation by means of agroforestry ............................................................ 16!
2.8.1.! Climate change impacts on the agricultural sector ........................................................ 16!
2.8.2.! Mitigation and adaptation - a role for agroforestry? ...................................................... 17!
2.8.3.! Effects of agroforestry on farming system vulnerability to climate change .............. 19!
2.9.! Other greenhouse gas emissions - CH and N O .................................................................. 20!
4 2
2.10.! Economic and environmental roles of coffee cultivation .................................................. 20!
2.11.! National strategies of climate change adaptation and mitigation ...................................... 21!
2.11.1.! Costa Rica .......................................................................................................................... 21!
2.11.2.! Nicaragua ........................................................................................................................... 23!
2.12.! Key land issues in climate change policy .............................................................................. 24!
2.13.! Coffee farming in the Central American study areas .......................................................... 25!
2.13.1.! Coffee farming systems ................................................................................................... 25!

vii
2.13.2.! Historical background of coffee farming in the study areas ...................................... 25!
2.14.! Soil carbon ................................................................................................................................. 26

3 Greenhouse gas emissions in coffee grown with differing input levels under
conventional and organic management ...................................................................... 29
3.1.! Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 29!
3.2.! Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 31!
3.2.1.! Site description .................................................................................................................... 31!
3.2.2.! Experimental design ........................................................................................................... 31!
3.2.3.! Calculation of carbon footprints ...................................................................................... 33!
3.2.4.! Data Collection .................................................................................................................... 33!
3.2.5.! Statistical analysis ................................................................................................................ 35!
3.3.! Results .......................................................................................................................................... 39!
3.3.1.! Carbon footprinting of different management systems ................................................ 39!
3.3.2.! Carbon footprint emission ‘hotspots’ .............................................................................. 41!
3.3.3.! Impact of different emission factors and the importance of pruning residues ......... 42!
3.4.! Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 45!
3.4.1.! Effect of coffee system management on carbon footprint .......................................... 45!
3.4.2.! Emission ‘hotspots’ ............................................................................................................ 46!
3.4.3.! Choice of emission factors ................................................................................................ 47!
3.4.4.! Implications for carbon footprinting methodology ...................................................... 49!
3.5.! Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 49

4 Intensification of coffee systems can increase the effectiveness of REDD
mechanisms .................................................................................................................. 51!
4.1.! Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 51!
4.2.! Methods and materials ............................................................................................................... 54!
4.2.1.! Site description .................................................................................................................... 54!
4.2.2.! Experimental design ........................................................................................................... 54!
4.2.3.! Carbon footprint ................................................................................................................. 54!
4.2.4.! Estimation of above-ground and below-ground biomass ............................................ 55!
4.2.5.! Calculation of land-use change emissions ....................................................................... 56!
4.2.6.! Cost-benefit analysis ........................................................................................................... 56!
4.2.7.! Land Use Change scenarios .............................................................................................. 57!
4.2.7.3.! Scenario calculations ....................................................................................................... 58!
4.3.! Results .......................................................................................................................................... 59!
4.3.1.! Effect of system intensification on GHG emissions, C balance and profitability ... 59!
4.3.2.! Profitability and sensitivity to coffee prices of different production options ........... 61!

viii
4.3.3.! Intensification ...................................................................................................................... 62!
4.3.4.! Extensification ..................................................................................................................... 63!
4.4.! Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 64!
4.4.1.! C balance, NPV and intensification ................................................................................. 64!
4.4.2.! LUC emissions and C markets .......................................................................................... 65!
4.4.3.! ‘Leakage’ through extensification ..................................................................................... 66

5 Sink or source – the potential of coffee agroforestry systems to
sequester atmospheric CO into soil organic carbon ................................................. 68!
2
5.1.! Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 68!
5.2.! Methods & materials .................................................................................................................. 70!
5.2.1.! Site description .................................................................................................................... 70!
5.2.2.! Experimental design ........................................................................................................... 71!
5.2.3.! Estimation of soil organic carbon stocks ........................................................................ 72!
5.2.4.! Statistical analysis ................................................................................................................ 72!
5.3.! Results .......................................................................................................................................... 75!
5.3.1.! Changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks ................................................................ 75!
5.3.2.! Differences between pruned and un-pruned shade tree systems ................................ 75!
5.3.3.! Changes in soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks with management type ....................... 77!
(conventional versus organic) ......................................................................................................... 77!
5.3.4.! Relationships between above-ground biomass and soil organic carbon .................... 79!
stocks .................................................................................................................................................. 79!
5.4.! Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 82!
5.4.1.! Do trees help to sequester more C in soil? ..................................................................... 82!
5.4.2.! Do tree-based systems sequester more C in deeper soil layers? .................................. 83!
5.4.3.! Organic versus conventional management ..................................................................... 85

6 Carbon and socio-economic performance: trade-offs in coffee
agroforestry systems in Costa Rica and Nicaragua .................................................... 88!
6.1.! Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 88!
6.2.! Methods and materials ............................................................................................................... 90!
6.2.1.! Study regions and site characteristics ............................................................................... 90!
6.2.2.! Sampling design and frame ................................................................................................ 91!
6.2.3.! Data collection ..................................................................................................................... 92!
6.2.4.! Estimation of carbon stocks ............................................................................................. 93!
6.2.5.! Costs and benefits of farming systems ............................................................................ 94!
6.2.6.! Calculation of carbon footprints ...................................................................................... 95!
6.2.7.! Statistical analysis ................................................................................................................ 96!

ix
6.3.! Results .......................................................................................................................................... 97!
6.3.1.! Conventional versus organic farming systems ............................................................... 97!
6.3.2.! Differences in shade types ................................................................................................. 98!
6.3.3.! Cost-benefit analysis and economic net benefit ............................................................. 99!
6.3.4.! Trade-offs amongst carbon footprint, total carbon stocks and economic .............. 100!
net benefit for conventional and organic farms ......................................................................... 100!
6.4.! Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 102!
6.4.1.! Assessment of carbon and socio-economic trade-offs ............................................... 102!
6.4.2.! Participation of coffee agroforestry system farms in current carbon market .......... 106!
mechanisms ...................................................................................................................................... 106!
6.5.! Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 108

7 Discussion and conclusions ....................................................................................... 109!
7.1.! Context ....................................................................................................................................... 109!
7.2.! Contributions ............................................................................................................................ 111!
7.2.1.! GHGs from the cultivation of coffee ............................................................................ 111!
7.2.2.! Intensification of coffee ................................................................................................... 112!
7.2.3.! Impacts on SOC ................................................................................................................ 112!
7.2.4.! The ‘real’ world .................................................................................................................. 113!
7.3.! Limitations and future research .............................................................................................. 115!
7.4.! Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 117!
8.! References ......................................................................................................................................... 118

Appendix 1 CAFCA – Calculator tool to estimate farm-level greenhouse gas
emissions in coffee agroforestry systems ...................................................................... 144
Appendix 2 Farmer questionnaire ....................................................................................................... 167!
Appendix 3 Supporting information Chapter 3 ................................................................................. 177!
Appendix 4 Supporting information Chapter 4 ................................................................................. 179!
Appendix 5 Supporting information Chapter 5 ................................................................................. 186!
Appendix 6 Supporting information Chapter 6 191

x