Content uploaded by Elizabeth Shapiro-Garza
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Elizabeth Shapiro-Garza
Content may be subject to copyright.
Smallholder Agricultural Expansion
in La Amistad Biosphere Reserve:
Perceived vs. Real Impacts
of Cacao and Cattle
April Connelly
Elizabeth N. Shapiro
ABSTRACT. Agricultural expansion by smallholder producers has been
identified by management agencies as one of the main threats to the eco-
logical integrity of La Amistad Biosphere Reserve, in Panama and Costa
Rica. Promotion of cacao agroforestry has been proposed as a way to re-
duce the need for farmers to clear new land within the reserve. In order to
realize this goal, the larger cultural, economic, and political forces that
motivate agricultural expansion need to be examined, looking beyond
the smallholder practices that are the immediately apparent causes of
ecological degradation. The four main assumptions behind the proposal
to promote smallholder cacao production in the buffer zone are ex-
plored: (1) cacao agroforestry is an ecologically benign agricultural sys-
tem; (2) if cacao production were more financially viable, ecologically
degrading activities, such as cattle grazing, would decrease; (3) migrants
from other areas are primarily responsible for clearing land on the east-
ern side of the park; and (4) direct intervention at the smallholder level is
the most effective means of preventing agricultural expansion. Our anal
-
April Connelly and Elizabeth N. Shapiro were affiliated with the Yale School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT 06511.
Present address: April Connelly, 8806 Plymouth Street, Apt. 4, Silver Spring, MD
20901; Elizabeth N. Shapiro, 2425 Grant Street, Apt. 3, Berkeley, CA 94703.
The authors would like to thank Professors Mark Ashton and Timothy Clark; the
communities of Norteño, Solón, Estibraupa, and Las Delicias; the members of APPTA
and CO.CA.BO cooperatives; and Felipe Carazo, Mireia Endara, and Benson Vinegas
Robinson for their support.
Journal of Sustainable Forestry, Vol. 22(1/2) 2006
Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JSF
2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J091v22n01_07 115
ysis demonstrates that while cacao agroforestry is an ecologically appro
-
priate production system for the buffer zone of the park, price and
production stabilization is important for assuring adoption by small
-
holders. We also suggest that both indigenous and migrant groups are re
-
sponsible clearing forest for agriculture and that a more useful distinction
for managers to make is between clearing enacted as part of sustainable
vs. unsustainable management regimes. Finally, we recommend that the
impact to the biosphere reserve caused by large-scale cattle and banana
production not be overlooked.
[Article copies available for a fee from The
Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:
<docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>
2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Theobroma cacao L., intensification, cattle, grazing,
agroforestry, conservation incentives, land-use decisions
INTRODUCTION
La Amistad Biosphere Reserve spans the border between Panama
and Costa Rica. Though it was purposefully placed in some of the least
densely populated and most “pristine” areas, the land within its bound-
aries is and has been used by humans for centuries (Gordon, 1982). The
patchwork nature of the different types of protected areas, each with its
own set of regulations governing conservation, reflects the multiplicity
of human interactions in the reserve (Chaverri & Herrera, 2003).
In assessing the ecological integrity of La Amistad Biosphere Re-
serve, many outside observers have concluded that the greatest threat
to conservation is agricultural expansion by smallholders. One report
stated that small-scale producers are the single largest threat to marine
diversity and what appears to be the largest threat to terrestrial diver
-
sity (Finisdore, 2002). Another report of smallholder agricultural prac
-
tices in the buffer zone of the reserve states that hilly topography
combined with forest clearance, overgrazing and imprudent cultivation
practices has accelerated land degradation, soil erosion and nutrient
losses (Mehta & Leushner, 1997).
Several of these reports promote the relatively benign agricultural
production of cacao, arguing that farmers are less likely to penetrate
core forests if economic conditions in the buffer zone improve (Finisdore,
2002; Mehta & Leuschner, 1997). At the national level, the Forestry Ac
-
tion Plan calls for increasing agricultural productivity through agro
-
forestry to reduce pressure on protected areas (UNDP, 2002). Throughout
116 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
these arguments, a simplistic dichotomy is created between “good” in
-
digenous cacao agroforestry systems and the “bad” cattle ranching, sup
-
posedly practiced exclusively by migrants from the neighboring province.
Inherent is also the assumption that if cacao systems can be made to be
more profitable, farmers will discontinue more harmful agricultural
practices.
In these and other reports, the driving forces behind agricultural
expansion are ignored in forming management strategies to miti
-
gate its ecological impacts. Blame commonly falls upon smallholder
farmers while larger political, economic, and cultural forces driving
their choices are ignored. This narrow focus often leads to management
or policy interventions that deal only with the immediate actors. Such
policies are unsuccessful at halting agricultural expansion because they
fail to address its underlying causes. Our paper analyzes the driving
forces behind the development and expansion of cacao agroforestry
systems and cattle production. These agricultural activities are de-
scribed as now being practiced in the Bocas del Toro region, along with
their potential ecological impact on the reserve. The forces that drive
agricultural expansion are assessed. Finally, recommendations are put
forth that address both the drivers behind these agricultural practices
and their integration into the management plan for the reserve.
Site Description and Methods
La Amistad was designated by UNESCO as a Biosphere Reserve
in 1982 (Chaverri & Herrera, 2003). The Panamanian side of La
Amistad covers 207,000 hectares and lies in the provinces of Bocas
del Toro and Chiriqui (ANAM, 2003). It is composed of indigenous re-
serves (comarcas), national parks, hydrological reserves, protected for
-
ests, and municipalities (Figure 1). This paper focuses on agricultural
activities occurring in the Bocas del Toro portion of the reserve.
The province of Bocas del Toro covers (874,540 ha), encompassing
11.6% of Panama’s national territory (MIDA, 2003; ANAM, 1999). In
-
digenous people comprise 38.8% of the population (MIDA, 2003).
Bocas del Toro is one of the least developed provinces in Panama
(Inter-American Development Bank, 2002). Historically, the primary
economic activity in the region has been banana production by large
corporations such as the Chiriqui Fruit Company and Chiquita Banana
and has been restricted to the coastal lowlands (MIDA, 2003; Marquardt,
2001; Gordon, 1982). However, according to the 2001 Agricultural
April Connelly and Elizabeth N. Shapiro 117
Census, the number of productive farms in the province has increased
70.5% since 1991 (MIDA, 2003).
Field research for this paper was conducted over ten days, spent
meeting with community groups, non-government organizations, and
natural resource officers in Panama. Primary data was obtained through
both formal and informal interviews with key stakeholders. Secondary
data sources included project documents from various conservation and
development organizations as well as an extensive literature review of
shaded agroforestry systems and cattle in Latin America.
CACAO PRODUCTION IN THE BUFFER ZONES
OF LA AMISTAD
In March of 1998, the First International Workshop on Sustainable
Cocoa Growing was held in Panama. The following statement was
agreed upon by the participants as a guiding principle for sustainable
cacao production:
118 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
Protected Areas and Indigenous Territories
La Amistad
Palo Seco
N
W
E
S
Bocas del Toro
Volcan Baru
Fortuna
Chiriqui
Veraguas
INDIGENOUS COMARCAS
Comarca Tente
Comarca Nigabe-Bugle
PROTECTED AREAS
Fortuna Hydrological Reserve
La Amistad National Park
National Park Volcan Baru
Palo Seco Protected Forest
FIGURE 1. Overlapping land tenure in the La Amistad Biosphere Reserve,
Panama. Each class of protected area or indegenous territory (comarca) has
its own policies to regulate environmental protection and management. These
policies sometimes conflict when boundaries overlap.
Cocoa grown within a biologically diverse and environmentally
sustainable agricultural system is capable of providing lasting eco
-
nomic, social, and environmental benefits. Grown in such a sys
-
tem, cocoa is a crop ideally suited to small-holder cultivation. (First
International Workshop on Sustainable Cocoa Growing, 1998:
website)
In this section, the system of cacao cultivation practiced in the buffer
zone regions of the Atlantic side of the La Amistad Biosphere Reserve
is described. In evaluating the above statement, the ecological, eco
-
nomic, and cultural sustainability of these systems is analyzed.
Description of Cultivation
Cacao, Theobroma cacao L., is native to the upper Amazon basin but
has been cultivated in Central America since pre-European times (Johns,
1999). Cacao has been widely introduced and cultivated in tropical low-
lands throughout the world. Being an understory species, cacao is tradi-
tionally farmed under the shade of other trees (Johns, 1999). In the
1950s and 1960s, however, new cultivation systems were promoted by
government research centers in Latin America. Cacao production was
increased by thinning or removing the shade trees while counteracting
the loss of nutrients and the increase in pests, diseases, and weeds with
chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Johns, 1999).
Rice and Greenberg (2000) have classified cacao production systems
into three categories. The first is “Rustic Shade,” in which cacao is
planted beneath already existing primary or secondary forest cover. The
existing understory is cleared, and the overstory trees are selectively
thinned to leave those that offer the best shade or produce other prod-
ucts. “Planted Shade” is typified by a planted shade overstory. The spe
-
cies composition of these overstories varies in richness. The land is first
cleared using “slash and burn.” Either cacao seeds or annuals (corn,
beans, rice, manioc, etc.) are then directly planted. Annuals are culti
-
vated for 3-4 years until the soil is “tired.” Then varieties of Musa spp.
are planted and grown for 15-20 years. After, selected trees will be
planted or allowed to naturally regenerate, and cacao will be cultivated
below them (Gordon, 1982; Onil & Peterson, pers. comm.). Small
-
holder production on the Atlantic coast is almost exclusively either Rus
-
tic Shade or Planted Shade (Rice & Greenberg, 2000). “Technified
Cacao” is delineated by the absence of an overstory, i.e., cacao is
produced without shade.
April Connelly and Elizabeth N. Shapiro 119
The present day agricultural landscape in the Bocas del Toro region
consists of a mosaic of highly managed forest gardens, shifting agricul
-
ture, and cattle pasture. Cacao is currently being cultivated in the area
by both indigenous and mestizo small farmers. Indigenous groups in the
region do not all use the same farming practices (Gordon, 1982) and
there is also much transfer of technology between indigenous and mes
-
tizo groups (Salinas, pers. comm.). Therefore discrete classifications of
farming practices can not be made. However, in general the indigenous
rastrojo system of shifting cultivation selects and leaves more useful
trees standing and burns less intensively than the similarly shifting
milpa system of mestizo farmers (Gordon, 1982).
Currently, smallholder cacao production on the Atlantic coast of Pan-
ama falls almost exclusively into Rice and Greenberg’s (2000) catego-
ries of Rustic Shade or Planted Shade. In the Bocas del Toro version of
the Rustic Shade system, the understory of existing forest is cleared and
the overstory trees selectively cut to leave those that are best for shade
or that produce other desirable products. In the Planted Shade system,
the land is first cleared using “slash and burn” techniques. The land is
then managed by one of two systems. In the first, the cleared land is di-
rectly planted with cacao and the seedlings or stakes of desirable shade
trees. In the second, the land is used for annuals (corn, beans, rice, mani-
oc, etc.) for 3-4 years until the soil is “tired.” Varieties of Musa spp. are
then cultivated and/or selective natural regeneration is allowed to occur
for 8-15 years. Finally, selected trees will be planted or allowed to natu-
rally regenerate and cacao will be cultivated below (Gordon, 1982; Onil &
Peterson, pers. comm.; Bribri comarca, pers. comm.). Regrowth pat-
terns in forest vary according to localized edaphic conditions and man-
agement (Gordon, 1982).
Production of cacao in high densities or in monocultures increases its
susceptibility to insect herbivory and fungal pathogens (Gordon, 1982;
Arnold, 2001) though even cacao grown in diverse systems is highly
susceptible. Witch’s broom (Crinipellis perniciosa) and frosty pod
(Moniliophthora roreri) are two of the most damaging pathogens in the
Central American region (World Cacao Foundation, 2003). The World
Cacao Foundation (2003) estimates that approximately a quarter of the
world cacao production is lost annually to pest and disease.
Though primarily found in tropical lowlands, cacao can be cultivated
to elevations of 900 m, mainly limited then by heat. The plants require
1300-5000 mm of rain per year and favor clay-loamy soils though toler
-
ate a wide variety of types (Urquhart, 1955). Though cacao plants
flower and produce year round, flowering peaks after the first rains of
120 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
the wet season (Young, 1994). In the Bocas del Toro region, this cycle
then leads to a large harvest in September-October and another smaller
harvest in February-March (Gordon, 1982; Mendez & Ortiz, 1998).
Ecological Sustainability
Noble and Dirzo (1997: p. 522) articulate a common belief: “Agro
-
forestry does reduce biodiversity, but it can also act as an effective
buffer to forest clearance and conversion to other land uses, which pres
-
ent the greatest threat to forest ecosystems.” Overall, biological diver
-
sity is enhanced in agricultural landscapes. Moreover, the integration of
agroforestry systems increases landscape diversity (Parish et al., 1998;
Power, 1998; Reitsma et al., 2001; Duguma et al., 2001; Huang et al.,
2002; Schroth et al., 2003).
The potential for various agroforestry systems to serve as buffer zones
to protected areas has been well explored (Ameeruggy & Sansonnens,
1994; Mehta & Leuschner, 1997; Noble & Dirzo, 1997; Murniati &
Gintings, 2001; Young, 2003). Many agroforestry systems mimic the
structure of natural forests. Researchers have analyzed their ability to
perform some of the functions of forests, including the conservation of
biological diversity (Perfecto et al., 1996; Greenberg, 1998; Reitsma et
al., 2001; Huang et al., 2002), protection against soil erosion and water-
shed degradation (Robles & Nava, 1998), and sequestration of carbon
and aquifer renewal (Newmark, 1998; Parrish et al., 1998). Agroforest-
ry systems in buffer zones are appealing to conservation organizations,
governments, and development agencies because of their ability to en-
hance conservation in buffer zones while providing economic returns
for inhabitants (Murniati & Gintings, 2001; Smithsonian, 2003).
Studies of cacao agroforestry systems have mainly focused on bio
-
diversity. In the nearby Talamancan region of Costa Rica, Reitsma et al.
(2001) found higher levels of avian diversity in managed cacao systems
than in the natural surrounding forest. However, woodland generalists
were the predominant guild present in these managed systems. A num
-
ber of authors have suggested cacao systems can be managed to en
-
hance habitat value (Greenberg, 1998; Rice & Greenberg, 2000). At the
landscape level, cacao agroforestry systems, occurring in large, contig
-
uous blocks interconnected by corridors, allow for colonization by for
-
est plants and animals (Alves, 1990; Rice & Greenberg, 2000; Reitsma
et al., 2001). Cacao systems also serve as important refuges for these
species, and, thus, they are valued where deforestation is a threat
April Connelly and Elizabeth N. Shapiro 121
(Greenberg, 1998; Johns, 1999; Rice & Greenberg, 2000; Reitsma et
al., 2001).
In pre-colonial times, before the introduction of the machete, farming
in the Bocas del Toro region consisted mainly of the management of
“forest gardens” with little intensive clearing characteristic of shifting
“slash and burn” agriculture. Existing forest was highly managed to se
-
lect for desirable food, fiber, wood or medicinal species. Land needed
for cultivation of corn or other annuals would be cleared by low-inten
-
sity fires and some felling. In his study of the ethnobotanical culture of
the indigenous groups of the Bocas del Toro region, B.L. Gordon (1982:
p. 79) says that “a large part of the forest ecosystem has been subjected
to cyclic changes of varying duration as a result of periodic human use;
most forests in this area are themselves but advanced stages of second-
ary plant cover, though often not obviously so.” Cacao, both wild vari-
eties and the more highly selected varieties we use today, were grown as
part of the understory of these shifting cultivation cycles’ later stage.
Though cacao agroforestry systems do mimic the structure and func-
tions of natural forests, certain management practices can lead to eco-
logical degradation. Slash and burn clearing often mimics natural gap
formation in forests. However, when clearing is extensive, or the inter-
val between clearings is shortened, ecosystem degradation can result
(Figure 2). Another possible source of degradation is bottom-up deg-
radation. Chronic clearing of the understory, which occurs with cacao
cultivation, debases forest structure and composition (Ashton et al.,
2001). This disturbance does not allow regeneration to establish and
eventually replace the overstory canopy (Figure 2) (Rice & Greenberg,
2000; Ashton et al., 2001). Reitsma et al. (2001) found cacao systems to
have less canopy closure, less tree species diversity, and shorter canopy
heights than surrounding forests. The extent of bottom-up degradation
occurring in the cacao “forests” of the Bocas del Toro region is unclear
as is the effect of farmer-assisted, canopy species regeneration in coun
-
teracting it.
Most smallholder cacao production in this region utilizes no agro
-
chemicals and so the impacts of fertilizer run-off and pesticide contami
-
nation are negligible (Somaribba & Beer, 1998; Beitia, pers. comm.).
One theory is that the increased income and benefits generated in these
systems by diversity overshadow profits yielded from the application of
chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Somaribba & Beer, 1998). More
-
over, the higher and steadier prices associated with organic-certified ca
-
cao further deter the use of agrochemicals. The price received by
members of CO.CA.BO, the only Panamanian cacao cooperative, was
122 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
48% higher for organic cacao than conventional (CO.CA.BO., 2003).
In 2002, 66% of the cacao from the 2,000 producers selling to CO.
CA.BO. was organic-certified (CO.CA.BO., 2003).
Economic Sustainability
Cacao is a crop that is more susceptible to “the whims of fate” than
most. There is little to no local market, so producers are dependent
on a highly volatile global market. During the mid-1970s and early
1980s, prices rose and remained high (Figure 3). They crashed in the
late 1980s and have remained low throughout the 1990s (Johns,
1999). Even though an increase from present prices is predicted for
the coming years, a long term study of cacao prices has show an aver
-
age decrease in real terms of $0.0128 pounds/year (Ramierez et al.,
2001). Cacao is also very susceptible to pests and diseases, and out
-
breaks can radically alter levels of production from year to year
(Evans, 1998).
During the 1980s, a frosty pod (Moniliophthora roreri) outbreak
April Connelly and Elizabeth N. Shapiro 123
Slash & Burn
Clearing
Annual
Crops
(3-5 years)
Shortened
Rotation
Intervals
Degradation of
Soil &
Vegetation
Secondary
Forest
Clearing of
Understory
& Planting
of Cacao
Musa
spp.
& Mixed
Perennial
& Annual
Crops
Planting
Cacao &
Shade Trees
Abandonment
MATURE CACAO
AGROFORESTRY
SYSTEM
Understory
Degradation
Advanced
Regeneration
Degraded Structure
& Composition
FIGURE 2. Cycles of development and possible paths of degradation in cacao
systems. Sustainable production systems rotate between the cacao agro
-
forestry system and secondary forest. Degradation of this cyclical production
system can be caused by the shortening of the rotation intervals or by
understory degradation through intense pruning and clearing, which in turn
leads to decreased advanced regeneration of shade canopy tree species.
combined with the fall in world prices caused many medium to large-
scale producers to convert entirely to banana or cattle production
(Vinegas, pers. comm.). Indigenous farmers, however, allowed cacao to
remain a component of a very diverse production system. Over a
35-year period, from 1965-2000, the area under cacao cultivation in
Panama has remained relatively constant though levels of production
have varied widely (FAOSTAT Database, 2003). A similar strategy has
been observed in small-holder coffee farmers. In a diverse production
system, maintaining perennial crop even when prices are low is sensible
when considering both income generation and labor (Ponette, 2002).
An on-farm study in Costa Rica by Ramierez et al. (2001) showed that
diversified systems of cacao, plantains and timber production were in
fact more economically profitable and stable than monocrops of any of
the three. Even with lowered production rates, cacao has remained the
primary cash crop for many of the smallholders in the region (Mendez &
Ortiz, 1998). See Ramierez et al. (2001) for a more thorough analysis of
the costs and benefits for various levels of diversification.
One of the strategies that can lessen the risk to smallholder cacao pro
-
duction is association of agrarian cooperatives. Cooperatives have in
-
124 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
Price (USD/Ton)
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
Year
FIGURE 3. Cacao bean average annual international market price 1960-2002.
The price crash in the mid-1980s led many producers to abandon cacao in fa
-
vor of banana and cattle production.
Based oon FAOSTAT Database
creased bargaining power, can secure future prices for production and
can provide credit or advanced payments to their members. The Co
-
operative de Servicios Múltiples Cacao Bocatoreña (CO.CA.BO.) in
Panama and the Asociación de Pequeños Productores de Talamanca
(APPTA) in Costa Rica are two well-established regional cacao cooper
-
atives. Though already relatively strong, both show a desire to continue
to expand services such as organic certification and marketing of diver
-
sified products (Beitia, pers. comm.; Vilchy, pers. comm.).
Currently, cacao production covers approximately 4,000 ha in Pan
-
ama. The majority of production is located in Bocas del Toro province
(FAOSTAT Database, 2003). The area of land under cacao cultivation
has remained relatively small and fairly constant, unlike Costa Rica
where cacao cultivation has decreased by 90% since 1960 (FAOSTAT
Database, 2003). As a result, currently cacao is cultivated in this region
almost solely in diverse, low-input systems.
Cultural Sustainability of Cacao
Cacao, though an anchor crop, is only one of many agricultural prod-
ucts produced in indigenous agroforestry systems. Subsistence farmers,
by definition, maintain a diversity of crops, limiting their reliance on the
cash economy by producing most of their basic needs. Diversity also
provides an indemnity if one or two crops fail (Scott, 1976). While the
cash yielded from cacao is therefore important, it is perhaps not the
main consideration in management.
This concept was highlighted in a study carried out in the Atlantic re-
gion of Brazil (Johns, 1999). For twenty years, the Brazilian govern-
ment attempted to modernize cacao cultivation by encouraging the
removal of shade canopies and the utilization of agrochemicals. The
majority of the small-holder cacao producers still maintain shade levels
four to five times greater than the program’s recommendations. Farmers
indicated that the choice not to reduce shade was based on their under
-
standing of the multiple benefits provided by shade trees and their un
-
willingness to change to a system in which they lacked experience
(Johns, 1999). Johns concludes that this research suggests that cacao
farmers employ an agroecological and risk-based decision logic.
Just as indemnity drives diversification in cacao agroforestry sys
-
tems, it will likely also persuade farmers to seek an alternative source of
income. Given their present level of integration into the market econ
-
omy, if a cacao crop fails or the market collapses, farmers still require
April Connelly and Elizabeth N. Shapiro 125
cash. The current alternative appears to be the other dominant, cash-
based production system of cattle-ranching.
CATTLE
History of Cattle Production in Panama
Cattle have played an important role in Panama’s rural economy
since their introduction by the Spanish in the 1500s (Heckadon, 1997).
Cattle grazing was originally confined to the Pacific side of the country
where the Spanish population initially settled (Joly, 1986; Heckdon,
1997). The drier climate, presence of natural grasses and lower inci-
dence of disease also made the Pacific coast more conducive to cattle
production than the Atlantic (McCorkle, 1968; Heckadon, 1997; Jones,
1986). Cattle eventually expanded to the Atlantic coast in the 1960s.
From the 1960s to the 1980s, a large-scale migration of mestizo peas-
ants occurred from a region known as the “Interior.” This region in-
cludes the Pacific provinces of Chiriquí, Los Santos, Herera, Cocle, and
Veraguas. The migration of people from this Interior was spurred by
high population densities, intergenerational fragmentation of family
farms, and acquisition of small farms by larger landowners (Heckadon,
1984; Joly, 1986). Migration of cattle raising migrants to Atlantic prov-
inces coincided with an outbreak of the fungal disease, frosty pod, that
decreased cacao production (Joly, 1986). Many of the indigenous farm-
ers responded by selling their farms to mestizos or abandoning cacao
and incorporating cattle into their own farming systems (Jones, 1986;
Joly, 1986). As a result between 1961 and 1981, heads of cattle in Bocas
del Toro increased by 162% (Joly, 1986). In 1985, the completion of a
road connecting the two sides of the country increased access to previ
-
ously isolated lands in the province and facilitated further migration
(Jones, 1990). This immigration surge mostly consisted of mestizo
farmers and Ngöbe-Bugle Indians from the province of Chiriquí, both
of whom practice cattle rearing (Jones, 1990; Heckadon, 1997).
Cattle are now an established and growing component of the land-use
matrix in Bocas del Toro. A recent UNDP report estimates that cattle
account for close to half of all of the agricultural land use in Bocas. The
same report found cattle to be the largest and fastest growing agricul
-
tural activity in the region surrounding La Amistad Biosphere Reserve
(UNDP, 2002). In addition, CO.CA.BO. has reported that with the
downturn of world cacao prices in the late 1990s, an increasing number
126 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
of its members are considering cattle as a way to diversify (Finisdore,
2002).
Current Production Systems
A variety of cattle production systems are practiced in Panama today.
Most cattle grazing in Panama is done extensively (McCorkle, 1968).
Average stocking rates are one head of cattle per hectare (IADB, 2002).
The various production systems include specialized systems such as:
(1) ceba, or fattening of beef cattle, which requires the largest amount of
land and least amount of labor, (2) cria, or breeding to produce calves
that are then sold for fattening, and (3) commercial dairy production.
Labor requirements for dairy production are higher than either the ceba
or cria systems as cattle require milking every day. Dairy production is
restricted by access roads and established milk truck routes (Heckadon,
1984; McCorkle, 1968).
In addition to specialized production, a more generalized “dual-pur-
pose” system exists, which produces both dairy and beef. The cattle
used in dual-purpose systems are a cross of European breeds (Bos
taurus), which produce high milk yields, and local zebu cattle (Bos
indicus), which are more tolerant of the heat in tropical climates (McCorkle,
1968). Dual-purpose production is particularly popular with small and
medium-scale farmers. This system allows farmers to generate income
while contributing to household subsistence needs (Faminow, 1998). In
addition, while specialized beef production requires more extensive
landholdings, dual-purpose systems have been shown to be profitable
on as little as 10 hectares (Schelhas, 1996).
Ecological Impact of Extensive Cattle Systems
Numerous articles discuss the negative impact that extensive forms
of cattle grazing can have on tropical ecosystems both as agents of de
-
forestation and by degrading land once it is deforested (Nicholson et
al., 1995). Of foremost concern is the loss of biological diversity asso
-
ciated with the destruction of tropical forests (Faminow, 1998; Mattos &
Uhl, 1994; Southgate, 1998). Tropical forests provide habitat for a
large percentage of all known plant and animal species. When land
cover is converted from forest to pasture or agricultural crops, the eco
-
system becomes less structurally diverse and supports fewer species
(Jones, 1990; Mattos & Uhl, 1994; Southgate, 1998). In addition, the re
-
April Connelly and Elizabeth N. Shapiro 127
maining tracts of forest may be reduced below a size threshold, making
them unable to support viable populations of forest-dwelling species.
A second ecological concern is the alteration of the ecosystem ser
-
vices that forests can provide, particularly control of soil erosion and
watershed protection. Trees have a deeper rooting system than pasture
and, therefore, are better able to stabilize soils, particularly on steep
slopes (Wishnie & Socha, 2003). Pasture grasses are capable of pro
-
viding a certain amount of protection against soil erosion; however,
this protection is negated if pasture grasses are overgrazed (Faminow,
1998). Deforestation in the upstream portion of watersheds is of partic
-
ular concern because effects are disproportionately magnified down
-
stream (Wishnie & Socha, 2003).
Finally, pasture degradation can lead to a cycle of deforestation (Fig-
ure 4). When tropical forest is converted to pasture, forage production
gradually declines due to the loss of soil nutrients and soil compaction
(Serrão & Toledo, 1990; Heckadon 1984). In the humid tropics, pasture
productivity is further reduced by the high incidence of pests that attack
forage grasses (Mattos & Uhl, 1994; Faminow, 1998). Weeds also com-
pete with grasses further reducing productivity and increasing the cost
of pasture maintenance (Mattos & Uhl, 1994; Serrão & Toledo, 1990).
128 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
Short-term use &
intensive management
Secondary
Growth
Forest
PASTURE
Shrubs &
Grassland
Chronic use & extensive
management
FIGURE 4. Cycles of development and possible paths of degradation in pas-
ture systems. Short-term use and intensive management can lead to a sustain-
able cycle that rotates between pasture and secondary forest growth. In
contrast, chronic and extensive use of pasture will lead to a conversion to
shrub and grassland, with little value as pasture and an inability to revert to
secondary forest without rehabilitation.
When the weeds attain dominance, that pasture is thoroughly degraded
and must be left fallow (Serrão & Toledo, 1990). Degradation can be ac
-
celerated by the frequent use of fire, overstocking, or insufficiently
rotating animals in pastures (Serrão & Toledo, 1990).
Without intervention degradation will reduce a pasture’s carrying ca
-
pacity (Heckadon, 1984). When this happens, the farmer must decide
among (1) reducing the herd, (2) investing to increase productivity, or
(3) obtaining new pasture (Heckadon, 1984). When forested land is
abundant and access is free, farmers usually choose to clear new land
rather than invest in existing pastures (Jones, 1990). Limited market ac
-
cess also makes clearing new land attractive because restricted cash
flow can make inputs prohibitively expensive. Conversely, when new
land is scarce, investing in existing pastures may be more appealing,
particularly when access to markets is strong (White et al., 2001).
Cattle Farmers
Cattle producers are often perceived to be a homogeneous group. In
reality a wide array of actors engage in cattle rearing in Latin America
ranging from wealthy landowners to subsistence peasants (Murgueitio,
1998; Kaimowitz, 1995). When drafting management policies, distin-
guishing amongst these various groups is important because their pri-
mary objectives differ and an intervention that is designed to influence
one type of farmer will not necessarily affect the others.
At the broadest level cattle farmers can be divided into two groups:
non production-oriented livestock owners and production-oriented live-
stock owners (Murgueitio, 1998). Nonproduction-oriented livestock
owners do not seek value from cattle per se but from other benefits such
as land speculation or capturing tax incentives (Murgueitio, 1998). In
contrast, production-oriented livestock owners are motivated by deriv
-
ing benefits directly from cattle or a cattle product. Examples of the pro
-
duction-oriented land user range from profit-maximizing corporations,
to traditional ranching families for whom cattle is not only an income
source but a lifestyle that provides a certain amount of social prestige, to
subsistence farmers seeking to ensure the survival of their household
(Kaimowitz, 1995; Nicholson et al., 1995).
A further distinction should be made within the production-oriented
category of livestock owners between those whose primary objective is
to maximize profits and subsistence producers. For profit-driven cattle
farmers, the principal goals are to increase yields and generate higher
profits. These land users can afford to invest in a greater amount of out
-
April Connelly and Elizabeth N. Shapiro 129
side inputs to increase production and find a larger amount of risk ac
-
ceptable. In contrast, subsistence-oriented cattle farmers cannot afford
high levels of inputs and find very little risk acceptable. These farmers
will attempt to minimize both inputs and risk even at the cost of lower
yields.
An analysis of the rationale behind all the potential individuals in
-
volved with cattle in La Amistad Biosphere Reserve is beyond the scope
of this paper. Our assessment is restricted to the behavior of small-scale
cattle farmers who fall under the subsistence category mentioned above.
However, other types of livestock owners may also be active in the re
-
gion. Since the objectives of these other land users may differ from the
smallholders, the recommendations in this paper should not be expected
to influence their behavior. See Kaimowitz (1995) for a more thorough
discussion of other types of livestock owners.
Appeal to Smallholders
Cattle are considered by many to be ecologically unsustainable in the
tropics. In addition, some cost/benefit analyses conclude that it is often
an unprofitable land use (Jones, 1990; Faminow et al., 1999). Nonethe-
less, smallholders throughout Latin America continue to include cattle
in their land use strategies. In fact, except for farmers with prime agri-
cultural land, the first thing that almost any small farmer in Central
America does after he/she accrues a little land or money is to purchase
cattle (Kaimowitz, 1995).
Cattle provide an entire suite of benefits to a smallholder household.
Economic returns are only one component (Faminow, 1998). Extensive
cattle systems require relatively low outlays of capital to establish and
are easy to maintain. The low labor requirements allow family members
to seek off-farm wage labor (Hecht, 1993; Faminow, 1998). At the same
time, they produce a product that is highly marketable and transportable
and contribute products for household consumption (Nicholson et al.,
1995; Mattos & Uhl, 1994). Cattle production has a number of charac
-
teristics which, taken as a whole, even out risk and fulfill a number of
requirements of smallholder household livelihood strategy.
Risk
Smallholder farming strategies are strongly influenced by the desire
to avoid risk. Cattle ameliorate agricultural risk in several ways (Hecht,
1993). First, the risk of total crop loss is low. Panama is free of severe
130 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
diseases, such as trypanosomosis (Glossina spp.), that decimate live
-
stock populations in other regions of the world (FAO, 1998). Minor dis
-
eases, parasites and climatic anomalies can affect productivity but the
risk of total herd loss is low (Mccorkle, 1968; Heckadon, 1984). Sec
-
ond, there is little variability in price and yields. Third, there are estab
-
lished and stable local markets for cattle products and, unlike the
specialty markets of many perennial crops, no special market support is
needed to access them. The variety of products that cattle can yield con
-
tributes to their marketability. In addition, cattle have the advantage that
they can walk to market if necessary, which appeals particularly to
farmers in remote locations. Finally, cattle are easy to liquidate due to
flexibility of harvesting. As a result farmers often use cattle as an infor-
mal insurance policy. If an emergency arises, such as illness or the fail-
ure of other crops, or when there is need for a large cash outlay, such as a
wedding or building a house, the sale of a cow can immediately provide
a relatively large sum of money. Cattle are, therefore, a more secure
store of wealth than cash crops.
Culture
Culture is another factor that motivates some smallholders. Cattle
have historically been associated with the dominant Spanish social
group in Central America (Heckadon, 1984; Jones, 1986; Joly, 1986).
In regions where cattle has a strong tradition it is a land use that repre-
sents prosperity and carries a certain level of social prestige that extends
the value of this land use beyond financial profit (Schelhas, 1996; Joly,
1986). Panamanian sociologist Stanley Heckadon-Moreno has labeled
this cultura de potrero, or cattle culture. Many of the mestizo migrants
in Bocas del Toro are originally from other provinces in Panama that
have strong associations with the cultura de potrero (McKay, 1984).
The cultura de potrero undoubtedly has an influence on the land use
choices of migrants in La Amistad Biosphere Reserve. However, this is
only one of many factors that influence landholders’ production choices
and should not be focused on to the exclusion of other drivers. For ex
-
ample, in the Bocas del Toro province there are instances of both mes
-
tizo and indigenous farmers owning cattle. In a study of the Ngobe
community in Valle de Risco, cattle were cited as one of the principal
commercial agricultural activities of an indigenous community that has
no tradition of ‘cattle culture’ (Mendez & Ortiz, 1998). Conversely,
mestizo farmers have been know to convert from cattle when presented
with feasible alternatives. An example can be found in the community
April Connelly and Elizabeth N. Shapiro 131
of Las Delicias on the Costa Rican border. Founders of this community
migrated from Chiriquí, a province renown for its cattle culture. Al
-
though their initial intention was to establish ranches, they instead
adopted an indigenous swidden agricultural system after realizing it
was more appropriate for the region. More recently, the community has
solicited a grant from the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor to build
facilities for ecotourism activities in a belief that this course has greater
economic potential for the community than either agriculture or cattle
(Salinas, pers. comm.).
Land Tenure
Land title regulations have been cited as a driver of pasture expan
-
sion throughout Latin America. In Panama, land title is contingent on
usufruct rights. All unoccupied territory is considered property of the
state and legal title is made available to anyone converting land to pro-
ductive use (Jones, 1990). The Panamanian Agrarian Code, Law No.
37 states:
Land meets its ‘social use’ when it is: (a) cultivated in pastures
and/or occupied by bovine or equine cattle in proportion no less
than one animal for every two hectares of land; (b) when at least
two-thirds of the land is planted and maintained under cultivation;
(c) when at least two-thirds of the land is planted with trees for the
extraction of wood to be processed for industrial use; and (d) when
land is converted into urban areas, according to current legal stat-
ues. (Joly, 1986)
Insecure title rights are considered to be an impediment to agricul
-
tural intensification. According to a United Nations Development Pro
-
gram (UNDP) project document (2002) approximately 2/3 of farmland
in Bocas Del Toro is without title. PRONAT, a Global Environmental
Facility (GEF)-World Bank funded land-titling project, is scheduled to
begin in 2003 and is intended to register lands that have been occupied
for the past 15 years. A potential benefit of this project is increased ten
-
ure security, which may encourage farmers to invest in intensification
of their land use. However, there is also concern that the project could
create a perverse incentive for cattle encroachment in the short term as
speculators may rush to clear land in an attempt to obtain title (UNDP,
2002).
132 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
FARMER DECISION-MAKING STRATEGIES:
CATTLE VS. CACAO
When deciding upon land use strategies, farmers do not consider op
-
tions in isolation of one another, but rather weigh the available alterna
-
tives before investing their labor and land. Table 1 outlines the principal
characteristics of each agricultural system that may influence adoption
by smallholders. The data used to compile this table is based on charac
-
teristics for each crop as reported in the literature rather than primary
data collected in Bocas del Toro.
Cattle provide relatively low returns per unit of land, which can be at
-
tributed to the fact that stocking rates throughout Panama are low. As
pastures become degraded stocking rates may decline, further reducing
returns to land. Returns to labor, however, are quite high. This is partic-
ularly true for beef cattle that require the least amount of labor. Cacao
April Connelly and Elizabeth N. Shapiro 133
TABLE 1. The relative economic and management characteristics of cacao
and cattle that may influence adoption by agricultural smallholders.*
CHARACTERISTIC CACAO CATTLE
Returns to land ($/ha) High Low
Returns to labor Low High (highest for beef, lower
for dairy/dual)
Capital needed to establish Low Low
Specialized knowledge
needed to begin production
Medium (knowledge
commonly known and shared)
Low
Input requirements Low Low
Labor requirements Medium (fluctuates according
to season)
Low (beef)/
Med (dairy/dual)
Market access Difficult w/o support Easy
Price Variability High Low
Yield Variability High Low
Stability of Market Demand Low High
Risk of crop failure High Low
Harvest Flexibility/liquidity Medium (two annual harvests
at fixed times)
High (unlike crops, cattle can
be harvested at any time)
* Rankings are based on an ordinal scale
provides higher returns per unit of land but lower returns to labor, as it is
a more labor-intensive system.
One of biggest obstacles to adoption of perennial crops is fluctuation
in market prices over time (FAO, 1998). The supply to the market is
highly affected by phenological cycles, weather and pests (Ramirez
et al., 2001). The high fluctuation in annual production creates a feed
-
back loop that affects world market prices (Ramirez et al., 2001).
Smallholders often lack the financial stability or infrastructure to post
-
pone their harvest until the seasonal glut passes and prices rise. Both of
these risks can be ameliorated by smallholder cooperatives. In contrast,
while cattle yields exhibit some seasonality, particularly in regions with
a pronounced dry season, prices and supply fluctuate relatively little.
Market access also influences cropping strategies. Lack of mar-
ket access and failure of markets to materialize at first harvest are
widely cited reason for farmers to abandon introduced agroforestry
schemes (Fujisaka & White, 1998). A case study in Brazil found that,
market access is needed in order for farmers to adopt more intensive
technologies, both for improving pasture and for investing in agro-
forestry crops such as cacao (FAO, 1998).
In the analysis of farmers’ decision making, another risk-averse strat-
egy common to smallholders is diversification of production. In the
Bocas del Toro region, because a farmer chooses to plant cacao does not
mean that he or she will desist entirely in cattle production. A recent
UNDP report estimates that 40% of farms in the Palo Seco forest re-
serve contain cattle pasture but noted that many of these farms also have
newly planted cacao on lands that are too steep for cattle (UNDP, 2002).
If strategies can be found to make cacao more profitable, and to have
more stable returns, this will likely decrease pressure to expand cattle
production.
RECOMMENDATIONS
A lack of technical knowledge is often not what makes extensive ag
-
ricultural practices prevail over more intensive forms of production.
Therefore, intervention strategies limited to training often fail to change
agricultural practices. Broader socioeconomic factors render extensive
management a more competitive option for farmers than intensification
(Jones, 1990; White et al., 2001). Conservation groups working in the
region should focus on altering the conditions that currently make ex
-
tensive systems, such as cattle, more attractive than perennial crops,
134 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
such as cacao. To be competitive, not only must other land uses be able
to yield the same benefits as cattle, but also the conditions that make ex
-
tensive cattle systems attractive must be altered. We recommend first
that reducing the risk associated with ecologically preferable produc
-
tion systems will be the most effective intervention. Cacao can be en
-
couraged by stabilizing fluctuating prices and yield. Specialty markets
(organic, fair trade) are more stable than traditional commodity markets
and offer higher prices
Second, the obstacles smallholder farmers face in accessing these
markets should be mitigated. Certification required to enter specialty
markets is complex and expensive. The infrastructure needed to pro
-
cess, store and transport the product requires an economy of scale that
the smallholder lacks. Increasing the capacity of local smallholder co-
operatives that have the capacity to partner with others is an important
step in gaining market share.
Third, technical assistance should be provided through established
cooperatives and community groups. Communities would like assis-
tance in (1) replanting decrepit cacao plots and (2) marketing crops
produced in association with cacao (CO.CA.BO., 2003; Beitea, pers.
comm.). Any technical assistance provided should maintain the cultural
and biological diversity present in “agroecosystems.”
Fourth, silvopastoral systems should be encouraged. A growing body
of literature suggests that silvopastoral systems support a higher degree
of biodiversity than previously believed. Trees in silvopastoral systems
serve as “stepping stones,” connecting forest fragments, and allow more
forest-dwelling species to persist on the landscape (Guevara et al.,
1986; Guevara et al., 1998; Harvey & Haber, 1999; Harvey et al., 2000).
Fifth, subsidies and/or credit would allow farmers to intensify pro
-
duction. The use of improved pasture and silvopastoral agroforest-
ry systems extends productivity in pastures, reducing pressure to
clear new land. Intensification requires a large investment, unattain
-
able for most smallholder farmers, but returns on pasture improvement
are considerable. Providing credit schemes or subsidies for intensifica
-
tion and silvopastoral systems makes them more feasible options for
smallholders.
Finally, land tenure security for smallholders needs to be addressed.
This security is necessary for land owners to invest in intensification
or perennial, slow-to-produce systems, such as cacao. In addition,
supporting indigenous claims to land may discourage migration from
other provinces. Support the development of alternative, more ecologi
-
cally-friendly income sources such as ecotourism (see Cusack & Dixon,
April Connelly and Elizabeth N. Shapiro 135
this volume) or subsidized management for conservation, such as the
Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (see Dettman, this volume), in order
to provide alternatives other than cattle when cacao prices are low.
CONCLUSION
Agricultural expansion by smallholders has been targeted as the pri
-
mary cause of ecological degradation by the organizations responsible
for creating a management strategy for La Amistad Biosphere reserve.
We have teased out assumptions of these organizations concerning the
drivers and the solutions to ecological degradation and to analyze their
validity. Below we list both assumptions and our conclusions.
Cacao agroforestry systems are entirely ecologically benign. Though
empirical evidence is scarce, the cacao agroforesty systems, of the kind
cultivated by smallholder producers in the region, do support many of
the same ecological functions as natural forests. The ability of these sys-
tems to support high levels of biodiversity, though species composition
may be slightly different from that of forests, make it an appropriate
land use alternative for buffer zones of La Amistad Biosphere Reserve.
However, certain management practices–shifts from intensive to exten-
sive clearing in the slash and burn phase of the system, prolonged clear-
ing of the understory and of lianas and vines, decreased tree diversity
and density, and increased use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides–
can lead to degradation of the ecological integrity of these systems. Un-
derstanding the economic and policy conditions, which might promote
degrading management practices by cacao smallholders, is important
and safeguards against them should be included in management plans
for the reserve.
If cacao production is made to be more financially viable, incentives
for expansion of cattle production and shifting agriculture will be de
-
creased. The issue here may be not so much the ability to make cacao
production more profitable, but in how to make it a more secure in
-
vestment. From the smallholder perspective cacao is a more risky op
-
tion than cattle due to its susceptibility to disease and highly volatile
market prices. One option, which might reduce the risk of cacao produc
-
tion, is the support of the cooperative marketing of cacao as well as
some of the diverse products grown in association with cacao. How
-
ever, smallholders will not likely desist entirely in cattle production
simply because they are receiving increased or even more stable income
from cacao. The multiple benefits of secondary products, ease of pro
-
136 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
duction and marketing and social status received through cattle produc
-
tion will mean that it will always be an attractive option to some if not
all. A more viable solution would be to reduce the ecological impact of
the grazing that does occur and decrease the need to expand by provid
-
ing technical and financial support for the intensification of pasturage.
As for clearing for shifting agriculture, this is in fact part of the cycle
of the cacao agroforestry system. The 3-5 year slash and burn phase of
this cycle in which basic grains such a corn, rice and beans are produced
is a crucial component of the indigenous system of subsistence. While
extensive and/or overly intensive slash and burn practices can be eco
-
logically degrading, instead of condemning all slash and burn practices,
employing a more subtle criteria for targeting only those who are prac-
ticing unsustainable management would be more useful.
Migrants from other areas are primarily responsible for clearing of
land for cattle pasture on the eastern side of the park. Again, this ap-
pears to be too gross a generalization. While some of the largest and
most recently arrived cattle ranchers in the area are migrants, other ac-
tors are at work. Many of the indigenous groups in the area also graze
cattle, some of which, particularly the Ngobe group, are expanding to
new areas of the reserve. With smallholders in particular, a level of cul-
tural assimilation over time may lead migrants to adopt agricultural
practices that are more appropriate to the conditions found on the east-
ern side of the park than extensive cattle grazing. In the meantime, how-
ever, strengthening indigenous land tenure may be an effective measure
against intrusion, particularly by large-scale cattle ranchers.
The most effective means to prevent agricultural expansion is inter-
vention at the level of smallholder production. While this is certainly
true to some extent, being aware of the larger forces that are driving
smallholders’ decisions to expand is important. Issues of market risk,
security of land tenure, subsidies, taxation practices, and presence or
absence of technical support all influence a smallholders’ ability to
maintain or to convert to the intensive, sustainable practices that re
-
duce the need to expand agricultural production. In the case of in
-
creased pressure for expansion caused by migration from other areas,
to understand and try to counteract the factors that stimulate or force
migration is important. Not overlooking the larger players who are, in
many cases, responsible for far greater ecological degradation than are
the smallholders is also crucial. In the region of La Amistad Biosphere
Reserve, to include the banana companies and large cattle ranching op
-
erations in the analysis of ecologically destructive agricultural practices
is essential.
April Connelly and Elizabeth N. Shapiro 137
REFERENCES
Alves, M.C. 1990. Responses of selected animal species to disturbances caused by ca
-
cao plantations in the Atlantic forests for southern Bahia, Brazil. Master’s thesis,
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Ameeruggy, Y. and B. Sansonnens. 1994. Shifting from simple to complex agroforest
-
ry systems–an example for buffer zone management from Kerinci (Sumatra, Indo
-
nesia). Agroforestry Systems 28(2): 131-141.
ANAM. 1999. Panama informe nacional 1999. Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente,
Panamá.
Arnold, A.E. 2001. Sustainable cacao. http://eebweb.arizona.edu/grads/betsy/choc.
html (2 December 2003).
Ashton, M.S., Gunatilleke, C.V.S., Singhakumara, B.M.P., and I.A.U.N. Gunatilleke.
2001. Restoration pathways for rain forest in southwest Sri Lanka: A review of con
-
cepts and models. Forest Ecology and Management 154: 409-430.
Autoridad National De Ambiente (ANAM). 2003. http://www.anam.gob.pa/ (2 De
-
cember 2003).
Chaverri, A. and B. Herrera. 2003. La Amistad Biosphere Reserve. nmnhwww.si.edu/
botany/projects/centre/amistad.htm (2 December 2003).
CO.CA.BO. 2003. Memoria 2002 de XXIX Asamblea. Cooperativa de Servicios
Múltiples Cacao Bocatoreña (CO.CA.BO.), R.L., Panama.
Duguma, B., Gockowski, J., and J. Bakala. 2001. Smallholder cacao (Theobroma ca-
cao Linn.) cultivation in agroforestry systems of West and Central Africa: Chal-
lenges and opportunities. Agroforestry Systems 51: 177-188.
Evans, H.C. 1998. Disease and sustainability in the cacao agroecosystem. Working pa-
per of the First International Workshop on Sustainable Cocoa Growing, Panama,
March, 1998.
Faminow, M.D., Dahl, D., Vosti, S., Witcover, J., Oliveira, S., and C. Carpentier. 1999.
Smallholder risk, cattle and deforestation in the western Brazilian Amazon. World
Animal Review 93: 16-23.
Faminow, M.D. 1998. Cattle, deforestation, and development in the Amazon: An eco
-
nomic, agronomic and environmental perspective. CAB International, New York,
NY.
FAO. 1998. FAO expert consultation on policies for animal production and natural re
-
source management. http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/one/brasil98/default.htm (2
December 2003).
FAO STAT Database. 2003. Agricultural production: Crops primary. http://apps.fao.org/
lim500/nphwrap.pl?Production.Crops.Primary&Domain=SUA&servlet=1 (2 Decem
-
ber 2003).
Finisdore, J. 2002. Bocas del Toro agricultural threats: Site trip and potential strategies.
The Nature Conservancy, Panama, Ciudad de Panamá.
First International Workshop on Sustainable Cocoa Growing. 1998. Guiding principles and
integrated research program. http://natzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/Migratory
Birds/Research/Cacao/principles.cfm (2 December 2003).
138 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
Fujisaka, S. and D. White. 1998. Pasture or permanent crops after slash-and-burn culti
-
vation? Land use choice in three Amazonian colonies. Agroforestry Systems 42 (1):
45-59.
Gordon, B.L. 1982. A Panama forest and shore: Natural history and Amerindian cul
-
ture in Bocas del Toro. Boxwood Press, Pacific Grove, CA.
Greenberg, R. 1998. Biodiversity in the cacao agroecosystem: Shade management and
landscape considerations. Working paper of the First International Workshop on
Sustainable Cocoa Growing, Panama, March, 1998.
Guevara, S., Laborde, J., and G. Sanchez. 1998. Are isolated trees in pasture a frag
-
mented canopy? Selvyana 19(1): 34-43.
Guevara, S., Purata, S.E., and E. Vande Maarel. 1986. The role of remnant forest trees
in tropical secondary succession. Vegetatio 66: 77-84.
Harvey, C.A., Guindon, C.G., Harber, W.A., DeRosier, D.H., and K.G. Murray. 2000.
The importance of forest patches, isolated trees and agricultural windbreaks for
biodiversity: The case of Monteverde, Costa Rica. Sub-Plenary Papers and Ab
-
stracts. XXI IUFOR World Congress. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Harvey, C.A. and W.A. Haber. 1999. Remnant trees and the conservation of biodiversity
in Costa Rican pastures. Agroforestry Systems 44: 37-68.
Hecht, S. 1993. The logic of livestock and deforestation in Amazonia. Bioscience
43(10): 687-695.
Heckadon-Moreno, S. 1984. Panama’s expanding cattle front: the Santeño campesinos
and the colonization of the forests. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex, Great
Britain.
Heckadon-Moreno, S. 1997. Spanish rule, independence, and the modern colonization
of frontiers. In: A. Coates (Ed.). Central America: A Natural and Cultural History.
Yale University Press: New Haven, CT.
Huang, W., Luukkanen, O., Johanson, S., Kaarakka, V., Raisanen S., and H. Vihemaki.
2002. Agroforestry for biodiversity conservation of natural reserves: Functional
group identification and analysis. Agroforestry Systems 55: 65-72.
Inter-American Development Bank (IADP). 2002. Multiphase program for sustainable
development of Bocas Del Toro. Loan Proposal. http://www.iadb.org/exr/doc98/
apr/apenv.htm (1 April 2004).
Johns, N.D. 1999. Conservation in Brazil’s chocolate forest: The unlikely persistence
of the traditional cacao agroecosystem. Environmental Management 23(1): 31-47.
Joly, L.G. 1986. The conversion of rain forests to pastures in Panama. Pp. 86-130 In
D.A. Schumann and W.L. Partridge (Eds.). The human ecology of tropical land set
-
tlement in Latin America. Westview Press: Boulder, CO.
Jones, J. 1986. Human settlement of tropical colonization in Central America. Pp.43-
85 In DA. Schumann and W.L. Partridge (Eds.). The human ecology of tropical
land settlement in Latin America. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Jones, J.R. 1990. Colonization and environment: Land settlement projects in Central
America. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan.
Kaimowitz, D. 1995. Livestock and deforestation in Central America in the 1980s and
1990s: A policy perspective. Center for International Forestry Research, Jakarta,
Indonesia.
April Connelly and Elizabeth N. Shapiro 139
Marquardt, S. 2001. “Green havoc”: Panama disease, environmental change, and labor
process in the Central American banana industry. The American Historical Review
106 (1): 49-80.
Mattos, M. and C. Uhl. 1994. Economic and ecological perspectives on ranching in the
eastern Amazon. World Development 22(2): 145-158.
McCorkle, J.S. 1968. Ranching in Panama. Journal of Range Management 21 (4): 242-246.
McKay, A. 1984. Colonización de tierras nuevas en Panama. In S. Heckadon Moreno
and A. McKay (Eds.). Colonización y destrucción de bosques en Panamá. Asociación
Panameña de Antropología. Panama. pp. 45-60.
Mehta, N.G. and W.A. Leushner. 1997. Financial and economic analyses of agro
-
forestry systems and a commercial timber plantation in La Amistad Biosphere Re
-
serve, Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems 37: 175-185.
Mendez, V.E. and M. Ortiz. 1998. Diagnóstico rural participativo de la comunidad
Ng’be de Valle de Risco, Bocas del Toro, Panama. Internal Report, Proyecto
Agroforestal CATIE/GTZ, Turrialba, Costa Rica.
Ministerio de Desarrollo Agropecuario (MIDA). 2003. Caracteristicas generales de la
provincia de Bocas del Toro. www.mida.gob.pa/bocas.html (2 December 2003).
Murniati, D., Garrity, P., and A.N. Gintings. 2001. The contribution of agroforestry
systems to reducing farmers’ dependence on the resources of adjacent national
parks: a case study from Sumatra, Indonesia. Agroforestry Systems 52:171-184.
Murgueitio E.R. 1998. Environmental and social reconversion of cattle raising in Co-
lombia. http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/one/brasil98/default.htm (2 December 2003).
Newmark, T.E. 1998. Carbon sequestration and cacao production: Financing sustain-
able development by trading carbon emission credits. Working paper of the First In-
ternational Workshop on Sustainable Cocoa Growing, Panama, March, 1998.
Nicholson, C., Blake, R., and D. Lee. 1995. Livestock, reforestation, and policy mak-
ing: Intensification of cattle production systems in Central America revisited. Jour-
nal of Dairy Science 78:719-734.
Noble, I.R. and R. Dirzo. 1997. Forests as human-dominated ecosystems. Science 277:
522-525.
Parish, J., Reitsma, R., and R. Greenberg. 1998. Cacao as a crop and conservation tool.
Working paper of the First International Workshop on Sustainable Cocoa Growing,
Panama, March, 1998.
Perfecto, I., Rice, R.A., Greenberg, R., and M.E. van der Voort. 1996. Shade coffee: A
disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience 46: 598-608.
Ponette, A. 2002. Living on the margin: An economic analysis of shade coffee cultiva
-
tion by the Huastec Maya of northeastern Mexico. M.A. Thesis. University of Texas
at Austin, TX.
Power, A.G. 1998. Agroecosystems and biodiversity. Working paper of the First Inter
-
national Workshop on Sustainable Cocoa Growing. Panama, March, 1998.
Ramirez, O.A., Somarriba, E., Ludewigs, T., and P. Ferriera. 2001. Financial returns,
stability, and risk of cacao-plantain-timber agroforestry systems in Central Amer
-
ica. Agroforestry Systems 51: 141-154.
Reitsma, R., Parish, J.D., and W. McLarney. 2001. The role of cacao plantations in
maintaining forest avian diversity in southeastern Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems
53: 185-193.
140 JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
Rice, R.A. and R. Greenberg. 2000. Cacao cultivation and the conservation of biological
diversity. Ambio 29(3): 167-173.
Robles-Diaz de León, L.F. and A. Nava-Tudela. 1998. Playing with Asimina triloba
(pawpaw): A species to consider when enhancing riparian forest buffer systems
with non-timber products. Ecological Modeling: 112: 169-193.
Schelhas, J. 1996. Land use choice and change: Intensification and diversification in
lowland tropics of Costa Rica. Human Organization 55(3): 298-306.
Schroth, G., et al. 2003. Agroforestry and biodiversity conservation in tropical land
-
scapes-a synthesis. Island Press: Washington, DC.
Scott, J. 1976. The moral economy of the peasant: Rebellion and subsistence in South
-
east Asia. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT.
Serrão, E.A. and J.M. Toledo. 1990. The search for sustainability in Amazonian pas
-
tures. In A. Anderson (Ed.). Alternatives to deforestation: Steps toward sustainable
use of the Amazon rain forest. Columbia University Press: New York, NY.
Smithsonian National Zoological Park. 2003. Shade-grown cacao. http://natzoo.si.
edu/ConservationAndScience/MigratoryBirds/Research/Cacao/default.cfm (2 Decem
-
ber 2003).
Somaribba, E. and J. Beer. 1998. Cacao-based agroforestry production systems. Work-
ing paper of the First International Workshop on Sustainable Cocoa Growing, Pan-
ama, March, 1998.
Southgate, D. 1998. Tropical forest conservation: An economic assessment of the al-
ternatives in Latin America. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
UNDP. 2002. Infusing conservation goals into farming practices for more sustainable
small-scale agriculture in the Amistad Biosphere Reserve. GEF Proposal.
Urquhart, D.H. 1955. Cacao. Longmans, Green and Co., London, Great Britain.
White, D., Holmann, F., Fujisaka, S., Reategui K., and C. Lascano. 2001. Will intensi-
fying pasture management in Latin America protect forests–or is it the other way
round? In A. Anglesen and D. Kaimowitz (Eds.). Agricultural technologies and
tropical deforestation. CABI Publishing: New York, NY.
Wishnie, M. and G. Socha. 2002. Watershed management in the Pacific slope buffer
zone of the La Amistad Biosphere Reserve, Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable For-
estry (16): 39-63.
World Cacao Foundation. 2003. Cacao research: Pest and diseases. http://www.acri-
cocoa.org/Research/pestsdisease.htm (2 December 2003).
Young, A.M.. 1994. The chocolate tree: A natural history of cacao. Smithsonian Insti
-
tution Press, Washington, DC.
Young, C.M. 2003. Coffee agroforestry systems for conservation and economic devel
-
opment: A case study of the AMISCONDE initiative in a buffer zone community of
Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 16(1/2): 39-63.
April Connelly and Elizabeth N. Shapiro 141
