Content uploaded by Leonardo Alberto Ríos-Osorio
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Leonardo Alberto Ríos-Osorio on Oct 10, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Social-ecological resilience of small-scale coffee production in the
Porce river basin, Antioquia (Colombia)
Resiliencia socioecológica de la pequeña producción de café de la cuenca del Río
Porce, Antioquia, Colombia
Mónica María Machado-Vargas1, Clara Inés Nicholls-Estrada2, 3, Leonardo Alberto Ríos-Osorio1
ABSTRACT
This research was carried out in the Porce river basin, Antioquia (Colombia) with nine coffee growing families in charge of
conventional systems and in transition to the organic production of coffee. The farms were characterized from an agroecological
perspective, while evaluating the social, economic and technical-productive dimensions. It was detected that the two main threats
faced by small farmers in this area are climatic variability and fluctuations in coffee prices. Using the RIH Risk Index methodology,
a set of indicators was proposed to reflect the vulnerability and the response capacity of these families.
Keywords: coffee agroecosystems, indicators, sustainability, social-ecological resilience
RESUMEN
En esta investigación se llevó a cabo en la cuenca del río Porce, Antioquia, Colombia con nueve familias de pequeños caficultores
convencionales y en transición a la producción orgánica. Los caficultores fueron caracterizados desde la perspectiva agroecológi-
ca, evaluando las dimensiones sociales, económicas y técnico-productivas. Se detectó dos principales amenazas que enfrentan
los pequeños caficultores de esta zona son la variabilidad climática y las fluctuaciones de los precios del café. Utilizando la
metodología de Índice de Riesgo IHR, se propuso un conjunto de indicadores que reflejaran la vulnerabilidad y la capacidad de
respuesta de estas familias.
Palabras clave: agroecosistemas de café, indicadores, sostenibilidad, resiliencia socioecológica.
1 Grupo de i nvestigación Salud y Sostenibilid ad, Escuela de Microbiología, Universid ad de Antioquia, Colombia. Me dellín, Colombia.
2 Permanent lecturer University of California. Berkeley, CA. US.
3 Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology (SOCLA). Colombia.
* Corresponding Author: monica.machado@udea.edu.co
Fecha de recepción: 31 marzo, 2018.
Fecha de aceptación: 21 agosto, 2018.
DOI:
Volumen 36, N° 3. Páginas 141-151
IDESIA (Chile) Septiembre, 2018
Introducción
In Colombia, coffee farming is still a smallholder
production system. The characteristics of this type
of system, together with the low educational level of
coffee growers and their limited food and nancial
security, contribute to the vulnerability of coffee
farming to highly volatile market conditions and the
inuence of external events such as droughts, frosts,
special policies in some countries, among others
(Abaunza et al. 2013). Hence the need to study and
understand the social-ecological problems of this type
of agroecosystems from an agroe cological perspective
with a new systemic approach.
The holistic approach that leads to the
understanding of agr icultural problems in systemic
terms is called agroecology and it studies the social-
ecological relations within agroecosystems as
complex adaptive systems. Therefore, a recent concern
of agroecology is understanding the social-ecological
resilience of agroecosystems. Social-ecological
resilience, from the perspective of adaptive change, is
dened as the capacity of a social-ecological system
to overcome disturbances by nding diverse balance
points and to maintain its essential functions and
characteristics by self-regulating through adaptive
processes. (Holling 2001). Although agroecology
focuses on the design of agroecosystems with high
IDESIA (Chile) Volumen 2018142
resilience to climatic variability, the concept of
adaptive capacity may also include the social and
economic dimensions of social-ecological resilience
(Speelman et al., 2014).
As to agroecosystems, knowing their levels of
social-ecological resilience provides insight into
their dynamics and enables the design of strategies to
face current and probable future scenarios. The
improvement of the social-ecological resilience of a
system and the reduction of its vulnerability allows
it to change from an undesirable state to a desirable
one, and in some cases, can lead to transformability,
understood as the capacity of commun ities to create
new social-ecological systems when environmental,
social-economic or political conditions have been the
cause of transformation of the essential attribute of the
agroecosystem (Altieri 2013).
Therefore, one of the challenges faced by
researchers is the development of a conceptual and
methodological framework to explain the key principles
and mechanisms of the social-ecological resilience
of agroecosystems, as well as the methodologies
to assess and determine their resilience levels. The
essential attribute, namely “the adaptive capacity or
the response capacity of social-ecological systems”,
makes part of one of the proposals to assess social-
ecological resilience levels. It is mentioned in works by
Henao (2013), Montalba et al. (2013), Altier i (2013) and
Gazzano (2015) allowing the construction of a reference
framework. However, this approach is rather based on
ecological concepts and focuses on climatic variability,
and therefore, the need to measure social dimensions is
highlighted. The methodologies necessary to analyze
and measure the levels of social-ecological resilience
are thus being developed.
This research is aimed at assessing the level
of social-ecological resilience of nine coffee
agroecosystems managed by small producers in the
Porce river basin in Antioquia (Colombia) to know
the risk that coffee growers are facing, determine their
vulnerability and response capacity levels, and propose
strategies for agroecological management to increase
the sustainability of vulnerable farmers.
Materials and methods
Description of the study area
This study took place in the northeast of the
department of Antioquia (Colombia) in the Porce river
basin, which comprises the municipalities of Gómez
Plata, Amal , Santa Rosa, Santo Domingo and Yolombó.
This basin extends over 5920 km2, at elevations between
3600 masl and 67m masl (USGS, 2012) and with an
annual rainfall between 20 00 and 3500 mm. Nine coffee
growers were selected in the area, all located within the
1000 and 1800 masl and at an average temperature
between the 18°C and 25°C, in a premontane wet forest
life zone (bmh-PM) in transition to tropical moist, in
accordance with Holdridge’s ecological classication.
The soil in this area was classied as ustoxic dystropept
with low natural fertility, good drainage, and acids
(Jaramillo 1989).
Selection of production systems
Out of forty-eight coffee farmers located in the
ve municipalities recommended by the UMATAS
(Municipality Units of Technical Agricultural
Assistance), nine small coffee production systems were
selected for this study, in response to their high scores
on the assessment of the following inclusion systems:
household composition, implementation of good
agricultura l practices, time allocated to far m labor,
diverse income-generating activities, farm location,
community participation, productive experience,
water availability, loans, use of agrochemicals, suitable
technologies, articulation, commercial production and
conict resolution.
Assessment of risk/social-ecological resilience
The assessment of the risk/social-ecological
resilience levels of nine agroecosystems managed by
small coffee growers had various stages of development.
First, the agroecosystems were characterized
by applying mixed methods in case studies and
using social, economic and technical-productive
indicators, taking an agroecological approach that
allowed the identication of the critical areas of these
agroecosystems (Machado-Vargas et al., 2015).
The indicators to dene the social-ecological
resilience of small coffee growers were established
through a systematic review (Machado-Vargas and
Ríos-Osorio 2016). All things considered, the social,
economic and environmental indicators selected gave
an account of the vulnerability and response capacity
of the phenomena studied. These indicators were
employed to determine the risk/social-ecological
resilience levels of small coffee growers. The basis was
The Holistic Risk Index (HRI) proposed by Barrera
et al., (2007). This methodology allows an approach
143
Social-ecological resilience of small-scale coffee production in the Porce river basin, Antioquia...
in order to measure resilience levels, given that it
establishes the vulnerability of a particular system
and its response capacity, which is a characteristic of
resilience. This methodology contained three main
elements to establish risk: threat, vulnerability and
response capacity (or adaptive capacity), represented in
the equation below:
Weighting of selected indicators
The indicators were selected according to
systematic review (Machado-Vargas and Ríos-Osorio
2016). The measurements were taken between 2013 and
2015, by means of interviews to coffee growers. The
scale implemented to assess each indicator ranged from
1 to 4, 4 being the highest, and 1 the lowest. The process
of weighting involves taking into account the weight
or relevance given to certain indicator, variable or sub
indicator, in the seek for its differential assessment, and it
is dened in response to the impact of the indicator on a
process or phenomenon. In this research, the weighting
was the coefcient by which the indicator value was to
be multiplied. The most relevant indicators to analyze
coffee agroecosystems found in the literature were given
twice the weight (2) in this study.
Two indicators were proposed for threat:
• Water availability by rainfall: Annual rainfall in
the region (Porce river basin) necessary to coffee
growth, measured in millimeters.
• Fluctuations in domestic producer prices per load
of coffee parchment: Domestic price issued by
the FNC (National Federation of Coffee Growers
of Colombia) and which is paid to the producer
per each load of parchment coffee.
For the weighting, the indicator of uctuations in
domestic producer pri ces per load of coffee parchmen t
had twice the weight since variability and coffee price
uctuations cause uncertainty among coffee growers
about future incomes and difculty when deciding the
strategy to be followed to increase crop protability,
according to Abaunza et al. (2013). On the other hand,
in Colombia, the costs of fertilizers have gone up from
10% to 20% in the last years, which has inuenced
the production costs of the coffee load (Abaunza
et al., 2013). In general, when prices decrease and
production costs increase, the capital of coffee
growing families and their consumption capacity may
diminish and lead to deterioration of their livelihood.
The weighting for threat indicators and its assessment
were carried out using this equation:
Where:
A1: water availability by rainfall
A2: uctuations in domestic producer prices per load
of coffee parchment
2: twice the weight
3: sum of weighting factors
Regarding vulnerability three indicators were
selected:
• Coffee productivity: kg/ha/year of dry parchment
coffee, taking the performance of the Castillo
variety as referent, according to the FNC.
• Food self-sufciency in the household: food
produced in the family agricultural unit to supply
dietary needs of the group.
• Level of internal inputs use: low input technologies
and efcient use of resources (nutrient recycling
and use of sub products inside the farm).
The equation to assess the vulnerability of coffee
growers in the study is:
Where:
V1: coffee productivity
V2: Level of food self-sufciency
V3: Level of internal inputs use (Dependence on
external inputs)
2: twice the weight
5: sum of weighting factors
The most relevant indicators - levels of food self-
sufciency and internal input use- were given twice
the weight since recent studies in Central America
(Katlyn et al. 2013; Bacon et al. 2014) found that
food self-sufciency is a factor of vulnerability for
small coffee growers and showed the difculties that
farmers face during certain seasons. Regarding the
dependence on external inputs, some studies have
compared conventional coffee systems with organic
or agroecological ones in Costa Rica and Brazil,
proving that crops where organic fertilizers were
1
= +
2
ℎ = (1 + 22)
3
1
= (1 + 22 + 23)
5
IDESIA (Chile) Volumen 2018144
employed and which were subject to agroecological
practices had higher quality soils, gave better yields,
depended less on external input and could also
reduce production costs, leading to improved living
conditions among the growers (Souza et al., 2012).
Eight indicators were chosen for response
capacity. The following equation displays how the
response capacity and its indicators were assessed and
weighted.
Where:
C1: % of shade trees for coffee plantations
C2: Soil cover
C3: Surrounding landscape diversity
C4: Productive diversity of production systems
(coffee and others)
C5: Autonomy from markets.
C6: Level of training on agroecological knowledge
C7: Level of productive organization for
commercialization
C8: Level of organization aimed at rural community
development
2: twice the weight
12: sum of the weighting factors
For the weighting, the indicators given the highest
values were C1, C4, C6, and C8. Regarding C1 - the
percentage of shade trees for coffee plantations -
recent studies by Cerdán et al. (2012) and Souza et al.
(2012) have proven that the agroforestry systems of
coffee provide ecosystem services, such as biodiversity
preservation, erosion control, increased soil quality,
carbon sequestration, moderation of temperature
extremes, lower evapotranspiration and higher
preservation of soil moisture, just as timber trees may
represent another source of income and fruit trees may
contribute to food security (Cerdán et al. 2012). About
C4 - Productive diversity of production systems (coffee
and others) - some studies (Hauserman 2014) have
revealed that low coffee prices worldwide and high
production costs have caused coffee growers to appeal
to other income activities that entail the diversication
of their production systems and include the sale of other
products (vegetables, fruits, milk, etc.) as strategies
to face vulnerability (Speelman et al. 2014).
When it comes to C6 - level of training on
agroecological knowledge - coffee growers that know
about agroecology and carry out the relevant practices
in their lands are able to obtain higher yields from
their systems, greater environmental benet and
human health (Bacon et al. 2014). Besides decreased
production costs, which generate less dependence on
external inputs, agroecology offers advantages to the
families related to the relative autonomy from input
markets - when local resources are employed instead
of purchased inputs -, from food markets - greater
provision through diverse markets and products for
self-sustenance – and from local or organic markets.
(Nicholls et al. 2016).
Finally, for C8 - level of organization aimed at
rural community development - the coffee growers that
make par t of organizations - fair market and cer tication
- and of social networks have the possibility to become
less vulnerable, improve their food intake habits and
living conditions, as well as face crises collectively
(Bacon et al. 2014).
Results and discussion
Description of the study population
The characteristics of the nine agroecosystems
selected are described in Table 1. The main crops in
these production systems are coffee grown without
shade and under partial shade. These systems
commercialize coffee with the FNC and include
secondary crops and some minor species, as well as
other food security and economic alternatives.
Risk index
The results of the threat, vulnerability, and
response capacity indexes are shown in Figures 1, 2
and 3. For better understandi ng, the vulner ability index
is represented as low or high, since the corresponding
indicators were scored with 1 when very low and
4 when high. In the result of the equation of threat,
vulnerability and response capacity, the standard
established was 1, where values >1 represented
more vulnerability and higher risk, causing social-
ecological resilience to decrease. Values near zero
represented a lower risk and hence, increased social-
ecological resilience (Henao 2013).
For this assessment, it was determined that all
threats are the same for all coffee growers, therefore,
it was considered a constant variable equal to 1.
The average rainfall in the Porce river basin in 2013
came from six meteorological stations (information
supplied by EEPP of Medellin). The lowest rainfall
levels were observed in January, June, July, and
3
=(21 + 2 + 3 + 24 + 5 + 26 + 7 + 28)
12
145
Social-ecological resilience of small-scale coffee production in the Porce river basin, Antioquia...
Table 1. Brief description of the nine farms selected in the Porce river basin, northeast of Antioquia
Agroecosystem Municipality Type of management system Property description
A1 Amal Transition-organic Area: 3.5h¸ Altitude: 1,470 masl
Temperature: 21-22ºC
Main crop: coffee (Castillo and Caturro) association
with “guamo” (Inga spuria), plantain, avocado and
soursop trees.
A2 Amal Transition-organic Area: 0.36h, Altitude: 1,470 masl
Temperature: 21-22ºC
Main crop: coffee (Castillo, Catimoro and Caturro)
association with “guamo” (Inga spuria), plantain,
avocado and soursop trees.
A3 Gómez Plata Conventional Area: 2.6h, Altitude: 1,500 masl
Temperature: 20ºC
Main crop: coffee (Rosario, Castillo and 2,000
variety) association with plantain.
A4 Gómez Plata Conventional Area: 4.0h, Altitude: 1,025 masl
Temperature: 22-24 ºC
Main crop: Sugarcane and coffee (Rosario, Castillo
and 2,000 variety) association: plantain.
A5 Santo
Domingo
Transition-organic Area: 7h, Altitude: 1,200 masl
Temperature: 27ºC
Main crop: Castillo coffee variety without association
A6 Santa Rosa de
Osos
Conventional Area: 5h, Altitude: 1,300 masl
Temperature: 22°C
Main crop: coffee (Castillo and Colombia varieties)
association with plantain and cassava.
A7 Santa Rosa de
Osos
Conventional Area: 2h, Altitude: 1,500 masl
Temperature: 20ºC
Main crop: coffee (Castillo, Caturro and Colombia)
association with plantain and cassava
A8 Yolombó Transition-organic Area: 8h, Altitude: 1,320 masl
Temperature: 22ºC
Main crop: coffee (Pajarito, Castillo and Colombia)
association with plantain, “guamo” (Inga spuria),
“yarumo” (Cecropia peltata) and “nogal cafetero”
(Cordia alliodora)
A9 Yolombó Transition-organic Area: 7h, Altitude: 1,400 masl
Temperature: 22-25ºC
Main crop: coffee (Catimore, Castillo and Colombia)
association with plantain, “guamo” (Inga spuria) and
“nogal cafetero” (Cordia alliodora).
December. It is worth highlighting that the El Niño
phenomenon that hit the region in 2012 lasted until
January-Februar y 2013 (IDEAM 2012). Although
2013 was a normal year according to the IDEAM,
the average rainfall in the Andean region decreased
in a 75% throughout June and July (IDEAM 2013).
The average rainfall in the basin during 2013 was
202mm, far below the average for coffee farming
(1200-1800 mm) (García et al. 2015). The sampling,
which was carried out during June and July 2013,
shows it to be below the optimal level for coffee
farming since these were the months that saw the
lowest rainfall in the region. Besides, the Porce
region is characterized by high evapotranspiration
and solar radiation, which together with an average
temperature between 16 °C and 24 °C that reaches a
maximum of 30 °C, contributes to high vulnerability
for the coffee production in the region.
Regarding the indicator uctuations in domestic
and external producer prices per load of coffee
parchment for coffee growers, the results showed
that in 2013 the prices had a major drop at the end of
the year (Figure 1). Likewise, the earnings decreased
dramatically, which means that the prot for coffee
growers was then far below the balance point – COP
$500000 – translating into loss for coffee families.
By June, the prot per load was COP $ 79888 and it
kept dropping until early 2014. This happens when
the external price of coffee decreases and the coffee
growers cannot afford internal inputs (fertilizers and
pesticides). Earlier in 2014, the drop in prices caused a
national strike and demonstrations carried out by coffee
growers, who demanded a government subsidy by
coffee load sold which allowed to cover the difference
between the grain production price in the market and
the actual costs of production (Pérez et al. 2016).
IDESIA (Chile) Volumen 2018146
Figure 2. Level of vulnerability of nine coffee farmers in the Porce river basin.
Vulnerability
Figure 1. Fluctuation of external and internal prices per load between
2011 and 2014; profits of coffee farmers during the same period. Values
negative was far below the balance point COP $500.000 (peso colombiano)
(Source: FNC).
Vulnerability index
Considering the vulnerability index, the
agroecosystems A1, A3, and A7 were the most vulnerable
(Figure 2). These production systems had low scores on
the level of the indicator of food self-sufciency and level
of internal inputs use. Coffee growers do not supply their
own food and the agricultural inputs employed in their
farms come from external sources since they do not
make use of the crop residues nor the domestic waste
to make their own inputs. Likewise, they do not carry
out recycling practices within the farm, which could lead
them to a decreased coffee production and to become
more vulnerable to production costs. Studies in Central
America have proven that the main vulnerability factors
of small coffee growers are food insecurity (represented
in a period of famine) and the dependence on external
inputs (fertilizers and pesticides), together with long-
term instability of the coffee harvest and price variations
(Katlyn et al. 2013; Bacon et al. 2014).
On the other hand, the agroecosystems A8, A5,
and A6 displayed low vulnerability. These productive
systems had high and low scores at the level of food
self-sufciency given the internal pro duction of their
own food supply. Despite having been “trained” on
agroecological concepts, some of the coffee growers do
not implement agroecological practices such as green
manures, compost preparation, and bio fertilizers,
among others that would allow them to decrease the
consumption of external inputs to a signicant extent.
147
Social-ecological resilience of small-scale coffee production in the Porce river basin, Antioquia...
Response capacity
Figure 3 shows the response capacity of the
agroecosystems assessed, where the coffee without
shade production systems exhibit the lower levels of
response capacity (A3, A6, and A7), except for A4, which
includes sugar cane crops and livestock activities besides
coffee farming. In the same way, these agroecosystems
had lower scores in the indicators of autonomy from
markets, level of productive organization and level
of territorial organization. On the other hand, the
agroecosystems with a high response capacity were A5,
A8, and A9. These showed higher levels of productive
diversity given the secondary crops managed for sale
together with coffee. The indicator autonomy from
markets showed a medium level in the A9, since the
coffee grower sells the product to the coffee growers
committee, but sells his secondary crops directly
to a store where he is a partner. The agroecological
knowledge reached medium levels in the three systems
and the level of production organization reached high
in A5 and medium in A9. The agroecosystems with
high vulnerability and low response capacity will have
to face risk, while the vulnerable agroecosystems with
high response capacity decrease risk, as this study and
others, show (Henao 2013; Montalba et al. 2013).
Figure 3. Level of response capacity of the nine coffee farmers studied in
the Porce river basin.
Assessment of social-ecological resilience
through the Risk Index (HRI)
The HRI values obtained in this study contribute
to the construction of a model to establish levels of
social-ecological resilience. In Table 2 can be observed
that the risk level scale is based on Altieri (2013), Henao
(2013), Mo ntal ba et al. (2013) and Gazzano et al. ( 2015),
but it has been modied according to the objectives of
this research.
Table 2. Relation between HRI values and Risk
level and Social-ecological resilience levels.
HRI Value Risk level Social-ecological resilience level
0 < 1 Very low Very high
1 - 1.5 Low High
1.5 - 2 Medium Medium
> 2 High Low
Source: Altieri (2013); Henao (2013); Montalba et al., (2013)
and Gazzano et al., (2015), modified.
The IRH values and the social-ecological
resilience levels corresponding to each agroecosystem
show two agroecosystems with low resilience, other
two with medium resilience, four with high resilience
and one with a very high level. Altieri (2013) says that
lower risk levels respond to high social-ecological
resilience and higher risk levels to low social-ecological
resilience (Table 3).
The agroecosystems A3 and A7 showed low
levels of social-ecological resilience since they proved
to be highly vulnerable and to have low response
capacity. The weaknesses of these agroecosystems
are their low productive diversity and high dependence
on external inputs, as well as the lack of both food
self-sufciency and autonomy from markets. Also,
their exclusive dependence on the sale of coffee to
the FNC makes them more vulnerable to the threat
of the uctuations in the international market prices.
According to Rahn et al. (2013), it is possible to
mitigate and adapt to the effects of price variation
IDESIA (Chile) Volumen 2018148
by increasing productive diversity. Nicholls et al.
(2016) say that the application of agroecological
principles may help the systems to gain the three types
of autonomies, namely, autonomy from the market -
employment of resources from the surroundings,
instead of their purchase -, autonomy from the food
markets -food self-sufciency- and autonomy from
international markets, together with the redirection
of products to local or organic markets.
The production of coffee without shade and the low
landscape diversity of the surroundings also make the
systems more vulnerable to climatic variability,
since it has been showed that the agroforestry systems
of coffee and the forest parcels within the farms help
to reduce CO2 emissions, increase carbon sequestration
and also protect them against heavy storms (Rahn et
al. 2013). Other studies have highlighted the synergy
between mitigation and adaptation in agroforestry
systems and forest parcels. Because of the reduced
evapotranspiration observed in such systems, the
organic matter in t he soils favors water storage in drought
times and at the same time, benets the life conditions
of coffee growers (Lin 2011). Rainfall variation and the
way it can affect coffee blooming and bean ripening
cycles cause concern. The ensuing production outside
the phenological times of coffee leads to additional
efforts during harvest, higher production costs, and
impacts on the economic viability of coffee cultivation
(Rahn et al. 2013). Hence, there is a need to redesign
monoculture plantations of coffee without shade into
agroforestry systems managed under agroecological
principles.
In the agroecosystems A1 and A4, the level of
social-ecological resilience was medium. However,
their levels of vulnerability were high and their response
capacity allowed them to face the low water availability
during June and July with ground cover practices
and productive diversity in their farms, however, it is
worth mentioning that it is important to think about the
improvement of the systems through redesign aimed at
reducing vulnerability to future events.
The agroecosystems A2, A5, A6 and A9 showed
high levels of social-ecological resilience, while A8
displayed a very high level. These agroecosystems
showed low vulnerability and high response capacity.
Their high and medium self-sufciency, good soil
cover, productive diversity - except for A6 - and level
of productive organization was also noticeable.
The productive diversity of coffee agroecosystems
has positively affected the coffee growing sector in
Colombia, since the workforce coming from homes
of small coffee growers is currently getting involved
in activities other than coffee - with greater stability
and higher remuneration - as it is the case of fruit
and plantain trees, generating employment within the
agricultural sector (CONPES 2013). In turn, this is
related to the fact that there has not been a generational
replacement in the Colombian coffee growing sector
(CONPES 2013); as this study shows, there is a process
of “decreasing peasantry”, or in other words, the youth
do not bear any hope on the eld and migrate to cities
in the search of improving their economic conditions.
On the other hand, it is impor tant to mention that the
level of organization aimed at rural development, with
institutions that support the construction of resilience
from agro-e cological and social perspect ives, is a low
indicator for the nine coffee growers. Although there
are non-governmental institutions in the region such as
the ecological and cultural foundation Penca de Sabila
and the Agroecological Association of Farmers of the
Boquerón region, the coffee growers in this study do
not interact with them. There is neither a consensus
about how coffee systems should be transformed in
the region, nor how agricultural policies should support
or strengthen coffee growers. In fact, the presence and
support of governmental institutions that contribute
to systems becoming more diverse and resilient is
pivotal for building social-ecological resilience. Some
examples in Central America, Mexico and Brazil have
evidenced the role of non-governmental institutions,
with an agroecological approach, in the transformation
of the livelihood of farmers, and even in sustainable
Table 3. HRI values, Risk level and Social-ecological resilience (RS) levels of the nine
coffee-growing families in the study (values higher than 2 represent high vulnerability
and low social-ecological resilience levels.)
Farmers A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9
Risk Index 1.66 1.42 2.28 1.71 1.08 1.42 2.40 0.87 1.02
Risk level Medium Low High Medium Low Low High Very low Low
RS Level Medium High Low Medium High High Low Very high High
149
Social-ecological resilience of small-scale coffee production in the Porce river basin, Antioquia...
rural developments in the region (Altieri and Toledo
2011).
Likewise, it is worth noting that the indicator of
agroecological knowledge reached a medium level
in all agroecosystems, since all coffee growers have
been trained on organic and agroecological agriculture
by public institutions such as CORANTIOQUIA
(Antioquia Regional Autonomous Corporation),
however, as it can be observed in this study, it is not
enough to have agroecological training if knowledge is
not put into practice.
All coffee growers in this research are members
of the FNC and have documents that identify them
as such. The institution helps them to commerciali ze
the coffee grain but it does not motivate them or train
them to produce organic or special k inds of coffee, nor
to build social-ecological resilience. Agroecological
knowledge is important to strengthen coffee growers
and other actors in the territory intellectually, helping to
create empowerment and to solve concrete problems of
the region (Nicholls et al. 2016).
Even if some agroecosystems were found to
be socio-ecologically resilient in this study, it is
important to emphasize that the agroecological
approach considers it possible to have access to crucial
elements such as the resilience of an agroecosystem,
food sovereignty, energy sovereignty -the right of the
rural population to generate energy from sustainable
sources- and technological sovereignty by optimizing
all the processes and resources of the farm (Nicholls
et al. 2016).
A system is socio-ecologically resilient when it
appeals to adaptive strategies that cause the v ulnerability
of the system against possible risks to decrease. Among
the strategies that could be suggested in the ca se of coffee
agroecosystems we can mention the diversication of
production systems and surrounding landscape; the
establishment of agroforestry systems; practices of
resource optimization in the farm; agro-ecological
practices; social organization; the establishment of
social networks; and the promotion of autonomy from
external markets and rural multi-functionality.
The results suggest that there are differences
regarding vulnerability and risk, although not
signicant, between conventional systems and those in
transition to organic production. This is coherent with
other research works that suggest that agroecological
systems are more resilient (Nicholls et al. 2016),
considering resilience as the central element of the
sustainability of a productive system, which allows it
to maintain and preserve its essential attributes over
time, such as soil quality, productivity and improved
livelihood of farmers, among others.
In the end, agroecology fundamentally fosters
adaptive strategies to design more resilient systems,
able to cope with the various hazards related to the
production in the eld such as new pests/diseases,
extreme climatic events, uctuations in the prices of
products in national and international markets, and
economic and social changes that small farmers have
to face. In that sense, agroecology and its various
proposals for the construction of social-ecological
resilience stand as a strategy for building sustainable
livelihoods in rural communities.
Conclusions
In this study, the results showed that less resilient
coffee agroecosystems presented low production
diversity, high dependence on external inputs, lack of
food self-sufciency and lack of autonomy with respect
to markets. In contrast, agroecosystems with higher
levels of resilience showed high and medium food
self- sufciency, productive diversity and good levels
of productive organization. This conrms that the
productive diversity and food self-sufciency of coffee
growers are adaptive strategies that serve the reduction
of vulnerability to uctuations in international coffee
prices.
The low level of territorial organization in all
agroecosystems obtained in this study proved that
participation of farmers in institutions that promote
autonomy, empowerment, and governance within the
community is essential so that farmers can build socio-
ecological resilience. Regarding the level of training in
agroecological knowledge, this research shows that it is
not enough to have training if farmers do not conceive the
management of natural resources a nd sustainabil ity as part
of their daily life. Therefore, it is better to raise awareness
and to qualify, especially through demonstration.
The main threat faced by small farmers is the
uctuation of producer prices, since these are related
to high production costs, and thus to the protability
of the crop. This study found a high dependence of
coffee growers on external inputs, which makes them
more vulnerable to the aspects mentioned above.
It should be considered that the attributes of
the indicators need to be weighted for a greater
sensitivity of the level of risk/resilience. In that sense,
the actors involved at a local level should be the ones
to give weight to the attributes according to their
reality and select the indicators in agreement with
IDESIA (Chile) Volumen 2018150
the communities involved. On the other hand, it is
necessary to ca rry out more eld studies that allow the
further validation and precision of the measurement
scale and instrument of social-ecological resilience,
so that they can be employed in different agricultural
systems.
Abaunza, O. F.; Arango, A.S.; Olaya, M.Y.
2013. Estrategias de inversión para pequeños caficultores
colombianos: Una aproximación con dinámica de sistemas.
Universidad Nacional de Colombia , Comisión para la celebración
del Bicentenar io de la Independencia, Bogot á, Colombia. 126p.
Altieri M.A.; Toledo V.
2011. The agroe cological revolution in Latin Amer ica: rescuing
nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants.
The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38 (3): 587–612.
Altieri, M.A.
2013. Construyendo resi liencia socio-ec ológica en agroecosistema s:
algunas consideraciones conceptuales y metodológicas. In
Agroecología y resiliencia socioecológica: adaptándose al
cambio climático, eds. C. I. Nicholls, L. A. Ríos-Osorio and
M. A. AltieriMedellín- REDAGRES, CYTED y SOCLA.
Colombia. pp. 94-104.
Bacon C. M.; Sundstrom, WA.; Flores, GM.E.; Méndez, V.E.;
Santos, R.; Goldoftas, B.; Dougherty, I.
2014. Explaining the ‘hungry farmer paradox’: Smallholders
and fair t rade cooperatives navigate s easonality and cha nge in
Nicaragua’s corn and coffee markets. Global Environmental
Change, 25: 133-149.
Barrera, J. F.; Herrera, J.; Gómez, J.
2007. Riesgo-vulnerabilidad hacia la Broca de café bajo
un enfoque de manejo holístico. In La broca del café en
América tropical: hallazgos y enfoques, eds. J. F. Barrera,
A. García , V. Domínguez, and Luna C. Sociedad Mexic ana
de Entomología y El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. México.
pp. 131-141.
Cerdán, C. R .; Rebolledo, M.C.; Soto, G.; Rapidel, B.; Sinclairet, F.L.
2012. Local knowledge of impacts of tree cover on ecosystem
services i n smallholder coffee p roduction systems. Agricultural
Systems, 110: 119-13 0.
CONPES.
2013. Una estrategia para la competitividad de la Caficultura
Colombiana- Comi sión de Expertos. Consejo Naciona l de Política
Económica y Social República de Colombia, Departamento
Nacional de Planeación, Bogotá, Colombia. 33p.
García, L. J. C.; Posada, S.H.E.; Salazar, V.F.A.
2015. Factores de producción que influyen en la respuesta
de genotipos de Coffe arabica L. bajo diversas condiciones
ambientales de Colombia. Cenicafé 66, (2): 30-57.
Gazzano, I.; Altieri, M.; Achkar, M.; Burgueño, J.
2015. Holistic Risk Index: A case st udy of cattle producers in t he
protected área of Farropos Estuaries-Uruguay. Agroecology
and Sustainable Food Systems, 39 (2): 209-223.
Hauserman, H.
2014. Maintain ing the Coffee Canopy: Under standing Cha nge and
Continuity i n Central Veracruz. Hu man. Ecology, 42:381-394.
Henao, A.
2013. Propuesta metodológica de medición de la resiliencia
agroecológica en sistemas socio-ecológicos: un estudio de
caso en los Andes C olombianos. Agroecología, 8 (1): 85-91.
Holling C.
2001. Understanding t he complexity of economic, ecological
and social systems. Ecosystems, 4: 390-405.
Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales.
2012. Boletín infor mativo sobre el monitoreo de los Fenómenos
de variabilidad climática “El Niño” y “La Niña”. Boletín
No. 50. IDEAM. 5p.
Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales.
2013. Boletín informat ivo sobre el monitoreo de los Fenóme nos
de variabilidad climática “El Niño” y “La Niña”. Boletín
No. 53. IDEAM. 4p.
Jaramillo, D.
1989. Estudio general de suelos, erosión y uso potencial
agropecuario para los proyectos hidroeléctricos Porce
II y Porce III. Empresas Públicas de Medellín, Colombia.
99p.
Katlyn S. M.; Mendez, V.E., Olson, M.B.
2013. ‘Los meses flacos’: seasonal food insecurity in a
Salvadoran organic coffee cooperative. The Journal of
Peasant Studies, 40 (2): 457-480.
Lin, B.
2011. Resilience in agr iculture through crop d iversification:
Adaptive management for envi ronmental change. BioScience,
61 (3): 183-193.
Machado-Vargas, M.; Nichoolls, C.I.; Márquez, S.M.; Turbay, S.
2015. Caracterización de nueve agroecosistemas de café
de la cuenca del río Porce, Colombia, con un enfoque
agroecológico. Revista IDESIA, 33 (1): 69-83.
Machado-Vargas, M.; Ríos-Osorio, L.A.
2016. Sostenibilidad en agroecosistemas de café de pequeños
agricultor es: revisión sistemática. Revista IDESIA, 34 (2): 3-11.
Montalba, R.; García, M.; Altieri, M.; Fonseca, F.; Vieli, L.
2013. Utilización del Índice Holístico de Riesgo (IHR) como
medida de re siliencia sociecológica a condicione s de escasez
de recurso s hídricos. Aplicación a comu nidades campesi nas e
indígenas de la A raucanía, Chi le. Agroecología, 8 (1): 63-70.
Nicholls, C. I.; Altieri, M.; Vazquez, L.
2016. Agroecology: Principles for the Conversion and
Redesign of Farming Systems. J. Ecosys Ecograph S5:
010. doi:10.4172/2157-7625.S5- 010, 2-8.
Peréz, A.; Rosique, G.J.; Turbay, S;Machado-Vargas, M.
2016. Estudio de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional de
unidades campesinas productoras de café en rediseño
agroecológico (cuenca del río Porce, Antioquia).
Agroalimentaria, 22 (42): 171-189.
Literature cited
151
Social-ecological resilience of small-scale coffee production in the Porce river basin, Antioquia...
Rahn, E .; Läderach, P.; Baca, M.; Cressy, C.; Schroth, G.; Malin,
D.; Rikxoort van, H.; Shriver, J.
2013. Climate change adaptation, mitigation and livelihood
benefits in coffee production: where are the synergies?
Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change, 19: 1119-1137.
Souza, H. N. de; Goe de, R. G. M. de; Brussaard, L.; Ca rdoso, I.M.;
Duar te, E.M.G.; Fernandes, R.B.A.; Gomes, L .C.; Pulleman, L.L .
2012. Protective shade, tree diversity and soil properties in
coffee agroforest ry systems in the Atlant ic Rainforest biome.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 146: 179-196.
Speelman E.N.; Groot, J. C. J.; García-Barrios, L.E.; Kok, K.;
Keulen van, M., Tittonell, P.
2014. From coping to adaptation to ec onomic and institutiona l
change –Trajectories of change in land-use management
and socialorganizat ion in a Biosphere Reser ve communit y,
Mexico. Land Use Policy, 41: 31-44.