Socioeconomic Benefits Muleta et al 39

ORGANIC MATERIAL

SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS OF SHADE TREES IN

COFFEE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS IN BONGA AND YAYU-
HURUMU DISTRICTS, SOUTHWESTERN ETHIOPIA:
FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS

Diriba Muleta*, Fassil Assefa**, Sileshi Nemomissa** and Ulf

Granhall***

ABSTRACT

Coffea Arabica is extensively cultivated by households under a variety of shade trees in

southwestern Ethiopia. The main purpose of this study was to assess the overall farmers'
perception on the benefits of shade trees in coffee production systems in southwestern
part of Ethiopia. Semistructured questionnaires were administered to 100 smallscale
coffee farmers. In-depth interviews were also made with 10 selected farmers from Bonga
and Yayu-Hurumu districts study sites. Farmers’ perspectives were mostly comparable
to the documented scientific facts with some noticeable differences. Among shade tree
species legumes such as Albizia gummifera, Acacia abyssinica, Millettia ferruginea were
highly favoured in that order. A significant number of the study subjects expressed an
interest in the further propagation of the seedlings of the most favoured shade trees such
as Albizia gummifera (95%), Acacia abyssinica (65%), Millettia ferruginea (55%) and
Cordia africana (50%). The respondents strongly stated the serious problems associated
with growing coffee without shade tree plants that included stunted growth which
ultimately resulted in coffee yield reduction (97.3%) and quick wilting of coffee plants
(93.6%). The majority of the respondents hassled other benefits of coffee shade trees
such as firewood (96.4%) and honey production (92.7%) followed by improvement of
soil fertility (79.1%) and reduction of soil erosion (78.2%). A significant number of
farmers (39.1%) expressed their long experience of retaining legumes like Desmodium
species in their coffee plots during weeding or clearing. Higher return values and better
coffee attributes were generally assigned to shaded coffee systems particularly those
dominated by tree legumes. The respondents had excellent knowledge on socioeconomic
benefits of shade tree species. However, organic training is believed to minimize
knowledge gaps on certain complex and/or unobservable ecosystem processes in the
shaded coffee systems to boost the confidence of the farmers in supplying green
commodities of premium prices on sustainable basis.
Keywords: intercropping; leguminous plants; organic farming; shaded coffee systems
______________________________________________________________________
*Department of Biology, Jimma University, P.O. Box 378, Jimma, Ethiopia
**Department of Biology, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box 3434, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia
***Department of Microbiology, SLU, Box 7025, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden
E-mail: dmuleta@gmail.com
Ethio. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. No. 1 September 2011 40

INTRODUCTION

Coffea arabica L. belongs to family advantages outweigh the felt negative

Rubiaceae. This species is predominantly impacts (Beer, 1987; Beer et al., 1998;
self-pollinating (autogamous) and the only Muschler, 2001). The favorable
natural allotetraploid (2n=4x=44) in the considerations for shade trees encompass
genus Coffea. It is a perennial woody shrub temperature regulation, suppression of the
with a dimorphic growth characteristic major weeds of coffee, cheaper production,
which consists of vertical (orthotropic) and reduction of hail damage and better growth
horizontal (plagiotropic) branches. Arabica under high altitude conditions (Beer et al.,
coffee is the most important source of 1998), as well as maintenance of
foreign currency for many developing biodiversity (Perfecto et al., 1996). The
countries. Seventy per cent of the world’s roles of shade trees in contribution of
coffee is contributed by smallholders in massive organic matter and lessening of
developing countries who grow coffee soil erosion are also well addressed (Beer
mostly on farms of less than 5 hectares and et al., 1998).
intercrop coffee with other crops (Mohan
and Love, 2004). The agriculture-based Furthermore, most common coffee shade
Ethiopian economy is highly dependent on trees are also acknowledged for their good
Coffea arabica (Gole et.al., 2002). It plays capacity in formation of symbiotic
a fundamental role both in the cultural and associations with certain soil bacteria,
socio-economic life of the nation. rhizobia (Grossman et al., 2006) and
Traditional shaded coffee is cultivated arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Wubet et al.,
principally by smallscale growers (95%) 2003) all of which play a pivotal role in
under rain-fed and low input production improvement of soil fertility and boosting
systems making the shaded Ethiopian of yields of associated crops. Additionally,
coffee production naturally ‘organic’ (Petit, Muschler (2001) has verified the main
2007). The present investigation put special benefits obtained from shading in terms of
emphasis on this type of production system improved coffee attributes compared to
that protects the environment and maintains unshaded ones.
biodiversity due to shade tree species.
Farmers in southwestern part of Ethiopia,
Cultivation of coffee involves planting of have life long experience in growing coffee
young coffee plants in the understorey of a under various types of shade trees (FAO,
remaining native tree cover which 1968) which comply with the
principally includes Acacia abyssinica, contemporary rekindled interest in
Albizia gummifera, Cordia africana, organically grown coffee products. In
Croton macrostachyus, Ficus sur, F. vasta, addition, shaded systems promote viable
Millettia ferruginea and others (FAO, and sustainable economic alternatives
1968; Taye, 2001). Further, in where the farmers can find possibilities for
southwestern Ethiopia, natural forests are diversifications. Apart from contribution to
also common where Coffea arabica grows understorey coffee bushes, farmers derive
as understorey plant (Gole, 2003). incalculable benefits from shade trees
(FAO, 1968; Beer et al., 1998; Hailu et al.,
The effect of shade trees on Arabica coffee 2000; Peeters et al., 2003). Shade tree
production has been debated for a long species such as Croton macrostachyus
time and the general belief is that the (Giday, 2001), Albizia gummifera and
Socioeconomic Benefits Muleta et al 41

Syzygium guineense (Geyid et al., 2005) 08o28’ North latitude and 35o50’-36o45’
play a vital role in traditional medicine to East longitude. The altitudes in the study
combat various infectious diseases. sites range from 1376-1890 masl. Average
Another added advantage of shaded coffee diurnal and seasonal fluctuations in
systems is the increasing demand and temperature range from 14 to 30°C and
willingness of consumers to pay premium relative humidity ranges from 43 to 85%.
prices for ecological and fair coffee Heavy rainfalls (1000 to 2000 mm) are
(Wikström, 2003; van der Vossen, 2005). very frequent. Rain falls mainly from June
Smallholder coffee producers obtain to August and its distribution is bimodal
supplementary advantages from (Gemechu, 1977). The size of the
diversification/intercropping farming investigated coffee systems ranged from 0-
method to promote the household economy 22 ha (forest coffee) and 0-4.5 ha
(Albetin and Nair 2004; Bentley et al., 200; (nonforest coffee). Most farmers possess
Reddy et al. 2004). The authors strongly both forest and nonforest coffee plots.
stressed the multifaceted advantage of Some farmers had either forest or nonforest
intercropping compared to planting a single coffee plots only. Nonforest coffee includes
crop. Furthermore, in coffee forests, agroforestry (either on fields or on
Philpott (2005) and Philpott et al. (2006) farmlands) and unshaded coffee systems.
have demonstrated the remarkable Coffee plants on non-cultivated plots are
importance of ants (Azteca species) in considered as coffee plants on fields but
coffee production systems. those coffee plants under shade that were
either intercropped or where lands were
In Ethiopia, information on socioeconomic tilled outside the canopy are considered as
benefits of shade tree species is scanty. coffee plants on farmlands. Normally the
Hailu et al (2000), however, have reported latter two are found close to homestead
a wide array of advantages why farmers areas. Herbarium specimens were collected
retain Millettia trees on their farmlands. for coffee shade trees as well as other
This study was conducted to 1) identify the plants species and identified accordingly
most important shade tree species from (Hedberg et al., 2003).
farmers’ point of view, 2) document
farmers traditional knowledge on Sites and farmers selection for the study
socioeconomic benefits of various shade The authors collected the required
trees in coffee production systems, 3) information through 37 closed and open
document the uses of some legumes ended questions and semi-structured
intercropping and ants in coffee forests. interviews in two coffee producing
communities, Kaya Kella Kebele, Bonga
MATERIALS AND METHODS and Elemmo Kebele, Yayu Hurumu
Description of the study sites districts. Kebele refers to the smallest
The study was executed from June to administrative cell embracing the average
December 2007 in Southwestern Ethiopia. 350-500 household heads according to the
The study sites included Bonga district administration policy of the country. Native
(Kaffa Zone) in Southern Nations, languages in the two study areas are
Nationalities and Peoples’ Regional State respectively the Kaffa and Oromo.
(S.N.N.P.R.S) and Yayu district (Illubabor Interviews in Kaffa language were
Zone) in Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. conducted using a translator. The study
The study sites are located between 07o28’- sites were chosen on the basis of 1)
presence of natural coffee forests and
Ethio. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. No. 1 September 2011 42

agroforestry based coffee production prompt pilot study technique. An effort was
systems and 2) accessibility of the focal made to include women respondents in the
sites to transportation. study, but the fact that most respondents
were men was an obvious constraint which
Respondents were selected on the basis of is attributed to the local tradition of land
the following major parameters: 1) long ownership which was mostly handled by
experience and knowledge of growing male respondents.
coffee under key shade tree species (at least
five years), 2) size of plot (at least 0.5 ha of DATA ANALYSIS
either natural coffee forest or shade grown All data were analyzed using SPSS Version
non-forest coffee), 3) the person 13. Responses involving open ended
interviewed falls into the category of either questions were classed into categories and
male or female household head and 4) analyzed accordingly using the same
willingness to participate in the statistical package.
investigation. To get material information
for the set criteria, the authors worked with RESULTS
village leaders and the local development Respondents’ demographic and basic
agents. farm data
Of the one hundred ten respondents
Together with village leaders and considered in this study, only 8.2% were
development agents, ten (five from each females. The ages of household heads
site) household heads who had rich ranged from 22-80 years (data not shown).
experience on managing both forest and The respondents education levels were:
nonforest coffee were chosen among the illiterate, 27 (24.5%), those with adult
110 for detailed interviews. During the 60- education, 17 (15.5%), grade 1-6, 44
150 minutes interviews consisting of a (40%), grade 7-8, 12 (10.9%) and those
basic framework of questions, farmers who attended their senior secondary school,
freely discussed the reasons why they grow 10 (9.1%).
coffee plants under shade and overall
prevailing situations in shaded coffee Ninety seven percent of the farmers owned
systems. In addition, responses were forest coffee (data not shown). The main
collected from 100 (50 from each site) income sources for the household heads
farmers using questionnaires. In case, a included coffee (29.1 %), noncoffee crops
particular farmer was unable to read and (1.8%) or both (69.1%). Total annual
write (illiterates and those who did not farmers’ net income ranged from 110-7000
attend at least junior secondary school), Ethiopian Birr (1 USD=16.56340 EthB).
their responses were carefully marked and Total annual income and ages of household
recorded by the authors and research heads were not correlated (r=-0.036,
assistants in the respective study areas. The p=0.704) and neither to respondents’
collected information included 1) education level (r=0.036, p=0.706) nor plot
demographic and basic farm data, 2) shade size for non-forest coffee (r=0.16,
trees and overall uses, 3) shade p=0.095). However, total annual income
trees/legume herb and soil fertility, 4) was positively correlated to plot size for
shade tree management, 5) intercropping, forest coffee (r=0.639, p=0.001). Other
6) possible importance of ants (Azteca noncoffee crops cultivated were mainly
species) and 7) other uses of coffee. cereal crops (77.3%). For all respondents,
Doubtful questions were corrected using
Socioeconomic Benefits Muleta et al 43

labour force for coffee production was

supplied by respective family members.

Shade trees and farmers’ perspectives

Over seventy four percent of the
interviewees had more than 10 years of
experience in growing coffee under shade
trees. Most respondents (70.9%) mentioned
that the shade trees were older than 30
years (Table 1).

Table 1. Age of shade trees and respondents’ age category, southwestern Ethiopia

Age of shade tree Respondents’ age category Total

20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80
Less than 15 years 2 - 2 3 - - 7
Between 20-30 years 7 10 2 2 4 - 25
Above 30 years 17 19 21 9 5 7 78
Total 26 29 25 14 9 7 110

Over 86% of the farmers preferred 50% of cited by interviewed farmers to be included
light penetration for maximum harvest. in their plots (Table 2). None of the farmers
None of the farmers preferred either at Bonga and Yayu study sites stated A.
complete full shade or 100% light grandibracteata or E. brucei as common
penetration. The majority of the farmers shade tree plants (data not shown). Most
(95%) mentioned dry and sunny seasons as farmers cited M. ferruginea, C. africana
critical times of shading coffee plants (data and C. macrostachyus at Bonga district but
not shown). The interviewees cited the A. abyssinica at Yayu (data not shown).
requirement of shading at all Farmers’ overall perception of these four
developmental stages of coffee plants with shade tree species was highly impressive.
different frequencies, i.e., at seedling stage Some of the principal reasons were 1)
(91.8%), at sapling (76.4%), at adult possession of thin and easily decomposable
(70%), at flowering (74.5%) and at fruiting leaves by the first three (72.7%), 2) most of
(74.5%). the time they are green (68.2%), possession
of several branches (66.4%), 3) they do not
Among common shade tree species, A. cause stunted coffee growth (66.4%), 4)
gummifera (98.2%), A. abyssinica (64.5%), there is better coffee yield under them
M. ferruginea (52.7%), V. amygdalina (66.4%) and 5) they are not too tall
(49.2%) and C. africana (45.5%) were (56.4%).
Ethio. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. No. 1 September 2011 44

Table 2. Some tree species commonly used for shading coffee plants in farmers’
fields/farms /forests, Southwestern Ethiopia

Scientific name Family Total frequency (%)

Albizia gummifera Fabaceae 108 (98.2)
Acacia abyssinica Fabaceae 71 (64.5)
Millettia ferruginea Fabaceae 58 (52.7)
Vernonia amygdalina Asteraceae 54 (49.2)
Cordia africana Boraginaceae 50 (45.5)
Sesbania sesban Fabaceae 40 (36.4)
Albizia grandibracteata Fabaceae 36 (32.7)
Croton macrostachyus Euphorbiaceae 30 (27.3)
Erythrina brucei Fabaceae 25 (22.7)
Ficus vasta Moraceae 22 (20.3)
Schefflera abyssinica Araiaceae 11 (10.0)

The majority of the farmers expressed an for wide spread usage in their farms/fields
interest in the further propagation of the because of their good features as shade tree
seedlings of A. gummifera, A. abyssinica, species (Fig. 1).
M. ferruginea and C. africana in that order

100
90
80
Percentage responses

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cm
Ca

Eb

Pa

Pr
Sa
Mf

Ow
Ag

Aa

Va

Ar

Shade tree species

Figure 1. Responses of farmers for the best

[[[ Erythrina brucei, Ar= Albizia
coffee shade tree species propagation for grandibracteata, Cm= Croton
wide spread usage in their respective plots, macrostachyus, Ow= Olea welwitchii, Sa=
Southwestern Ethiopia. Abbreviations: Ag= Schefflera abyssinica, Pa= Prunus africana
Albizia gummifera, Aa= Acacia abyssinica, and Pr= Phoenix reclinata.
Mf= Millettia ferruginea, Ca= Cordia
africana, Va= Vernonia amygdalina, Eb=
Socioeconomic Benefits Muleta et al 45

Characteristic features of shade and sun shaded coffee systems (Table 3). Over
grown coffee are presented in Table 3. All eighty five percent of the respondents
interviewed farmers (100%) stated that mentioned prematurity and demand of
higher coffee yield could be obtained when more management as typical features for
shaded. The majority of the respondents sun grown coffee plants (Table 3).
(69.1-99.1%) assigned better qualities to

Table 3. Salient features of shade and sun grown coffee mentioned by the household heads,
Southwestern Ethiopia
Characteristics Frequency (%)
Shade grown Sungrown
Higher coffee yield 110 (100) 0 (0)
Bigger and heavier coffee beans 109 (99.1) 1 (0.9)
More coffee stems 108 (98.2) 2 (1.8)
Coffee beans with better taste 103 (93.6) 7 (6.4)
Better looking green and roasted coffee beans 101 (91.8) 9 (8.2)
Coffee stems with more branches 100 (90.9) 10 (9.1)
Stronger coffee stems 76 (69.1) 34 (30.9)
Demanding more management 16 (14.5) 94 (85.5)
Early maturity of coffee beans 16 (14.5) 94 (85.5)

Growing coffee plants without shade Other benefits of shade tree species
The farmers strongly stated serious The majority of the respondents stressed
problems associated with growing coffee other principal benefits of coffee shade
without shade tree plants, i.e., 1) stunted trees, e.g., firewood (96.4%) and honey
growth which ultimately resulted in coffee production (92.7%) apart from shade
yield reduction (97.3%), 2) quick wilting of provision to coffee plants (Table 4). More
coffee plants (93.6%), 3) bean size than eighty six percent of the respondents
reduction (89.1%), 4) increases in weed cited that coffee plants get benefits from
problems (85.5%), 5) increase in shade trees for nutrient acquisition and soil
unfavorable effect of heavy rain and hail moisture improvement (79.1%) which was
damage which pose withering/dropping of mainly linked to leaves of shade trees (data
flowers (80.9%), 6) increases in frost not shown). Many farmers (69.1%)
damage (70.9%), 7) increases in soil accordingly expressed the presence of soil
erosion (52.7%), 8) exhaustion of soil fertility difference between shaded and
fertility due to lack of fertilizers “shade tree unshaded coffee plants where they strongly
leaves“ (1.8%) and 9) coffee leaves go favored the former production system.
easily yellow/red (1.8%)(data not shown).
Ethio. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. No. 1 September 2011 46

Table 4. Other socioeconomic benefits of coffee shade tree species alluded by the
respondents, Southwestern Ethiopia

Mentioned benefits Responses (%)

Yes No
Firewood 106 (96.4) 4 (3.6)
Honey production/beekeeping 102 (92.7) 8 (7.3)
Improvement of soil fertility 87 (79.1) 23 (20.9)
Reduction of soil erosion 86 (78.2) 24 (21.8)
Reduction of hail/frost damage 65 (59.1) 45 (40.9)
Medicinal value 63 (57.3) 47 (42.7)
Timber production 63 (57.3) 47 (42.7)
Biodiversity conservation 62 (56.4) 48 (43.6)
Reduction of agrochemical inputs 55 (50) 55 (50)

Other benefits of coffee plants stated the main merits of retaining

Many farmers stated the benefits they Desmodium to include soil fertility
obtain from coffee plants other than for improvement (30%), weed reduction
drinking and main income source which (28.2%) and discouraging of coffee
embodied firewood (85.5%), parasitic worms (23.6%).
construction/fence (75.5%) and medicinal
value (72.7%). Almost all the respondents expressed their
rich experience of adding different
Use of legumes for soil fertility decaying organic materials and dropped
About 39.1% farmers expressed their long leaves beneath coffee plants. Many
experience of retaining legumes like respondents stated that the best sources of
Desmodium species in their coffee plots this experience were mainly own practice
during weeding or clearing. There was a (68.2%) and elderly farmers (60.9%; Fig.
significant difference (p< 0.05) between 2). Almost all farmers also underscored the
study sites and Desmodium species importance of researchers (local and
retention. For instance, over twenty three foreign) and workshop/seminar in
percent of farmers at Bonga site but only disseminating information on use of adding
sixteen percent of Yayu district farmers decaying organic materials under the coffee
retained Desmodium. The respondents plants (Fig. 2).

70
60
P e rc e n ta g e re s p o n s e s

50
40
30
20
10
0
OE EF DA WS RS
Sources of experience
Socioeconomic Benefits Muleta et al 47

Figure 2. Sources of experience in adding plants. The cited principal reasons included
different decaying organic materials and improper light penetration (85.3%) and soil
dropped leaves beneath coffee plants, fertility problems (88.9%) because they
Southwestern Ethiopia. Abbreviations: strongly felt that leaves which regularly
OE= own experience, EF= elderly farmers, drop from shade trees are the best source of
DA=development agents, WS= fertilizer for coffee plants. Some (18.2%)
workshop/seminar, and RS= researchers. also prune the shade trees that damped
under coffee plants.
The majority of the interviewees (98.2%)
preferred thin and small leaves in Over seventy four percent of the farmers
decreasing the intensity of soil erosion. The had no experience of applying
same percent of respondents stated that agrochemicals including herb- and
broader and larger leaves increase soil pesticides. The interviewed household
erosion. The farmers mentioned different heads stated some basic reasons for not
means of preventing soil erosion from their applying agrochemicals which embodied 1)
coffee plants at sloppy places. These lack of previous experience (30%), 2)
embodied planting trees, Musa paradisica, coffee plants get essential nutrients from
Ensete ventricosum and grasses (22.7%), shade trees (dropping of leaves, 18.2%) and
making terraces (10%) or using both 3) economic reasons (4.5%).
methods (67.3%).
Intercropping
Coffee and shade tree management The commonly intercropped spice was
Most farmers (76.4%) mentioned the Afromomum korrorimum (75.5%), Piper
replacement of shade trees when the capense (46.4%) and Zingiber officinale
original is cut or dead. The interviewees (6.4%). The farmers also incorporated
used to replace the original type species other cereal crops like Zea mays (23.6%),
(68.2%). The respondents (74.5%) chose Sorghum bicolor (6.4%) and legumes such
the species that replaces the original one on as Vicia faba (16.4%) and Phaseolus spp.
the basis of its suitability for coffee plants (16.4%). The intercropping with Musa
(fast growth, longevity, possession of thin paradisica (26.4%) was either because it
and small leaves and the like). Most acts itself as a shade ’tree’ (Fig. 3a) or done
farmers (89.1%) were not comfortable under taller shade trees (Fig. 3b) around
about choosing evergreen trees for shading homestead areas.
coffee
a

Banana

Coffee bushes
Ethio. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. No. 1 September 2011 48

Banana
C o ffe e b u s h e s

Figure 3. Coffee intercropping practices, DISCUSSION

Southwestern Ethiopia (a) intercropping of The interviewed farmers had long
banana with coffee plants in the absence of experience in growing coffee bushes under
shade tree species, (b) intercropping of shade tree species. Their overall impression
banana with coffee bushes under the shade of shade was quite positive and they
tree species, Ficus sur. Note 1) these considered shade as a prerequisite for
systems of cultivation are common around coffee production systems. The majority of
homestead areas. The purpose is the farmers preferred moderate shade
multidirectional, i.e., shade and fruit conditions which is also considered
provision as well as soil erosion control. 2) favourable for good coffee growth since
bananas are planted on direction of erosion photosynthetic rates of coffee are generally
on sloppy areas for the latter use due to its at a maximum at intermediate shade levels
good root system for the purpose. in the tropics (Beer et al., 1998). Similar to
coffee growers in Costa Rica (Albertin and
Roles of ants (Azteca species) in coffee Nair, 2004), the respondents felt that
forests moderate light is necessary for fruit filling
The notable importance of ants (Azteca and discouraging some coffee diseases but
species) in natural coffee forests was full light penetration poses coffee wilting.
mentioned by more than half of the The farmers strongly stressed the necessity
interviewed farmers (69.1%), in controlling of shading coffee bushes (at all
red coffee berries boring insects and other developmental stages) in general and
pests (67.3%) added to control of young seedlings, in particular, especially during
pigs, monkeys, apes and snakes (25.5%). dry and sunny seasons (December to
April). The principal reasons mentioned
included protection from high heat, strong
sun and wind all of which cause
evaporation
Socioeconomic Benefits Muleta et al 49

of accumulated water (Beer, 1987; Beer et Albertin and Nair, 2004), rapid
al., 1998). decomposition of legumes (Grossman,
2003), ability of leaf litter to control soil
The species diversity of common coffee temperature (Grossman et al., 2006),
shade trees (n=11) repeatedly mentioned by guarding against soil moisture loss and
the interviewed farmers seemed very few erosion and better growth and yield of
as compared to the previous studies crops under them (Beer, 1998). In Mexico,
conducted in traditional coffee cultivation studies revealed that an organic farmer
in Costa Rica (Albertin and Nair, 2004). In claims that Inga shade improves coffee
this investigation, farmers gave special plant health (Grossman, 2003). Similarly,
emphasis to those shade trees which they in Costa Rica, 96% of farmers commonly
mainly retained on their fields/farmlands mentioned legume shade trees like Inga
for their favourable characteristics and species as unsurpassed shade trees to
other uses. include in their coffee fields (Albertin and
Nair, 2004).
The remarkable differences between the
two study areas with respect to some Native leguminous tree species are often
(legumes) shade tree species frequencies used to supply all or a portion of the
are attributed to their abundance and Nitrogen needs of coffee bushes (Soto-
distribution in those particular localities Pinto et al., 2000). The use of nitrogen-
(data not shown) as observed elsewhere fixing trees for improvement of associated
(Babbar and Zak, 1995 ) because crop production is fundamental to low-
leguminous tree species used to shade input sustainable agricultural practices in
coffee vary by region. For instance, M. most developing countries (Sprent and
ferruginea and A. abyssinica are highly Parsons, 2000). Contribution of
important shade tree species to Bonga and biologically fixed Nitrogen, specifically to
Yayu district farmers, respectively. coffee systems by legumes in different
Muschler (2001) reported Erythrina coffee growing countries has been well
poeppigiana as a suitable tree to provide reviewed (Grossman et al., 2006 and
shade and mulch to coffee plantations in references therein). Nevertheless, none of
the Atlantic Zone of Costa Rica. the interviewed farmers cited the role of
microorganisms (rhizobia, decomposers
Most interviewed farmers cited A. and others) in maintenance of soil fertility.
gummifera, A. abyssinica, M. ferruginea, Further, the interviewees did not have a
V. amygdalina and C. africana in that order clear idea about nitrogen-fixing and non-
as the best coffee shade tree species to have nitrogen-fixing shade trees. Farmers
in their plots. The first three are commonly preferred the leguminous shade trees
mentioned by all farmers as “father of mostly from their day to day observations,
coffee”. Similarly, leguminous plants are i.e., their suitability for coffee production
the most preferred trees among coffee purposes. The respondents mostly
growers across the globe (Beer, 1987; associated the helpful roles of coffee shade
Grossman, 2003; Albertin and Nair, 2004). trees with their leaves for incorporation of
Some of the characteristics considered quality organic matter and shade provision
favorable by farmers for the legume shade as well as roots for storing water. The
tree species were increase in soil organic stated favourable features of leguminous
matter (Beer, 1998; Grossman, 2003; shade trees such as A. gummifera, A.
abyssinica and M. ferruginea made them
Ethio. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. No. 1 September 2011 50

the top excellent candidate for further (Beer, 1987; Faminow and Rodriguez,
propagation on large scale. Further, the 2001). Thus these latter ideas could
respondents strongly harassed the strongly support the farmers’ critical
propagation of V. amygdalina and C. observation of more annual harvests under
africana for shade provision and other shaded systems as compared to
uses. For instance, C. africana is one of the unpredictable yields of sun grown systems.
known top woody plants for quality timber
extraction in the country. Some of the characteristic features
mentioned for shade grown coffee were
Farmers considered tree height as one of found also in the literature (Muschler,
the characteristics favorable for shading 2001). The majority of the farmers (Table
coffee bushes (cf. Albertin and Nair, 2004). 3) mentioned coffee stems with more
The interviewees did not favor highly number of branches (90.9%) and stronger
emergent (too tall) shade trees particularly coffee stems (69.1%) as some of the salient
those with few branches, because the features of shaded coffee systems.
shading effect is being reduced and coffee Nevertheless, Ricci et al. (2006) have
bushes could be exposed to strong sun indicated that shading reduces the number
during extended dry season. The other of branches, plant diameter and nodes
unfavourable feature of too tall shade trees (farmers did not mention). This observation
mentioned was damage caused to coffee could be associated with differences in
plants when a branch or twigs break from analytical observation between the
shade trees by monkeys and other arboreal scientific community and farmers. Ninety
animals as well as high speed wind four percent of the interviewees (Table 3)
especially during coffee flowering and assigned demand for more management
fruiting stages. Beer (1987) strongly and prematurity of coffee beans to
stressed the damage caused to coffee plants unshaded coffee plants. The requirement of
by branch/stem breakage. greater inputs of materials and labour by
unshaded coffee system are known main
All the interviewed farmers stated that disadvantages (Faminow and Rodriguez,
higher coffee yield could be obtained when 2001).
shaded. This observation contradicts with
what has been stated in the literature (Beer, The majority of the farmers frequently
et al., 1998; Faminow and Rodriguez, expressed the far reaching problems of
2001), i.e., unshaded systems produce growing coffee without shade by
greater coffee yields. However, these emphasizing stunted growth (97.3%) and
authors did not deny the typical feature of short life span (93.6%) of coffee bushes as
unshaded coffee system that suffers from major disadvantages. Albertin and Nair
diminishing returns as the coffee plants (2004) have also mentioned that coffee
grow older. Additionally, they indicated plants have a shorter life span when grown
that coffee plants in shaded systems enjoy under full sun, and a lack of trees would
greater longevity and even more annual result in increased soil erosion. Several of
yields unlike high and low yield years the problems that respondents stated with
under full sun grown coffee plants. Such regard to growing coffee plants with no
more consistent yields in shaded systems shade are mentioned by Beer (1987), Beer
due to increased productive life of the et al. (1998), Faminow and Rodriguez
coffee plants can make planning easier (2001) and Muschler (2001).
Socioeconomic Benefits Muleta et al 51

The majority of the interviewed farmers in coffee plots. Snoeck et al (2000) for
(Table 4) singled out other desirable instance, demonstrated that nearly 30% of
benefits derived from shaded systems. the nitrogen fixed by legumes like
Desmodium and Leucaena was transferred
Some of the mentioned advantages such as to associated coffee trees. Apart from
wood, honey, timber, and medicinal nitrogen fixation, Desmodium species play
importance have high commercial values pivotal roles in suppression of parasitic
added to reduction in agrochemical inputs nematodes (Herrera and Marban-Mendoza,
under shaded systems. Hence these and 1999) and control of weeds (Bradshaw and
other mentioned benefits (Table 4) may Lanini, 1995) in coffee plantations.
serve as a life hedge against coffee crop
failure, or a drop in coffee price (Beer et Farmers had excellent understanding about
al., 1998; Peeters et al., 2003). the fundamental advantages of depositing
different decaying organic materials
Apart from shade provision to coffee beneath coffee bushes mainly from their
bushes, farmers strongly underlined that own experiences and elderly farmers.
one of the principal reasons of using shade Farmers’ knowledge on organic
tree is incorporation of organic matter to amendments to improve soil fertility and
coffee production systems. As farmers then the growth of plants has been widely
expressed promptly, the contribution of documented (Grossman, 2003 and
massive amounts of organic matter to references therein). Nevertheless,
shaded coffee systems is well documented researchers and workshops/seminars had
(Beer, 1987; Beer et al., 1998; Faminow hardly played a significant role in
and Rodriguez, 2001). Moreover, cacao disseminating information on use of such
farmers in Ecuador (Bentley et al, 2004) eco-friendly soil improving substances.
have also mentioned that shade trees
improve soil fertility and help to maintain Almost all the respondents had a good
soil moisture for extended period of time acuity of the effect of leaf size with respect
which gives immense advantage to to soil erosion. As also mentioned by Beer
understorey crops like cacao and coffee. (1987), farmers preferred thin and small
leaves (possessed by the most favoured
Farmers, who had long experience of legume shade trees) compared to broader
retaining legumes like Desmodium species and bigger ones in decreasing the intensity
in their coffee plots, stressed some of soil erosion. Considering a similar study
functions related to soil fertility and in Costa Rica (Albertin and Nair, 2004),
suppressions of weeds and parasitic worms. however, the majority of the farmers felt
However, in case of worm suppression, that leaf size was not an important
farmers did not know explicitly how. For characteristic to take into account, since it
instance, coffee parasitic nematodes are is so variable among trees. This could be
very tiny and invisible to the naked eyes. attributed to differences in the most
The farmers associate rather the absence of favoured shade trees (Inga, Erythrina and
defects and sign of disease as well as Senna species), Costa Rica versus A.
worms on coffee roots wherever there is gummifera, A. abyssinica and M.
more Desmodium species as suppression ferruginea, this study.
mechanisms. Information in the literature
lists corroborates to some of the farmers’ At sloppy places, the majority of the
observations on use of Desmodium species interviewed household heads use to plant
M. paradisica, C. papaya and other
Ethio. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. No. 1 September 2011 52

suitable species on terraces to hold the soil mentioned by Beer (1987), one simply
firmly and reduce erosion (cf. Beer, 1987; states that if deciduous trees are used, it is
Beer et al., 1998) with added advantage for preferable that they flush their leaves
alternative income sources with good rapidly. It is so doubtful that all the features
returns. displayed by evergreen trees comply with
those top 21 listed characteristics (Beer,
Most farmers in the study sites expressed 1987) of shade tree species. This is infact, a
their rich experience in replacing cut or big knowledge gap to be bridged and
dead shade trees by the original type addressed by further investigations on
species. The characteristics that farmers suitability of either deciduous or evergreen
considered for the species that replaces the trees to provide proper shade to coffee
original one embodied fast growth, bushes. Nevertheless, a review of the
longevity, deciduousness, possession of literature (Albertin and Nair, 2004) is in
thin and small leaves which all are favour of deciduous shade trees for
generalized as suitability for coffee plants providing mulch to maintain soil moisture
growth. In general, since the shade trees (A. in areas of little rainfall.
gummifera, A. abyssinica and M.
ferruginea) that farmers favoured most Smallholder coffee producers also depend
comply with nearly all criteria set by Beer on other alternative means such as annual
(1987) in choosing desirable characteristics crops, spices, fruits and others to promote
for perennial crop shade trees, one cannot the household economy (Albetin and Nair
undervalue the respondents’ criteria to 2004). The supplementary advantages of
choose the right replacement tree species. diversification have been well documented
(Reddy et al. 2004) for avoidance of heavy
The majority of the farmers who dependence on a single product (coffee)
participated in this investigation preferred which suffers either from yield failure or
deciduous shade trees compared to serious price fluctuation in the international
evergreen ones. The respondents strongly markets. Farmers also incorporate some
felt the incalculable contribution of organic pulses like V. faba and Phaseolus spp. into
matter to coffee bushes via dropped leaves their coffee plots. Intercropping with
in bulk as the main added advantage legumes could be a means to restore soil
besides farmers’ great vacillation on fertility in coffee production systems.
evergreen trees for proper light penetration. Farmers perceived intercropping of M.
Farmers’ opinion in Costa Rica (Albertin paradisica as particular importance in
and Nair, 2004), however, was in favour of terms of provision of shade, fruits and
evergreen shade tree species. This could be reduction of soil erosion (Fig. 4a and b).
attributed to the nature of the most However, this kind of intercropping is not
preferred shade tree, Inga because it is a appreciated in the literature (Beer et al.,
non-deciduous genus (Peeters et al., 2003). 1998). The authors claim that damage
These farmers claim that evergreen trees could be caused to coffee and newly
are absolutely needed during dry season, established permanent shade trees during
the time that coincides with dropping of harvest and/or windfall in addition to
leaves by deciduous trees. In both cases the intensive competition of M. paradisica
forwarded reasons seemed convincing with coffee plants.
although the issue of ever greenness was
not dealt with in detail (Beer, 1987). Of the Most of the respondents were aware of the
suitable shade tree characteristics importance of ants in controlling coffee
Socioeconomic Benefits Muleta et al 53

berries boring insects and other pests Farmers have an excellent knowledge of
(Philpott, 2005). There are, however, the socioeconomic benefits of coffee shade
several advantages of ants trees. They could state most of the facts in
the way they are presented in the scientific
(Philpott et al., 2006) not cited by the literature. However, the respondents were
farmers in shaded coffee systems such as deficient on some basic concepts in general
enhancement of pollination and floral and phenomena that they cannot see in
protection. Additionally, the authors claim particular as also mentioned by Grossman
that ants have a great implication for (2003) and Albertin and Nair (2004).
biodiversity conservation. On the other Therefore, organic training on uses of
hand, the interviewees repeatedly stated legume plants and their association with
other benefits of ants in coffee forests for beneficial soil microorganisms,
control of young mammal pests and snakes. involvement of microorganisms in organic
matter transformation, roles of ants, and
In traditional shaded coffee production overall other interactions in natural coffee
systems, shade trees are perceived as a forests may enrich farmers’ local
necessity by almost all interviewed ecological knowledge and build ample self-
farmers, principally to mitigate coffee assurance about their critical observation
bushes from the suboptimal climate and and responses. Such training could
ensure sustainable production by augment sustainable production with
contribution of massive litter. Leguminous reliable returns which is also
shade trees and C. africana are highly environmentally friendly.
favoured and there is a great need for
further propagation of their seedlings on
large scale. Shaded coffee systems are ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
vastly favoured by the majority of the We would like to thank the Swedish
respondents due to higher yield and better Agency for Research Cooperation with
coffee attributes. Farmers could derive a Developing Countries (SAREC) for
wide array of benefits from shaded systems providing the funding that made this
which can alleviate weighty dependence on project possible. The authors also gratefully
a single product, coffee, which may suffer thank the coffee farmers of the two study
from either production failure or sudden sites, Bonga and Yayu Hurumu districts,
slump in prices in international markets. their families and Dr Hussien Hamda for
Moreover, the shaded systems can be his useful suggestions on methods of data
viewed as a conservation-oriented interpretation.
cultivation strategy which complies with
interest of global organic coffee consumers.
Ethio. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. No. 1 September 2011 54

REFERENCES Kebede,T., Urga,K.,Yersaw, K., Biza,

Albertin, A. and Nair, P. K. R. 2004. T., Mariam, B.H. and Guta, M. 2005.
Farmers’ perspectives on the role of Screening of some medicinal plants of
Shade trees in coffee production Ethiopia for their anti-microbial
systems: an assessment from the Nicoya properties and chemical profiles. J.
Peninsula, Costa Rica. Hum. Ecol. 32, Ethnopharmacol 97, 421-427.
443-463.
Giday, M. 2001. An ethnobotanical study
Babbar L.I. and Zak, D. R. 1995. Nitrogen of medicinal plants used by the Zay
loss from coffee agroecosystems in people in Ethiopia. CBM:s Skriftserie
Costa Rica–leaching and denitrification 3, 81-99.
in the presence and absence of shade
trees. J. Environm. Qual. 24, 227-233. Gole, T. M. 2003. Vegetation of the Yayu
forest in SW Ethiopia: impacts of
Beer, J. 1987. Advantages, disadvantages human use and implications for in situ
and desirable characteristics of shade conservation of wild Coffea arabica L.
trees for coffee, cocoa, and tea. populations. Doctoral Thesis, University
Agrofore. Syst. 5, 3-13. of Bonn, Germany
Beer, J., Muschler, R., Kass, D. and Gole, T.W., M. Denich, Demel T.and Vlek,
Somarriba, E. 1998. Shade management P.L.G. 2002. Human impacts on Coffea
in coffee and cacao plantations. arabica genetic pool in Ethiopia and
Agrofore. Syst. 38, 139–164. the need for its in situ conservation. In:
J. Engels, V. Ramanatha Rao, A (eds.):
Bentley, J. W., Boa, E. and Stonehouse, J. Managing plant genetic diversity. pp
2004. Neighbor trees: intercropping, and 237-247.
cacao in Ecuador. Hum. Ecol. 32, 241-
270. Grossman, J.M. 2003. Exploring farmer
knowledge of soil processes in organic
Bradshaw, L. and Lanini, W. 1995. Use coffee systems of Chiapas, Mexico.
of perennial cover crops to suppress Geoderma 111, 267-287.
weeds in Nicaraguan coffee orchards.
Inter. J. Pest Manage. 41,185-194. Grossman, J. M., Sheaffer, C., Wyse, D.,
Bucciarelli, B., Vance C. and Graham,
Faminow, M. D. and Rodriguez, E. A. P.H. An assessment of nodulation and
2001. Biodiversity of flora and fauna in nitrogen fixation in inoculated Inga
shaded coffee systems. International oerstediana, a nitrogen-fixing tree
Centre for Research in Agroforestry shading organically grown coffee in
Latin American Regional Office, Chiapas, Mexico. Soil Biol. Biochem.
Avenida La Universidad 795, Apartado 38, 769-784.
1558, Lima 12, Peru, Report prepared
for the Commission for Environmental Hailu, T., Negash, L. and Olsson, O. 2000.
Cooperation, May 2001. Millettia ferruginea from southern
Ethiopia: impacts on soil fertility and
FAO.1968. FAO Coffee Mission to
growth of maize. Agrofore. Syst. 48, 9–
Ethiopia 1964-1965. Rome.
24.
Geyid, A., Abebe,D., Debella, A.,
Makonnen, Z., Aberra,F., Teka,F ,
Socioeconomic Benefits Muleta et al 55

Hedberg, I., Edwards, S. and Nemomissa, Reddy, D. R. B.; Raghuramulu, Y. and

S. 2003. Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea Naidu, R.2004. Impact of diversification
Vol. 4(1), Addis Ababa University, in Indian coffee plantations - a ustainable
Addis Ababa. approach. In: ASIC 2004. Association
Scientifique nternationale du Cafe (eds).
Herrera, I. C. and Marban-Mendoza, N. 20th International Conference on
1999. Effects of leguminous cover crops Coffee Science, Bangalore, India, 11-15
on plant parasitic nematodes associated October, 2004.
with coffee in Nicaragua . Nematropica
29, 223-232. Ricci, M. dos S. F., Costa, J. R., Pinto, A.
Mohan, S. and Love, J. 2004. Coffee N.and Santos, e V.L., da S. 2006.
futures: role in reducing coffee Organic cultivation of coffee cultivars
producers’ price risk. J. Inter. Develop. grown under full sun and under shading.
16, 983–1002. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 41,
569-575.
Muschler, R. G. 2001. Shade improves
coffee quality in a sub-optimal coffee- Snoeck, D., Zapata, F. and Domenach, A.
zone of Costa Rica. Agrofore. Syst. 85, 2000. Isotopic evidence of the transfer
131-139. of nitrogen fixed by legumes to coffee
trees. Biotechnol., Agron., Soc.
Peeters, L. Y. K., Soto-Pinto, L., Perales, Environm. 4, 95-100.
H., Montoya, G.and Ishiki, M. 2003.
Coffee production, timber and firewood Soto-Pinto, L., Perfecto, I., Castillo-
in traditional and Inga-shaded Hernandez, J. and Caballero-Nieto, J.
plantations in Southern Mexico. Agric. 2000. Shade effect on coffee production
Ecosyst. Environm. 95, 481-493. at the northern Tzeltal zone of the state
of Chiapas, Mexico. Agric., Ecosyst.
Perfecto, I., Rice, R. A., Greenberg, R.and Environm. 80, 61-69.
van der Voort, M. 1996. Shade coffee as Sprent, J. I. and Parsons, R. 2000. Nitrogen
a refugee for biodiversity. BioScience fixation in legume and non-legume
46, 598–608. trees. Field Crops Res. 65, 183-196.
Petit, N. 2007. Ethiopia’s coffee sector: A Taye, E. 2001. Report on woody plant
bitter or better future? J. Agrarian inventory of Yayu national forestry
Change 7, 225–263. priority area. IBCR/GTZ, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, pp. 2-21.
Philpott, S. M. 2005. Changes in
arboreal ant populations following Van der Vossen, H.A.M. A. 2005. Critical
analysis of the agronomic and economic
pruning of coffee shade-trees in Chiapas, sustainability of organic coffee
Mexico. Agrofore. Syst. 64, 219–224. production. Expl. Agric. 41, 449-473.

Philpott S. M., Uno, S. and Maldonado, J. Wikström, D. 2003. Willingness to pay for
2006. The importance of ants and high- sustainable coffee: a choice
shade management to coffee pollination experimentpproach. M. Sc. Thesis,
and fruit weight in Chiapas, Mexico. Luleå University of technology,
Biodivers. Conserv. 15, 487–501. Sweden.
Ethio. J. Educ. & Sc. Vol. No. 1 September 2011 56

Wubet, T., Kottke, I., Teketay, D. And status of indigenous trees in dry
Oberwinkler, F. 2003. Mycorrhizal afromontane forests of Ethiopia. Fore.
Ecol. Manage. 179, 387-399.