Next Article in Journal
Elements of Social Sustainability among Austrian Hay Milk Farmers: Between Satisfaction and Stress
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Transformation of Consumer Behavior—Vector Modeling in Determining the Decision to Choose a Medical Service in the Context of COVID-19
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 23
10.3390/su132313026
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Options to Support Sustainable Trajectories in a Rural Landscape: Drivers, Rural Processes, and Local Perceptions in a Colombian Coffee-Growing Region

by
Diego Valbuena
1,*,
Julien G. Chenet
2 and
Daniel Gaitán-Cremaschi
3
1
Land Use Planning Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 9101, 6700 HB Wageningen, The Netherlands
2
Environmental Management Group, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Ean, Bogotá 110211, Colombia
3
Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(23), 13026; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313026
Submission received: 5 October 2021 / Revised: 17 November 2021 / Accepted: 19 November 2021 / Published: 24 November 2021
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Trajectories of many rural landscapes in Latin America remain unsustainable. Options to support sustainable rural trajectories should be comprehensive and rooted in the interests of rural actors. We selected a municipality in a coffee-growing region in Colombia with an increasing urban–rural nexus to describe interactions between rural processes and their drivers while identifying and contextualising the perceptions of local actors on major constraints and opportunities for more inclusive and sustainable rural trajectories. We described these interactions by combining secondary data on main drivers, agricultural census data, and interviews with different local actors. Changes in population structure, volatility in coffee prices, in-/out-migration, deagrarianisation, and rurbanisation, among others, are reconfiguring the rural trajectories of the study area. Despite not being a major coffee region, farmers in the study area have developed different strategies, including intensification, diversification, replacement or abandonment of coffee production, and commercialisation. The perceptions of local actors and the multiplicity of agricultural households, food/land use systems, rural processes, and drivers described in this study suggest that more sustainable rural transitions need to be supported by inclusive, integrated, and transformative landscape planning approaches that align with local priorities. However, this transformation needs to be accompanied by changes at a systemic level that address the fundamental bottlenecks to real sustainability.

1. Introduction

Trajectories of many rural landscapes in Latin America remain unsustainable in spite of the pressing need to reduce and mitigate the negative impact of human activities on the environment while improving the wellbeing of the rural population [1,2]. Habitat transformation, soil erosion, environmental pollution, and climate change, among others, affect not only the livelihoods and adaptive capacity of the (local) communities, but also the biodiversity and provision of essential ecosystem services such as climate mitigation and water regulation [3,4].
These rural trajectories are shaped by the (re)action of local communities to socio-economic and environmental drivers and by local processes interacting at different spatial scales [5,6]. For example, land use decisions on agricultural commodities depend on the interaction between more distant or global drivers (e.g., international markets, climate change) and local processes such as migration, deagrarianisation, agricultural intensification, land use simplification and diversification, and environmental degradation and restoration [3,7,8,9]. The influence of the socio-economic and environmental drivers on these rural processes is shaped by the increasing connection of the rural landscapes to urban centres, which not only offers access to services, social diversity, labour markets, and physical connectivity, among others (i.e., urban-rural nexus) [9], but can also escalate the competition for essential resources such as land, water, food, and labour [10,11].
Specifically, coffee landscapes across Latin America are undergoing rapid transformations, with changes in coffee varieties, management of shade and inputs, and/or land use [12]. The culture, identity, and livelihoods of many communities remain directly or indirectly dependent on coffee production and its commercialisation [8,13]. Yet, the continuity of coffee production in the region is under pressure due to decreases in profitability, the high volatility of coffee prices, lack of adequate technical support, and the effects of climate change, among others [14,15,16]. Many smallholder coffee farmers are therefore facing mounting economic pressure to intensify and/or replace coffee production. Yet, smallholder agroforestry coffee production and commercialisation have the potential to improve rural livelihoods while maintaining essential ecosystem services [8,17]. For example, although still limited, new niche economies have flourished, demanding multiple services from coffee-growing regions, such as leisure/tourism, nature conservation, and healthy and sustainable food production, that have the potential to benefit the producer, the consumer, and the environment [18,19].
However, information about how, where, and why these changes in coffee-growing regions are occurring, and what the perceptions of local actors are towards the processes behind these trajectories, is often missing. Without a more detailed understanding of the interactions between drivers, rural processes, and local perceptions, it is difficult to identify which trajectories in coffee landscapes are beneficial for rural livelihoods, for climate change mitigation and adaptation, and for sustainable development more broadly. It also makes it difficult to identify which types of policies, programmes, or investments may be needed to promote more sustainable rural landscapes [12].
Colombian coffee-growing regions exemplify the need to understand and improve the sustainability of their trajectories [20,21]. For example, local communities are vulnerable, with nearly half of rural households still considered poor [22]. At the same time, agricultural intensification and diversification have resulted in a reduction in agroforestry systems and coffee plantations in some coffee-growing regions in Colombia [20]. For this study, we selected as an example a municipality in a coffee-growing region located close to a major urban centre to describe how rural processes and their drivers shape the rural trajectories in this area and to contextualise the perceptions of local actors on the main constraints and opportunities for fostering more inclusive and sustainable rural landscapes. This study combines the analysis of secondary (historical) data and semi-structured interviews with local actors to draw a broad picture of the current and future potential and preferred rural trajectories in a region where coffee is still part of the identity of the rural community and the landscape.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Area

2.1.1. Description of the Study Area

This study was conducted in Guayabal de Síquima (GdS), a municipality with 12 villages located in the province of Cundinamarca in the centre of Colombia (see Figure 1). The municipality has an altitude of approximately 1600 m above sea level and it is located 69 km from the capital city, Bogotá. GdS is part of one of the seven coffee-growing regions in Cundinamarca, where coffee is produced in more than half of the municipalities and continues to be part of the income of 31,000 families [23]. In GdS, 77% of the population lives in rural areas [24]. The local economy is largely dependent on the agricultural sector, which is dominated by smallholders producing food mostly for self-consumption combined with coffee and sugar cane production for the market. Dairy production and poultry farming are also part of the land use and local economy. We selected this municipality because it represents the situation of many other municipalities in Colombia: a rural region with a strong urban–rural nexus where agriculture (and coffee) production is still an important component of the rural livelihoods and land use.

2.1.2. A Brief History of Coffee Production in the Region

Cundinamarca was one of the first provinces where large-scale coffee production began in the second half of the 19th century in Colombia [25]. Originally, coffee production depended on large haciendas with semi-servile labour, reflecting the high economic and political inequality in the region [26]. The first decades of the 20th century witnessed a transformation in coffee production in Colombia: The bulk of coffee plantations moved to the central areas of the Andes, family farming began to dominate coffee production instead of the haciendas, and the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia (FNCC by its abbreviation in Spanish) was consolidated [27,28].
After the 1980s, an outbreak of coffee rust in the country (Hemileia vastatrix) led the FNCC to promote new coffee varieties resistant to rust, cultivated in more medium- and large-scale intensive production systems with less shade/trees and at relatively higher altitudes, reconfiguring the landscape in many coffee-growing areas in the country [20,27]. At the same time, the processes of industrialisation and urbanisation created a more complex urban–rural structure in some coffee regions in terms of migration, labour demand, and transportation [27]. The transition to the 21st century experienced a drop in coffee prices that resulted in rural poverty, violence, and poor governance in many coffee-growing regions in the country [29,30]. To mitigate the decreasing local and global demand of previous years, the FNCC launched a programme in 2009 to promote domestic coffee consumption [31]. In the last decades, improvements in infrastructure and better access to information and communication technologies (ICT) are redefining the urban–rural nexus in some of these coffee-growing areas (e.g., increasing in-/out-migration, better access to urban markets) [32].

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

Three main complementary analyses were conducted. Initially, the general dynamics of major drivers affecting the study area were described. Furthermore, the main land-use patterns and coffee farming were described for the area. Lastly, local actors were interviewed to identify the main constraints and opportunities for fostering more inclusive and sustainable rural landscapes, from their perspective.

2.2.1. Dynamics of Rural Processes and Their Drivers

Secondary historical, administrative, and census data were collected in early 2020 to understand and contextualise the different tendencies of the rural processes and their drivers. Changes in the population structure were studied to understand the dynamics of the local population. Farm number and size were included to describe the process of farm fragmentation and rurbanisation. The amount of area, productivity, intensification (i.e., conversion from traditional and old to new plantations), and price variability of the coffee were used to contextualise the dynamics of coffee production of the study area. These data were spread across different organisations, available at different levels (provincial and/or municipal) and across different time spans.
To understand the population dynamics, we obtained historical data on urban and rural population, and population structure from the census data (available years 1985, 2005, and 2018) from the National Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE by its abbreviation in Spanish). For the calculation of farm fragmentation, data on the number of farms, total farm area, and average farm size were collected and calculated from the Statistical Yearbooks of the Planning Office in Cundinamarca (years 2000 to 2018). To study past tendencies of coffee areas (years 2007 to 2017), coffee production and intensification (years 2002 to 2019) in Cundinamarca and GdS, and national coffee prices (years 2000 to 2019), data were extracted from both the Annual Agricultural Yearbook of the Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Statistical Yearbooks of the FNCC. Coffee prices for the internal market were represented with constant prices (that is, converted to USD relative to December 2019), combining the historical National Bank exchange rate (https://www.banrep.gov.co, accessed on 10 February 2020) and the historical monthly Consumer Price Index (https://federaciondecafeteros.org/wp/estadisticas-cafeteras/, accessed on 5 February 2020). A monthly coffee price difference was calculated to plot the variability of coffee prices. This difference was calculated as the percentage of the monthly price that changed in the following month.

2.2.2. Land Use and Coffee Farming in Guayabal de Síquima

Analyses of land use and coffee farming in the municipality were conducted to give a better understanding of ongoing rural processes in the study area. This analysis was based on data from the most recent National Census of Agriculture conducted in 2014. These data included socio-economic and agricultural information at the farm level, such as family and farm sizes and main land uses, including coffee, other crops, grassland, and forested areas, among others. Farm data were aggregated at the village level to better understand the variability of land use and coffee farming in the 12 villages of the study area. The analysis on land use included not only the main uses/cover of each village, but also the agricultural area, the number of farms, the share of the smallholdings (<2 ha), the livestock number and density, and the importance of coffee in terms of the share of coffee farms and area. The analysis on coffee farming included the number of farmers, their age, farm size, the area of the farm covered by coffee, whether coffee was associated with other vegetation cover and/or livestock, and whether they had had problems with drought in the previous year. Data manipulation and descriptive analyses of the census data were performed in RStudio.

2.2.3. Rural Processes and Local Options

A set of 29 semi-structured interviews was conducted to obtain an overview of the perception of local actors on coffee farming and production, main constraints, rural processes, and opportunities to move towards a more inclusive and sustainable rural landscape. The main options and statements included in these interviews were preselected by combining informal discussions with local actors together with explorative analysis of the main drivers. Interviews were conducted at the beginning of 2020, with 17 coffee farmers, 6 former coffee farmers, and 6 community leaders. The interviews took place in 6 villages, including Chiniata, el Trigo, Manoa, Pajonal, Picacho, and Pueblo Viejo (see Figure 1). The selection of participants was based on the snowball sampling technique, in which the interviewee suggests other potential interviewees.
Questions included information about household and farm structure, coffee production and constraints, level of agreement or disagreement on farming (Likert scale), whether they thought the preselected rural processes would continue, and open questions on their views and potential options to address these processes in the future (i.e., increased rural–urban migration, deagrarianisation, intensive poultry production, abandonment of coffee production, rurbanisation, deforestation, and water scarcity). For data analysis and due to the agricultural and socioeconomic contrasts, the 17 coffee farmers were subsequently divided into 11 local farmers native to the study area and 6 migrant farmers who moved from urban centres to live and work in the region. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the data on household and farm characteristics, coffee production, and their level of agreement or disagreement, and a thematic method was followed to code and group the answers of the interviewees on the potential future options.

3. Results

3.1. Rural Processes and Drivers

Analysis of the rural processes and their drivers, in the study area and across the province, provided a context on patterns and/or trends in population structure (Figure 2), farm fragmentation, coffee area, productivity, intensification, and price variability, at different scales (Figure 3). In terms of the population patterns, the proportion and size of the rural and urban population did not change dramatically in the last few decades (Figure 2a). However, the age structure of the population went from being expansive in the 1980s to a more stationary population structure in the late 2010s (Figure 2b). This means that it shifted from a young and growing population to a more static one without a clear dominant age range.
Farm fragmentation has been a constant process during the last two decades. The number of farms increased by 10% and the average farm size decreased to less than 2.5 ha (Figure 3). Between 2002 and 2018, the coffee area in Cundinamarca dropped from 64,000 to 37,000 hectares. This also represented a reduction in the share of Cundinamarca in the total coffee area in Colombia from 6.4% in 2002 to only 3.4% of the national area in 2018 (Figure 4). This reduction was accompanied by coffee intensification (i.e., rust-resistant coffee varieties, higher coffee tree density, and greater use of inputs), reducing traditional coffee systems from 36% to 6% of the total coffee area in Cundinamarca. In relation to the establishment of new plantations, coffee productivity slightly decreased in 2017, reaching 0.4 ton/ha in the study area and 0.8 ton/ha in Cundinamarca (Figure 5).
Changes in coffee prices and the monthly fluctuations in the domestic market were evident and reflected the continuous variations in both the global market price and the value of the COP against the USD (Figure 6). This price oscillation indicated a high variability in the potential economic benefits of coffee production. The potential impact of this variability also depends on the synchronicity of high coffee prices during the harvest season and the capital needs of farmers. For example, although coffee prices during the harvest season in the study area (April to June) were relatively high in 2014 and 2018, they were relatively low between 2015 and 2017, and in 2019. The combination of high economic variability and environmental uncertainty can pose a risk to farmers whose livelihood largely depends on coffee production.

3.2. Land Use in Guayabal de Síquima

Analysis of the agricultural data from the census at the village level revealed the overall structure of land use and farming in the study area (Table 1). The agricultural census did not cover the total area of the municipality, including three quarters of each village, except for Trinidad, which covered less than half of the area. Most of the reported land (91%) and farms (75%) were agricultural holdings. This pattern was less evident in some villages (i.e., Centro, Mesitas, Pueblo Viejo, Resguardo, and Robledal), where almost a quarter of the farms had no agricultural activity, indicating a process of deagrarianisation and rurbanisation. The census data also showed that a large portion of farms, i.e., 63%, were smallholdings smaller than 2 ha. These smallholdings also dominated (>80%) the small villages of Centro, Mesitas, Resguardo, and Robledal. One third of the farms with intensive poultry production were in a single village (Mesitas), whereas other villages (El Trigo, Picacho, and Resguardo) reported none. Similarly, cattle production was also concentrated only in few villages. Almost a third of the reported cattle production was concentrated in El Trigo. Centro, Manoa, Resguardo, and Torres reported low numbers and density of cattle.
The census data also showed that the study area was characterised by multiple uses and covers, including cropland (coffee, sugar cane, plantain, banana, maize, papaya, avocado), grassland, small patches of forests, and other covers/uses such as fallow lands and secondary vegetation (Figure 7a). Villages with a higher altitude and a relatively larger proportion of grassland, such as El Trigo and Picacho, also had higher cattle densities, whereas most of the agricultural land in Torres was at a lower altitude and dominated by sugar cane production. Other covers and uses in some villages reached up to a third of the surveyed agricultural area. Furthermore, reported forested areas covered only 3% of the farmland, suggesting a high level of landscape transformation.
The data analysis also showed that, despite not being part of the main coffee-growing regions of the country for decades, coffee was still part of the landscape structure and farm production in the study area (Figure 7b). Coffee plantations covered 15% of the total surveyed area, reaching more than 20% of the land in some villages, while being limited in villages with more marginal agroecological conditions to produce coffee at predominantly higher altitudes (such as El Trigo with prevalent dairy and maize production) and lower altitudes (such as Torres with prevalent raw sugar production). Similarly, villages with more suitable agroecological conditions (such as Resguardo, Mesitas, and Pueblo Viejo) had relatively more (>47%) coffee farms compared to villages at a lower altitude (such as Manoa and Chiniata (30%), where sugar, cane, and maize were also dominant crops.

3.3. Coffee Farming in Guayabal de Síquima: Agricultural Census Data

Agricultural census data analysis provided further details on coffee farming in the study area (Table 2). In 2014, a quarter of the farmers were still producing coffee. Although only 53% of these farmers reported their age in the census, these data suggest that household heads over 60 years old managed almost half of the coffee farms, particularly in villages with fewer coffee farmers, such as Centro, El Trigo, Picacho, Robledal, and Trinidad. Additionally, the data show that a large part (68%) of the coffee farmers were smallholders, and half of all coffee farmers relied on family labour, reaching more than 60% of all the coffee farms in Mesitas, Robledal, and Trinidad. Coffee plantations still covered more than three quarters of the farm in many of these holdings and were often associated with other crops such as plantain, banana, and other fruit trees. Some coffee farmers also had poultry production (15%) and managed pigs and/or cattle (18%). Finally, one third of the coffee farmers reported drought problems in 2013, particularly in Pueblo Viejo, Resguardo, and Pajonal.

3.4. Coffee Farming in Guayabal de Síquima: Interviews with Farmers

The farmers interviewed for this study differed in terms of their background and available resources (see Table 3). Almost half of the interviewees were over 60 years old. Household sizes ranged between one and five members and farm surface area ranged between 0.3 and 8.3 hectares. Almost half of the local coffee farmers and the majority of the other respondents reported off-farm income. In comparison to the other respondents, local coffee farmers indicated more food self-sufficiency due to their own food production. Nevertheless, they purchased additional food and goods in the neighbouring and cheaper large urban centres (such as Facatativá and Bogotá), instead of buying in the local shops. More than half of the interviewees said that they had a small poultry production for both their own consumption and for sale.
In terms of coffee production, three quarters of the local coffee farmers belonged to the FNCC. However, less than a quarter reported receiving any technical support on their farms. Compared to migrant farmers, local coffee farmers reported managing relatively larger areas of coffee with improved varieties under agroforestry systems (with shade) and obtaining a higher proportion of their income from selling coffee. Out of the five organic coffee farmers, only two used organic fertilisers to increase production, and only one had a certification in organic production. In fact, they mentioned that there was an organic farming association, but it collapsed due to the lack of trust and power imbalances among its members. Lastly, about half of the coffee farmers reported that they had the capacity to invest and sell processed coffee to family and friends, often based in Bogotá.
Looking at the constraints reported on coffee production, 75% of coffee farmers indicated that high input costs and low coffee prices were their main constraints. Other issues mentioned included the lack of affordable and competent labour, poor technical support, variable weather conditions (i.e., lack of rain or alternative water sources when needed, or excessive humidity to dry coffee beans under the sun), and the disproportionately advantageous role of intermediaries. The constraints of high production costs and low coffee prices were the main reasons why all the former coffee farmers had abandoned coffee and changed their production systems. In fact, a third of the coffee farmers had to sell their beans cheaply because they were either still on the tree or had not been dried well yet. In this way, farmers could obtain some cash needed to pay their expenses, losing on their investment but saving time and labour. Finally, former coffee farmers replaced their entire coffee plantation with grassland and annual crops, and were not willing to produce coffee again within the current context. They all agreed that their quality of life had improved after leaving coffee production behind.
The farmers interviewed differed in their perceptions of farming and land use in the municipality (Figure 8). Most of them agreed that they would remain (coffee) farmers, that chemical fertilisers were good to increase coffee production, and that they would be interested in becoming organic farmers if they were given technical support. Most of them disagreed that fewer trees meant better agricultural production, that non-productive areas were of no use, and that it was better not to be associated with other farmers. Their perception regarding the remaining statements was more diverse. Specifically, some of them responded that the FNCC is an important organisation to support coffee production, few of them preferred their children working on the farm, some of them found that chemical pesticides are beneficial, and a third of them prioritised coffee quantity over quality. Lastly, some farmers were ambivalent in a few of their statements, specifically those concerning benefits of the intensive poultry production for the region (“it generates jobs but pollutes the environment and damages the roads”) and those concerning the role of trees in agricultural production (“too few trees are not desired, but too many trees tend to decrease coffee production”).

3.5. Current Rural Processes: Perceptions and Opportunities for Local Actors

The local actors interviewed indicated that the ongoing rural processes in the study area would continue (Figure 9a). Initially, they expected migration to cities to continue because of the limited economic opportunities for young people in the countryside. They also considered that more city dwellers would continue buying farms in their search for quality of life and/or leisure. This dichotomy of in- and out-migration was summarised by an interviewee as follows: “The citizens are tired from the city and the villagers are tired from the countryside”.
Interviewees also agreed that local farmers were too old or too tired to continue farming. For example, as one farmer stated, “The old generations are disappearing, and their heirs are simply selling the land to people coming from the city for recreational purposes”. They also believed that less water would be available in the near future due to decreased supply and increased demand. The complexity of this process was described by an interviewee as follows: “There will be less water available because of resource mismanagement, increasing demand, climate change and more pollution”. In contrast, few interviewees thought that intensive poultry farms would remain the same because of the current regulation or because those farms are not located in their villages. Similarly, only a few of them considered that coffee production would remain the same because it is already absent in their village. Lastly, most interviewees anticipated that current regulations would not effectively limit deforestation in the region in terms of the current reduction in the coffee area and increased grassland and urbanisation.
The interviewees proposed different alternatives to better orient the current rural processes (Figure 9b). To limit migration to the city, allow for a generational turnover in family farming, and keep the agricultural sector alive in the municipality, respondents suggested multiple options, such as combining education, better training, government support, credits, and other economic incentives to improve the local social and economic options of young adults in agricultural production, processing, marketing, and agritourism. For example, as one interviewee mentioned, “There is a need to create training programmes to support young farmers to come back and to use the land sustainably”.
In relation to intensive poultry production, interviewees mentioned the need for measures to ensure compliance with (sometimes existing) regulation and planning, as essential mechanisms to limit and/or spatially concentrate its expansion while reducing its negative impact (i.e., air and water pollution, road damage). They also indicated that besides technical advice and economic incentives to support coffee farmers (e.g., subsidies, better and stable coffee prices, lower input costs, FNCC programmes for smallholders), they needed new and related approaches, including changing the vision of the farm towards a family business, combining agricultural and non-agricultural activities (e.g., agritourism and catering), switching to varieties (old and/or new) different than those promoted by the FNCC, and (continuing) selling directly to consumers (i.e., more investment in coffee quality, processing, and marketing). A local expert referred to this as “a need for empowering farmers to organise and manage their farm as a business, searching new specialized coffee markets, … and fostering a sense of belonging to the land and the region”.
The issue of city dwellers buying farms for (hobby) agricultural production and leisure was more controversial. Some respondents saw this as a threat to the agrarian/rural identity of the region, requiring strong regulation and/or education of newcomers regarding food production, garbage/noise pollution, and deforestation. In contrast, other respondents (including those who were migrants) perceived it as an alternative to improve quality of life and provide new sources of innovation and economic opportunities, including tourism and other services (e.g., computer and Internet services). Yet some interviewees recognised some of the trade-offs: “People from the cities will demand more water, but at the same they can provide new jobs for the local population”. Finally, they mentioned more options to increase tree cover, biodiversity, and water availability/use, including land use planning, strict regulations on tree cover protection along water bodies, reforestation programmes (including multipurpose trees) and incentives, and the design of innovative policies that benefit both tree cover increases and future use. For example, as one interviewee mentioned, “Land use planning in the municipality should be based on water availability, while aiming at restoring key watersheds for improved water quantity and quality”.

4. Discussion

To contextualise and understand current trajectories, the rural processes and the dynamics identified for the study area are compared to other rural landscapes and coffee-growing regions in Latin America. Subsequently, potential options identified by local actors to better support and guide the future trajectories of the region are discussed.

4.1. Dynamics of Rural Processes

The results of this study illustrate the need for more integrated territorial approaches that account for multiple interacting rural processes. Regarding the challenges and opportunities of the increasing rurbanisation and in-/out-migration observed in the study area (i.e., urban–rural nexus), Berdegué et al. [9] explained how most rurality in Latin America is now located between highly urbanised centres and remote rural regions. In this now-dominant rurality, ensuring more integrated and inclusive urban–rural linkages (e.g., city region food systems, decent job opportunities for youth) is essential for the sustainable development and trajectories of rural regions in Latin America and elsewhere [9,33]. Likewise, related to the youth migration and rural population aging described in the study area, Wong and Palloni [34] showed that many regions in Latin America are facing similar challenges, with the fastest aging rate in the world driven by urbanisation processes, (youth) migration, changes in health and education, declining fertility rates, and increasing life expectancy, among others [35,36]. Furthermore, the identified processes of rural deagrarianisation and increased pluriactivity of households (both agricultural and non-agricultural) in this study have also been reported in other regions in Latin America as an important response of family farmers to an agricultural system in crisis and/or the emergence of new labour and market opportunities [37,38,39,40,41,42,43], reaffirming the multifunctionality of rural landscapes across the region and the need for more integrated landscape management initiatives [44,45].
Similarly, the processes of rurbanisation and farm fragmentation described in the study area are shaping the land use in many rural regions, particularly for those close to large urban centres. Gómez-Contreras [46] described how increased connectivity and/or proximity together with the expansion of urban demand for second homes have increased land prices and reinforced rurbanisation processes around Bogotá and even throughout Cundinamarca, where the study site is located. A consequence of these rural processes is that a substantial increase in land prices can marginalise local communities, limit traditional agricultural activities, and reinforce processes of deagrarianisation [47]. In contrast, the growing demand within the regions and from major urban centres for specific commodities (e.g., poultry and dairy production) has facilitated the intensification of agricultural production of those specific commodities, bringing new economic opportunities but also additional environmental challenges in dynamic and better-connected rural regions [48,49,50]. Finally, the lack of clear regulations and adequate governance has often led to unsustainable trajectories in many rural regions because of increased demand for limited resources (particularly land and water), environmental pollution (e.g., water pollution, garbage disposal, and pesticide misuse), and reduced tree cover across the landscape [17,48,51,52,53]. Given the limited spatial extent of this research, future studies could analyse more and/or contrasting case studies to confirm and provide a more detailed analysis on the synergies and trade-offs between different rural processes.

4.2. Main Dynamics of Small-Scale Coffee Farmers

In the case of coffee production, the results of this study also show the diversity of the rural households and land use systems within these regions. Although the study area has not been part of the main coffee production regions in Colombia for decades [54], it continues to share similar dynamics to coffee farmers and landscapes elsewhere. On the one hand, changes in land use/cover for the study area can be placed in a more general trajectory of many coffee-growing regions that includes three main stages: coffee expansion, intensification, and abandonment [55]. Firstly, coffee is introduced and expanded, often causing the transformation of forested areas to agroforestry systems [20,27]. Secondly, coffee intensification is promoted due to the interaction of global demand, large price fluctuations, and national policies within a narrowed paradigm of merely economic profit, causing a replacement of many of these diverse multi-strata agroforestry systems by simple and denser coffee plantations with a few scattered (fruit) trees [8,55,56,57,58]. Lastly, coffee production is abandoned or replaced due to low and unstable profit margins, reduced access to (affordable) labour, limited institutional support, climate variability/change, and/or the emergence of alternative agricultural/labour markets [6,21,59,60,61].
On the other hand, Harvey et al. [12] described seven major land use trends in coffee-growing regions in Latin America, including the conversion to rust-resistant varieties, the conventional intensification of coffee production, the conversion of coffee plantations to other agricultural uses, and the urbanisation of coffee landscapes. Although the study area as a whole may be abandoning coffee production, as mentioned by Perfecto et al. [55], and/or could be described as a mixed of trends identified by Harvey et al. [12], the results of this study also show that the stages can be seen as different trajectories of individual coffee farms, where some farmers continue to produce coffee in agroforestry systems, others have intensified and simplified their coffee systems to achieve a higher productivity, and still other farmers have replaced or abandoned production.
Likewise, this study also identifies some key differences in livelihood strategies among farmers that often define their future trajectories and that are also found in other coffee-growing regions [62,63,64,65]. For example, farmers with a direct connection to the consumer had the economic incentive to maintain agroforestry systems and invest in improving the processing and quality of the coffee. Farmers who worked closely with the FNCC intensified their production through better access to technical support and incentives. Farmers who came from or had a strong connection to the cities often had access to some non-agricultural income, relying on coffee production as an alternative (economic) activity. Given the reduced number of farmers interviewed, a next research step would be to confirm and better understand the diversity in the trajectories of households, farms, and agroecosystems to identify more targeted options.
Specifically, the abandonment of coffee production is related to the vicious circle (as observed by some interviewees) of low profit, lack of timely capital, limited investment in coffee quality, low coffee prices, and even lower profit, which is also common for many smallholders in other coffee landscapes [14]. A possible alternative to break this circle is the implementation of social and ecological certification schemes that compensate farmers for improved quality of the product and more sustainable landscape management [60,66,67]. However, as evidenced by the example of the failed organic certification association in the study area, these instruments need to be carefully designed to support both rural livelihoods and the environment [54,64,68,69]. For example, Guhl [70] found that although the implementation of a scheme in another coffee-growing area in Colombia seemed profitable for the farmers and good for the environment, it mainly benefited better endowed farmers, excluding smallholders. To avoid this, the design of certification schemes needs to avoid high transaction costs, uneven distribution of additional value created, and burdensome requirements for smallholders [54,67,70]. However, given the underlying rural processes and drivers that influence the trajectories of coffee-growing regions, the findings of this study suggest that certification schemes are promising tools that should be part of a broader integrated approach to ensure that their expected impact promotes more inclusive and sustainable development [71,72].
This study also illustrates how farmers make use of short supply chains to partly break the vicious circle mentioned above. Specifically, the combination of a stronger urban–rural nexus, including urban personal connections and a local demand for higher quality coffee, enabled some smallholders to shorten the supply chain and access a relatively more profitable, informal, but limited direct market for processed coffee beans. However, the direct selling of the interviewed farmers was very informal and it was not part of some of the more structured territorial short food chains described for the region by Reina-Usuga et al. [73]. Moreover, the added value in coffee supply chains is often linked to the export markets, but as Rueda and Lambin [54] described, the institutional support for improving coffee quality in the country is concentrated in other regions, where coffee has distinctive cup profiles. The future, scale, and sustainability of these short supply chains would largely depend on the consumer’s preferences and demand [70]. This indicates that more institutional and technical support is needed to empower farmers and facilitate their access to the territorial supply chains.
Another important dynamic is related to the aging population described above. The lack of generational continuity in farming represents a challenge in the future trajectories of many coffee landscapes, even though coffee farmers are proud of their identity and prefer for their children to continue working the land. This lack of generational continuity indicates that if current social, institutional, and economic conditions do not change, many young and often educated (potential) smallholders will continue migrating to the cities, leaving coffee and even farming behind because working the land is not profitable and/or is a hard livelihood [21,74,75,76,77]. Although this study highlights the interactions of some major rural processes in coffee-growing regions, future research comparing more cases or including more actors could further examine the trade-offs and synergies of these interactions and what kinds of policies or programmes could foster more sustainable trajectories [12].

4.3. Potential Options to Improve Current Trajectories

The data analysis and interviews with local actors reinforced the call for more integrated and inclusive approaches. For instance, the empowerment of and support for family farming would need a combination of different programmes and instruments, such as economic and technical support, incentives (e.g., microcredits), and education and/or training by the local authorities (the National Training Centre (SENA) and the National Centre for Research on Coffee (Cenicafé, part of the FNCC)), among others. These incentives and programmes should continue to target potential young farmers to stay in rural areas working the land while limiting their permanent migration to the cities and the ongoing deagrarianisation of the region [21,78]. Besides improving their own technical skills and infrastructure, these programmes and incentives should also enable (young) farmers to invest and diversify their land use and labour activities into more profitable and sustainable agricultural and non-agricultural businesses, including coffee quality improvement, direct product sales, processing of agricultural products, and/or agritourism, among others. As suggested by many respondents, this empowerment could be fostered within strengthened and functional farmer cooperatives, as also mentioned in similar studies [78,79,80,81].
Inclusive and integrated landscape management approaches are also a main tool to support sustainable trajectories in the region [82]. On the one hand, as in many other rural regions, clear regulations and land use planning that address local needs are essential for comprehensive development of the study area. For example, although local and environmental authorities have restricted the expansion of the industrialised poultry production, it is necessary to concentrate it in a few locations, limiting and facilitating the mitigation of its potential externalities (e.g., water and air pollution, road damages) while ensuring some local jobs and economic revenue. Similarly, based on such a comprehensive land use plan, local authorities could better guide and regulate ongoing processes of rurbanisation, deforestation, and watershed degradation. This could also include the use of incentives and certification programmes to make the production of shade and higher-quality coffee less risky and more profitable in the region, persuading and supporting smallholders to invest, maintain, and/or restore agroforestry production systems and to limit the use of chemical inputs [51,70].
On the other hand, inclusive landscape restoration and sustainable land use processes, as well as educational programmes led by regional environmental authorities (Corporación Autónoma Regional), could also be reinforced throughout the region to consolidate the sustainable use, protection, and/or ecological restoration of priority watersheds and ecosystems. In fact, as Hernández-Peña [83] argued, many of the environmental challenges in these rural regions need to be addressed at a more regional scale by these environmental authorities, while being aligned and/or guiding national and local plans. Further research could consider a broader analysis of the study region with local actors, including the food system as a whole and the construction of a common future vision and scenarios while analysing key trade-offs among prioritised sustainability goals for the entire region [84]. Given the socio-economic and climatic uncertainties in the medium-/long-term viability of coffee [15], this exploration should also consider the potential livelihood and land use alternatives of a future without coffee in the region, while ensuring the provision of key ecosystem services.
However, as indicated by Daniels and Petchers [14], supporting family farming and implementing effective regulations are only possible within an enabling and trustworthy local, national, and global institutional context. Specifically, given the central role of the FNCC in promoting and assisting coffee farmers, few respondents felt that it was supporting them. This perception aligns with other studies, suggesting that the FNCC, regional environmental authorities, and similar organisations across these rural regions could provide better and more comprehensive support to a broader range of coffee farmers and other rural actors [83,85,86]. Additionally, a more structured programme with producer and consumer associations, and other local and regional public and private institutions could aim at strengthening and promoting the region as a sustainable rural landscape, supporting family farmers and local entrepreneurs to invest and transition to family businesses by taking advantage of the growing urban–rural nexus (e.g., sustainable tourism and recreation) and the agricultural identity of the region, and demanding better-quality and -processed coffee, poultry, dairy, and other food products; shortening the food supply chain; and obtaining a fairer income for their products [87]. Further analysis of the institutional context and agricultural value-added chains could better inform local policies and programmes to promote more sustainable and profitable agricultural practices.

5. Conclusions

The aim of this paper was to illustrate the interaction between rural processes and their drivers in a municipality in Colombia, and to contextualise the perceptions of local actors on the main constraints and opportunities for fostering more sustainable rural landscapes. The analysis of the main drivers, land use, and coffee farm structure, as well as interviews with different actors, allowed us to picture a general overview of the current rural processes and potential future options in the study area. These analyses showed the diversity of the rural households and land use systems within these regions. The multiplicity of interacting actors, food/land use systems, rural dynamics, and drivers described in this study confirm the need for inclusive, integrated, and transformative landscape planning approaches for the sustainable development of rural regions that align with (local) actor priorities [4,7,17,52,88,89]. Although these findings support the results of other studies in similar regions across Latin America, future research could include more and diverse regions, and/or more interviews with local actors to confirm these findings and to develop more specific options for the study area or similar regions.
Nevertheless, integrated territorial approaches must be accompanied by changes at a more systemic level that can address the fundamental bottlenecks to truly sustainable transformation in food and land use systems, including reconnecting people with nature, restructuring institutions, and rethinking knowledge creation and use [90,91]. Some interviewees referred to this as a “change in consciousness”, where rather than looking at simply narrow, short-term, and exclusive economic benefits, the rural trajectory of the region must be based on an inclusive, integrated, and long-term vision for quality of life.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.V., J.G.C. and D.G.-C.; methodology, D.V.; formal analysis, D.V.; investigation, D.V.; resources, D.V.; data curation, D.V.; writing—original draft preparation, D.V.; writing—review and editing, D.V. and D.G.-C.; visualization, D.V.; funding acquisition J.G.C. and D.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The publication of this study funded by the EAN University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The EAN University Research and Transfer did not condiser Consent Statement necessary, because study does not reveal sensitive data of the participants or information that does not allow to safeguard the dignity, rights, safety, and well-being of all current or potential participants in the research.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Publicly datasets analysed during this study included: National Bank exchange rate (https://www.banrep.gov.co, accessed on 10 February 2020); historical monthly Consumer Price Index (https://federaciondecafeteros.org/wp/estadisticas-cafeteras/, accessed on 5 February 2020); local population data (https://www.dane.gov.co/files/censo2018/informacion-tecnica/CNPV-2018-Poblacion-Ajustada-por-Cobertura.xls, accessed on 21 January 2020); farm size data (http://www.cundinamarca.gov.co/Home/SecretariasEntidades.gc/Secretariadeplaneacion/SecretariadeplaneacionDespliegue/asestadisticas_contenidos/csecreplanea_estadis_anuario, accessed on 30 January 2020); land use data (https://www.datos.gov.co/Agricultura-y-Desarrollo-Rural/Evaluaciones-Agropecuarias-Municipales-EVA/2pnw-mmge, accessed on 30 January 2020).

Acknowledgments

We thank all the local actors who kindly supported us with their time and expertise. Especially, we thank Samanta G. for her support in the interviewing process, and Isaura B. for sharing with us her valuable knowledge of the region. We would also like to thank Martina Sedláková and Amalia Díaz Granados for editing an early version of this manuscript, and all the reviewers for their constructive feedback.

Conflicts of Interest

Besides the two first co-authors co-manage a small (hobby) coffee farm in the region, all the co-authors have no other known competing financial interests or personal relationships which have, or could be perceived to have, influenced the work reported in this article.

References

  1. Guimarães, R.P. Desarrollo Sustentable: ¿Todavía Esperando a Godot? Terra 2015, 1, 67–98. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ayram, C.A.C.; Etter, A.; Díaz-Timoté, J.; Buriticá, S.R.; Ramírez, W.; Corzo, G. Spatiotemporal evaluation of the human footprint in Colombia: Four decades of anthropic impact in highly biodiverse ecosystems. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 117, 106630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Grau, H.R.; Aide, M. Globalization and land-use transitions in Latin America. Ecol. Soc. 2008, 13, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Boillat, S.; Scarpa, F.M.; Robson, J.P.; Gasparri, N.I.; Aide, T.M.; Aguiar, A.P.; Anderson, L.O.; Batistella, M.; Fonseca, M.; Futemma, C.; et al. Land system science in Latin America: Challenges and perspectives. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Carr, D.L.; Lopez, A.C.; Bilsborrow, R.E. The population, agriculture, and environment nexus in Latin America: Country-level evidence from the latter half of the twentieth century. Popul. Environ. 2009, 30, 222–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ribeiro Palacios, M.; Huber-Sannwald, E.; García Barrios, L.; Peña de Paz, F.; Carrera Hernández, J.; de Guadelupe Galindo Mendoza, M. Landscape diversity in a rural territory: Emerging land use mosaics coupled to livelihood diversification. Land Use Policy 2013, 30, 814–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zimmerer, K.S.; Lambin, E.F.; Vanek, S.J. Smallholder telecoupling and potential sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Rice, R.A. A place unbecoming: The coffee farm of northern Latin America. Geogr. Rev. 1999, 89, 554–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Berdegué, P.J.A.; Bebbington, A.; Escobal, J.; Favareto, A.; Fernández, M.I.; Ospina, P. Territorios en Movimiento Dinámicas Territoriales Rurales en América Latina (Territories in Movement Rural Territorial Dynamics in Latin America); Working Paper 110; Programa Dinámicas Territoriales Rurales-Rimisp: Santiago, Chile, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dobbs, C.; Escobedo, F.J.; Clerici, N.; de la Barrera, F.; Eleuterio, A.A.; MacGregor-Fors, I.; Reyes-Paecke, S.; Vásquez, A.; Camaño, J.D.Z.; Hernández, H.J. Urban ecosystem Services in Latin America: Mismatch between global concepts and regional realities? Urban Ecosyst. 2019, 22, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pauchard, A.; Barbosa, O. Regional assessment of Latin America: Rapid urban development and social economic inequity threaten biodiversity hotspots. In Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 589–608. [Google Scholar]
  12. Harvey, C.A.; Pritts, A.A.; Zwetsloot, M.J.; Jansen, K.; Pulleman, M.M.; Armbrecht, I.; Avelino, J.; Barrera, J.F.; Bunn, C.; García, J.H.; et al. Transformation of coffee-growing landscapes across Latin America. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 41, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Perfecto, I.; Armbrecht, I.; Philpott, S.M.; Soto-Pinto, L.; Dietsch, T.V. Shaded Coffee and the Stability of Rainforest Margins in Northern Latin America, in Stability of Tropical Rainforest Margins; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007; pp. 225–261. [Google Scholar]
  14. Daniels, S.; Petchers, S. The Coffee Crisis Continues; Oxfam America. 2005, p. 43. Available online: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oxfam-us/www/static/oa3/files/coffee-crisis-continues.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2021).
  15. Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Salazar, M.; Jarvis, A.; Navarro-Racines, C.E. A way forward on adaptation to climate change in Colombian agriculture: Perspectives towards 2050. Clim. Chang. 2012, 115, 611–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bunn, C.; Läderach, P.; Rivera, O.O.; Kirschke, D. A bitter cup: Climate change profile of global production of Arabica and Robusta coffee. Clim. Chang. 2015, 129, 89–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Perfecto, I.; Vandermeer, J. Coffee Agroecology: A New Approach to Understanding Agricultural Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Sustainable Development; Routledge: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  18. Jha, S.; Bacon, C.M.; Philpott, S.M.; Méndez, V.E.; Läderach, P.; Rice, R.A. Shade coffee: Update on a disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience 2014, 64, 416–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Jha, S.; Bacon, C.M.; Philpott, S.M.; Rice, R.A.; Méndez, V.E.; Läderach, P. A review of ecosystem services, farmer livelihoods, and value chains in shade coffee agroecosystems. In Integrating Agriculture, Conservation and Ecotourism: Examples from the Field; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 141–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Guhl, A. Coffee production intensification and landscape change in Colombia, 1970–2002. In Land-Change Science in the Tropics: Changing Agricultural Landscapes; Millington, A., Jepson, W., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2008; pp. 93–116. [Google Scholar]
  21. Muñoz-Rios, L.A.; Vargas-Villegas, J.; Suarez, A. Local perceptions about rural abandonment drivers in the Colombian coffee region: Insights from the city of Manizales. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. FNCC. Pobreza y vulnerabilidad de los hogares cafeteros en Colombia. Ens. Sobre Econ. Cafe. 2016, 32, 67–84. [Google Scholar]
  23. Cundinamarca, G.d.; FNCC. Café Cundinamarqués. Rev. La Barra 2015, 18, 6–7. [Google Scholar]
  24. DANE. Proyección de Población según Censo 2005 Para Los 116 Municipios de Cundinamarca por Zona (Urbano, Rural y Total); DANE: Bogotá, Colombia, 2017.
  25. Bejarano, J.A. Los estudios sobre la historia del café en Colombia. Cuad. De Econ. 1980, 1, 115–140. [Google Scholar]
  26. Acemoglu, D.; Bautista, M.A.; Querubín, P.; Robinson, J. Economic and Political Inequality in Development: The Case of Cundinamarca, Colombia; Working Paper Series; National Bureau of Economic Reseach: 2007. Available online: https://economics.mit.edu/files/3831 (accessed on 15 November 2021).
  27. Palacios Rozo, M.A. Coffee in Colombia, 1850–1970; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1980; p. 338. [Google Scholar]
  28. Machado, A. El Café en Colombia a Principios Del Siglo XX, in Desarrollo Económico y Social en Colombia Siglo XX; UNAL: Bogotá, Colombia, 2001; pp. 77–97. [Google Scholar]
  29. Dube, O.; Vargas, J.F. Resource Curse in Reverse: The Coffee Crisis and Armed Conflict in Colombia; CEDE: Bogotá, Colombia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rettberg, A. Global markets, local conflict: Violence in the Colombian coffee region after the breakdown of the International Coffee Agreement. Lat. Am. Perspect. 2010, 37, 111–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Córdoba, C.S. Otávaro.; F. Yepes. El consumo interno de café en Colombia: Medición y determinantes. Ens. Sobre Econ. Cafe. 2018, 33, 39–65. [Google Scholar]
  32. Arboleda, M. Spaces of extraction, metropolitan explosions: Planetary urbanization and the commodity boom in Latin America. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2016, 40, 96–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hussein, K.; Suttie, D. IFAD RESEARCH SERIES 5-Rural-Urban Linkages and Food Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Rural Dimension; IFAD Research series; IFAD: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wong, R.; Palloni, A. Aging in Mexico and Latin America. In International Handbook of Population Aging; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 231–252. [Google Scholar]
  35. Brea, J.A. Population Dynamics in Latin America; Population Reference Bureau: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; Volume 58. [Google Scholar]
  36. Cotlear, D. Envejecimiento de la Población:¿ Está Preparada América Latina, in Envejecimiento de la Población; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; p. 278. [Google Scholar]
  37. De Janvry, A.; Sadoulet, E. Rural poverty in Latin America: Determinants and exit paths. Food Policy 2000, 25, 389–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Feltre, C.; Bacha, C.J.C. A evolução da pluriatividade nos estados de São Paulo e Pernambuco no período de 2001 a 2007. Rev. Econômica Do Nordeste 2010, 41, 41–56. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hecht, S. The new rurality: Globalization, peasants and the paradoxes of landscapes. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Martin, C. Migraciones, pluriactividad y recomposición del espacio rural. Las dinámicas múltiples del sur boliviano. Espacialidades 2012, 2, Mexico. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kay, C. The agrarian question and the neoliberal rural transformation in Latin America. Eur. Rev. Lat. Am. Caribb. Stud./Rev. Eur. De Estud. Latinoam. Y Del Caribe 2015, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Sánchez Saldaña, K.; Saldaña Ramírez, A. Rural mobilities and agricultural work in morelos in the 21 st century. Textual 2019, 2019, 245–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Anjos, F.S.d.; Caldas, N.V. Novos Dados Sobre a Evolução da População Ativa Rural e da Pluriatividade No Rio Grande do SUL. In Proceedings of the 46th Congress of the Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administracao e Sociologia Rural (SOBER), Rio Branco, Acre, Brazil, 20–23 July 2008. [Google Scholar]
  44. Romero, J. Lo rural y la ruralidad en América Latina: Categorías conceptuales en debate. Psicoperspectivas 2012, 11, 8–31. [Google Scholar]
  45. Estrada-Carmona, N.; Hart, A.K.; DeClerck, F.A.; Harvey, C.A.; Milder, J.C. Integrated landscape management for agriculture, rural livelihoods, and ecosystem conservation: An assessment of experience from Latin America and the Caribbean. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 129, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Gómez Contreras, L.M. La segunda residencia: Espacios fragmentados e interconectados. Perspect. Geográfica 2010, 15, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gascón, J.; Milano, C. Tourism, real estate development and depeasantisation in Latin America. Eur. Rev. Lat. Am. Caribb. Stud./Rev. Eur. Estud. Lat. Caribe 2018, 2018, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Torres Lima, P.; Sánchez, L.R. Dinámica agroambiental en áreas periurbanas de México: Los casos de Guadalajara y Distrito Federal. Investig. Geográficas 2006, 60, 62–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Quinones, X.; Gálvez, D. Estimación y estructura de los ingresos de familias mapuches rurales de zonas periurbanas de Temuco, Chile: Estimation and structure of rural Mapuche families income in peri-urban areas of Temuco, Chile. Mundo Agrar. [En Línea] 2015, 16, 32. [Google Scholar]
  50. Maraschio, G.; Fernanda, M.; Natalia, K.; María Florencia, M.; Gerardo Daniel, C. La Agricultura Familiar en un Territorio de Interfase Rural-Urbana: El Caso del Partido de Luján, PBA. In Proceedings of the Jornadas Platenses de Geografía y XX Jornadas de Investigación y de Enseñanza en Geografía, Plata, Argentina, 17–19 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
  51. Swinton, S.M.; Escobar, G.; Reardon, T. Poverty and environment in Latin America: Concepts, evidence and policy implications. World Dev. 2003, 31, 1865–1872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Altieri, M.A.; Toledo, V.M. The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. J. Peasant Stud. 2011, 38, 587–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Carriquiriborde, P.; Mirabella, P.; Waichman, A.; Solomon, K.; Brink, P.J.V.D.; Maund, S. Aquatic risk assessment of pesticides in Latin America. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2014, 10, 539–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rueda, X.; Lambin, E.F. Responding to globalization: Impacts of certification on Colombian small-scale coffee growers. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Perfecto, I.; Jiménez-Soto, M.E.; Vandermeer, J. Coffee landscapes shaping the Anthropocene: Forced simplification on a complex agroecological landscape. Curr. Anthropol. 2019, 60 (Suppl. S20), S236–S250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Watson, K.; Achinelli, M.L. Context and contingency: The coffee crisis for conventional small-scale coffee farmers in Brazil. Geogr. J. 2008, 174, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. McCook, S. Environmental history of coffee in Latin America. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Latin American History; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  58. Valencia, V.; García-Barrios, L.; Sterling, E.J.; West, P.; Meza-Jiménez, A.; Naeem, S. Smallholder response to environmental change: Impacts of coffee leaf rust in a forest frontier in Mexico. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 463–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Aide, T.M.; Grau, H.R. Globalization, Migration, and Latin American Ecosystems. Science 2004, 305, 1915–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Perfecto, I.; Vandermeer, J.; Mas, A.; Soto-Pinto, L. Biodiversity, yield, and shade coffee certification. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 54, 435–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Murray, D.L.; Raynolds, L.T.; Taylor, P.L. The future of Fair Trade coffee: Dilemmas facing Latin America’s small-scale producers. Dev. Pract. 2006, 16, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Agudelo, C.; Rivera, B.; Tapasco, J.; Estrada, R. Designing Policies to Reduce Rural Poverty and Environmental Degradation in a Hillside Zone of the Colombian Andes. World Dev. 2003, 31, 1921–1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. López, A.; Somarriba, E.; Bonilla, G. Tipologías y manejo de fincas cafetaleras en los municipios de San Ramón y Matagalpa, Nicaragua. Agroforestería En Las Américas 2003, 10, 74–79. [Google Scholar]
  64. Bravo-Monroy, L.; Potts, S.G.; Tzanopoulos, J. Drivers influencing farmer decisions for adopting organic or conventional coffee management practices. Food Policy 2016, 58, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Bhattarai, S.; Alvarez, S.; Gary, C.; Rossing, W.; Tittonell, P.; Rapidel, B. Combining farm typology and yield gap analysis to identify major variables limiting yields in the highland coffee systems of Llano Bonito, Costa Rica. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 243, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kilian, B.; Jones, C.; Pratt, L.; Villalobos, A. Is sustainable agriculture a viable strategy to improve farm income in Central America? A case study on coffee. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bray, J.G.; Neilson, J. Reviewing the impacts of coffee certification programmes on smallholder livelihoods. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2017, 13, 216–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Raynolds, L.T.; Murray, D.; Taylor, P.L. Fair trade coffee: Building producer capacity via global networks. J. Int. Dev. J. Dev. Stud. Assoc. 2004, 16, 1109–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rueda, X.; Thomas, N.E.; Lambin, E.F. Eco-certification and coffee cultivation enhance tree cover and forest connectivity in the Colombian coffee landscapes. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2015, 15, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Guhl, A. Café, bosques y certificación agrícola en Aratoca, Santander. Rev. De Estud. Soc. 2009, 32, 114–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Méndez, V.E.; Bacon, C.M.; Olson, M.; Petchers, S.; Herrador, D.; Carranza, C.; Trujillo, L.; Guadarrama-Zugasti, C.; Cordón, A.; Mendoza, A. Effects of Fair Trade and organic certifications on small-scale coffee farmer households in Central America and Mexico. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2010, 25, 236–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Barham, B.L.; Callenes, M.; Gitter, S.; Lewis, J.; Weber, J. Fair trade/organic coffee, rural livelihoods, and the “agrarian question”: Southern Mexican coffee families in transition. World Dev. 2011, 39, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Reina-Usuga, L.; de Haro-Giménez, T.; Parra-López, C. Food governance in territorial short food supply chains: Different narratives and strategies from Colombia and Spain. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 75, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. López Cardona, L. Generación de relevo y decisiones de inversión en fincas cafeteras en el departamento de Caldas–Colombia. Soc. Y Econ. 2013, 24, 263–286. [Google Scholar]
  75. Barbosa, W.G.J.; De La Portilla, E.; Basante, A.Y.; Zúñiga, L.A.; Zambrano, D.F.; Rojas, J.S.; Delgado, R.A. Relevo generacional para la continuidad de producción cafetera familiar. caso municipio de albán, nariño-colombia1. Rev. Colomb. De Cienc. Soc. 2018, 10, 67–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Castro Lotero, A.D.; Correa, L.M.R. La Vejez del Mejor Café Del Mundo; Revistas CSP 224; Universidad Católica de Pereira: Pereira, Colombia, 2016; p. 29. [Google Scholar]
  77. Escamilla-Prado, E. El relevo generacional en el sector cafetalero: La experiencia de los cursos de café para niños en Chocamán, Veracruz, México. Agro Product. 2018, 11, 48–54. [Google Scholar]
  78. Velásquez-Rodríguez, C.; Payán-Durán, L. Organizational Model Design for Small Coffee Farmers in the Municipality of Viotá-Colombia Case Study: Creo en el Agro. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bacon, C.M. A spot of coffee in crisis: Nicaraguan smallholder cooperatives, fair trade networks, and gendered empowerment. Lat. Am. Perspect. 2010, 37, 50–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sánchez Bajo, C. Las cooperativas en las cadenas de valor del café en Guatemala: Su contribución al logro de objetivos sociales, laborales y ambientales. Rev. Del Cent. De Estud. De Sociol. Del Trab. (CESOT) 2016, 8, 35–74. [Google Scholar]
  81. Vargas Prieto, A.; Guzmán, D.C.C. Efecto de las cooperativas exportadoras de café en el crecimiento de la economía solidaria en Colombia. Revesco Rev. De Estud. Coop. 2019, 130, 213–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.-L.; Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C.; et al. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8349–8356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Hernández Peña, Y.T. El ordenamiento territorial y su construcción social en Colombia:¿ un instrumento para el desarrollo sustentable? Cuad. Geogr. Rev. Colomb. Geogr. 2010, 19, 97–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Walker, W.E.; Haasnoot, M.; Kwakkel, J.H. Adapt or perish: A review of planning approaches for adaptation under deep uncertainty. Sustainability 2013, 5, 955–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Aguilar Zambrano, L.I. Crisis del café y el desarrollo regional. Cuad. Econ. 2003, 22, 239–272. [Google Scholar]
  86. Rodríguez Padrón, B.; Burger, K. Diversification and labor market effects of the Mexican coffee crisis. World Dev. 2015, 68, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Berdegué, J.A.; Fuentealba, R. Latin America: The state of smallholders in agriculture. In Proceedings of the IFAD conference on New Directions for Smallholder Agriculture, Rome, Italy, 24–25 January 2011. [Google Scholar]
  88. Benavente Cárdenas, C.; Camargo Salcedo, P.; Sarmiento Sarmiento, G.; Mena Chacón, L. Evaluación del desarrollo de la agricultura periurbana y propuesta de gestión integral en el distrito de Cayma, Arequipa, Perú. Idesia 2018, 36, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Albrechts, L.; Barbanente, A.; Monno, V. Practicing transformative planning: The territory-landscape plan as a catalyst for change. City Territ. Arch. 2020, 7, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Meadows, D.H. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System; Sustainability Institute: Hartland, MI, USA, 1999; p. 18. [Google Scholar]
  91. Abson, D.J.; Fischer, J.; Leventon, J.; Newig, J.; Schomerus, T.; Vilsmaier, U.; von Wehrden, H.; Abernethy, P.; Ives, C.D.; Jager, N.W.; et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 2017, 46, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 13 13026 g001 550
Figure 1. Location of Guayabal de Síquima. Uppercase text and dark red lines represent the names and borders of villages. Numbers and contour lines represent altitude in metres above sea level.
Figure 1. Location of Guayabal de Síquima. Uppercase text and dark red lines represent the names and borders of villages. Numbers and contour lines represent altitude in metres above sea level.
Sustainability 13 13026 g001
Sustainability 13 13026 g002 550
Figure 2. Population structure and changes in Guayabal de Síquima: (a) urban vs. rural; (b) age groups. Source: DANE https://www.dane.gov.co/files/censo2018/informacion-tecnica/CNPV-2018-Poblacion-Ajustada-por-Cobertura.xls (accessed on 21 January 2020).
Figure 2. Population structure and changes in Guayabal de Síquima: (a) urban vs. rural; (b) age groups. Source: DANE https://www.dane.gov.co/files/censo2018/informacion-tecnica/CNPV-2018-Poblacion-Ajustada-por-Cobertura.xls (accessed on 21 January 2020).
Sustainability 13 13026 g002
Sustainability 13 13026 g003 550
Figure 3. Changes in the number and the size of the farms in GdS. Source: Cundinamarca Secretary for Planning http://www.cundinamarca.gov.co/Home/SecretariasEntidades.gc/Secretariadeplaneacion/SecretariadeplaneacionDespliegue/asestadisticas_contenidos/csecreplanea_estadis_anuario (accessed on 30 January 2020).
Figure 3. Changes in the number and the size of the farms in GdS. Source: Cundinamarca Secretary for Planning http://www.cundinamarca.gov.co/Home/SecretariasEntidades.gc/Secretariadeplaneacion/SecretariadeplaneacionDespliegue/asestadisticas_contenidos/csecreplanea_estadis_anuario (accessed on 30 January 2020).
Sustainability 13 13026 g003
Sustainability 13 13026 g004 550
Figure 4. Changes in the relative and total coffee area in Cundinamarca between 2002 and 2019. Classes of intensification levels: (i) young intensified coffee with rust-resistant varieties and with less than 9–12 years of being planted; (ii) old intensified coffee with rust-resistant varieties but older than 9–12 years and mid/high densities (≥2500 coffee trees per ha); (iii) traditional coffee varieties with low planting densities (<2500 coffee trees per ha). Source: FNCC https://federaciondecafeteros.org/wp/estadisticas-cafeteras/ (accessed on 5 February 2020).
Figure 4. Changes in the relative and total coffee area in Cundinamarca between 2002 and 2019. Classes of intensification levels: (i) young intensified coffee with rust-resistant varieties and with less than 9–12 years of being planted; (ii) old intensified coffee with rust-resistant varieties but older than 9–12 years and mid/high densities (≥2500 coffee trees per ha); (iii) traditional coffee varieties with low planting densities (<2500 coffee trees per ha). Source: FNCC https://federaciondecafeteros.org/wp/estadisticas-cafeteras/ (accessed on 5 February 2020).
Sustainability 13 13026 g004
Sustainability 13 13026 g005 550
Figure 5. Changes in the total coffee area in GdS and productivity (total harvested area/total production) for Cundinamarca and GdS. Source: EVA https://www.datos.gov.co/Agricultura-y-Desarrollo-Rural/Evaluaciones-Agropecuarias-Municipales-EVA/2pnw-mmge (accessed on 30 January 2020).
Figure 5. Changes in the total coffee area in GdS and productivity (total harvested area/total production) for Cundinamarca and GdS. Source: EVA https://www.datos.gov.co/Agricultura-y-Desarrollo-Rural/Evaluaciones-Agropecuarias-Municipales-EVA/2pnw-mmge (accessed on 30 January 2020).
Sustainability 13 13026 g005
Sustainability 13 13026 g006 550
Figure 6. Changes in coffee price and monthly price difference of the internal market in USD between 2000 and 2019. Source FNCC https://federaciondecafeteros.org/wp/estadisticas-cafeteras/ (accessed on 5 February 2020).
Figure 6. Changes in coffee price and monthly price difference of the internal market in USD between 2000 and 2019. Source FNCC https://federaciondecafeteros.org/wp/estadisticas-cafeteras/ (accessed on 5 February 2020).
Sustainability 13 13026 g006
Sustainability 13 13026 g007 550
Figure 7. (a) Land use and (b) spatial distribution of coffee farmers and coffee areas in the different villages in the study area. Source: DANE agricultural census data 2014.
Figure 7. (a) Land use and (b) spatial distribution of coffee farmers and coffee areas in the different villages in the study area. Source: DANE agricultural census data 2014.
Sustainability 13 13026 g007
Sustainability 13 13026 g008 550
Figure 8. Number of (former) coffee farmers who (a) disagreed or (b) agreed with each statement. * Replaced by “farmer” for the former coffee farmers. ** When the former coffee farmers still grew coffee. Source: farmer interviews.
Figure 8. Number of (former) coffee farmers who (a) disagreed or (b) agreed with each statement. * Replaced by “farmer” for the former coffee farmers. ** When the former coffee farmers still grew coffee. Source: farmer interviews.
Sustainability 13 13026 g008
Sustainability 13 13026 g009 550
Figure 9. Interviewees’ opinions: (a) agreement on current and future trends (only one option per respondent), and (b) possible options for improvement (more than one option per respondent). Source: farmer interviews.
Figure 9. Interviewees’ opinions: (a) agreement on current and future trends (only one option per respondent), and (b) possible options for improvement (more than one option per respondent). Source: farmer interviews.
Sustainability 13 13026 g009
Table
Table 1. Main land use and population characteristics per village. Source: DANE agricultural census data 2014.
Table 1. Main land use and population characteristics per village. Source: DANE agricultural census data 2014.
VillageReported Area *Share of Tot. Area **Agric. Area ***FarmsAgric. Farms ***Farms < 2 haChicken FarmsCattle HerdCattle Density
%%%No.%%No.No.No./ha GRASSLAND
Centro10027917856902280.91
Chiniata891099199935512941.78
El Trigo731498236945006662.14
Manoa76158015475394990.76
Mesitas774792974983111723.64
Pajonal871198183934813082.63
Picacho95794110756202812.36
Pueblo Viejo941690340706461950.80
Resguardo972831126383090.50
Robledal86293138678421162.18
Torres8811961339159160.12
Trinidad434939883695691.44
Total819891217875633322431.68
* Reported agricultural area compared to the total area of each village. ** It does not add up to 100% because it does not include urban centres. *** Reported any agricultural activity.
Table
Table 2. Average land use data and socio-economic data by strata per selected coffee farms. Source: DANE agricultural census data 2014.
Table 2. Average land use data and socio-economic data by strata per selected coffee farms. Source: DANE agricultural census data 2014.
VillageCoffee FarmersFarmers > 60 yrs *Farms < 2 haFam Labour > 50%Coffee > 75% AreaCoffee AssociatedChickensPork and CattleDrought Problems
No.%%%%%%%%
Centro325888536372131613
Chiniata56196346809352036
El Trigo1267425075100424217
Manoa345744159191181835
Mesitas724689657658141728
Pajonal573439446168183240
Picacho296476458376142838
Pueblo Viejo1134666428176191448
Resguardo37447851898151143
Robledal3767866278738535
Torres1414577509314014
Trinidad266473627396313538
Total5194768477777151836
* Data available only for 53% of the surveyed farms.
Table
Table 3. Average land use and socio-economic data. Source: farmer interviews.
Table 3. Average land use and socio-economic data. Source: farmer interviews.
VariableUnitCategories
Local Coffee FarmersMigrant Coffee FarmersFormer Coffee Farmers
IntervieweesNo.1166
More than 60 years old%555033
Household memberspeople2.3 ± 0.82.8 ± 1.52.7 ± 1.2
Farm sizeha3.1 ± 1.33.5 ± 1.84.4 ± 2.7 *
With off-farm income%4610083
Amount of food produced on farm%402436 *
Purchasing goods in city%90100n.a.
Poultry production%558383
Technical support%2717n.a.
Member of the FNCC%7333n.a.
Coffee area% area64 ± 2849 ± 2250 ± 28
Coffee income% income37 ± 3018 ± 10n.a.
Organic production%1850n.a.
Improved varieties%9067n.a.
Shaded coffee% area79 ± 3458 ± 49n.a.
Direct coffee selling%4550n.a.
Part unprocessed selling%3633n.a.
n.a.: not applicable. * Included only five households keeping their farms.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Valbuena, D.; Chenet, J.G.; Gaitán-Cremaschi, D. Options to Support Sustainable Trajectories in a Rural Landscape: Drivers, Rural Processes, and Local Perceptions in a Colombian Coffee-Growing Region. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13026. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313026

AMA Style

Valbuena D, Chenet JG, Gaitán-Cremaschi D. Options to Support Sustainable Trajectories in a Rural Landscape: Drivers, Rural Processes, and Local Perceptions in a Colombian Coffee-Growing Region. Sustainability. 2021; 13(23):13026. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313026

Chicago/Turabian Style

Valbuena, Diego, Julien G. Chenet, and Daniel Gaitán-Cremaschi. 2021. "Options to Support Sustainable Trajectories in a Rural Landscape: Drivers, Rural Processes, and Local Perceptions in a Colombian Coffee-Growing Region" Sustainability 13, no. 23: 13026. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313026

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop