VI. POLICY SUPPORT: GOVERNMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

People throughout the Western Hemisphere have much to gain from ecologically sound coffee production. Governments and international institutions should thus mobilize their efforts to support traditional coffee farmers whose agricultural practices preserve biodiversity and enhance soil quality in Latin America. Individuals and institutions should likewise direct their efforts into boosting methods of coffee processing that substantially reduce solid and liquid waste dumping into water supplies.

Local governments, bilateral funders, and multilateral institutions should find ample reason to target environmentally sensitive coffee production and processing as acceptable funding opportunities. Establishing policies that preserve shade coffee production and allow small coffee growers to benefit from the good land stewardship practices that many already have in operation not only will help maintain the biodiversity associated with shade coffee, but will bring greater economic benefits to the coffee communities involved. Moreover, ecologically sound shade coffee production falls squarely within the realm of carbon sequestration, and producers could potentially fit within programs such as the United States Joint Implementation Initiative.

A priority will be to provide financial incentives, credit, and technical assistance for coffee growers and processors to adopt methods that maintain crop yields and profits while benefitting environmental values. Agriculture, tax and trade policies should be reformed to encourage, rather than create barriers to, environmentally sensitive coffee production. Support is also needed for expanded research on the ecology and economics of coffee production and markets in the Americas.

A. Funding incentives for environmentally sound coffee production^[84]

Adoption of sustainable coffee systems presents transitional economic risks for growers and processors. Targeted incentives are needed to enable more small-scale coffee growers in Latin America to maintain or implement environmentally sound management practices that help sustain long-term productivity and profitability. Sustainable development in the Latin American coffee sector should be a priority for bilateral economic assistance, the Global Environment Facility, multilateral development banks, and national environmental funds.

1. Bilateral assistance

Through its various programs for bilateral foreign assistance, the United States should support sustainable coffee production in Latin America. Recent examples from the Inter-American Foundation and the U.S. Agency for International Development illustrate the potential for bilateral funding to improve economic and environmental conditions for coffee producers (see Box on "Supporting Sustainable Coffee at the Local Level"). The need for incentives connected to environmentally sensitive coffee argues strongly for increased bilateral assistance for sustainable development in developing countries. Unfortunately, current political trends in the US are toward sharp reductions in foreign assistance funding.

The role of NGOs operating internationally will become increasingly important in providing financial and technical assistance for environmentally sound coffee production. For instance, Conservation International is developing a multi-faceted program to work with local farmer organizations in priority biodiversity areas in Latin America and worldwide. The program will be designed to provide pre-harvest financing to enable growers to store their coffee until they can obtain a favorable price from buyers, technical support in environmentally sound production methods, and transitional costs for implementing positive land stewardship practices.^[85] In Mexico, the Coordinadora de Peque-os Productores del Café de Chiapas (COOPCAFE) is undertaking a program under a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to train peasant farmers in that state in organic coffee production and to support ecologically sound agriculture by farmers operating in the buffer zone of the Lacandon rain forest.

2. Global Environment Facility

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is the world's only multilateral dedicated fund for the environment, providing grants to developing countries to protect global resources. The GEF is governed by an independent Council, and the projects it funds are implemented by the World Bank, United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

The GEF was launched in 1991 as a pilot program. In 1994, the Facility completed a restructuring process that reflected many recommendations by conservation groups and governments, as well as an independent evaluation of the pilot phase. Total funding for the GEF over the next three years is set at $2 billion -- an amount to be contributed in annual installments by 26 nations. The U.S.-agreed share of the GEF replenishment is $430 million, of which Congress appropriated $90 million for fiscal year 1995, but just $35 million for fiscal year 1996.

The GEF's purpose is to address environmental problems that are "global" in nature. Hence, GEF-funded projects must fit within one or more of the Facility's focal areas of biological diversity, climate change, international waters, ozone depletion, and land degradation.

Environmentally sound coffee production should fall squarely within the GEF guidelines, in the biodiversity area and perhaps others. In its discussion of forest ecosystems, the operational strategy recently approved by the GEF states that priority will be given to "conservation of areas of importance for migratory species."^[86] The strategy's list of activities for sustainable use of biodiversity includes "[P]romotion of sustainable production and use of natural products, such as nontimber forest products. . .and agrobiodiversity-related products, including the development and implementation of sustainable harvesting and marketing regimes."^[87] These and other passages in the document are directly relevant to coffee production in northern Latin America.

Global Environment Facility grants are available not only to national governments, but also to non-governmental organizations and private sector businesses. A small fraction of GEF funds are allocated through a UNDP-administered Small Grants Program for projects conducted by non-governmental organizations and local communities. Conservation groups have urged enlargement of the existing Small Grants Program, as well as establishment of a Medium Grants Program for NGO projects whose scale falls between the small grants program and the regular GEF funding available to governments. The small and medium grants approach would be well-suited to funding local environmentally sensitive coffee enterprises in Latin America.

Another potential funding window for ecologically sound coffee is a newly proposed "Biodiversity Enterprise Fund for Latin America," to be directed by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) with partial support from the Global Environment Facility. Affiliated with the World Bank, the IFC is the largest multilateral source of private sector financing in developing countries.

Preliminary documents describing the Biodiversity Enterprise Fund for Latin America suggest there may be significant potential for financing of coffee operations that protect ecological values. The project proposal submitted to the GEF notes specifically that "fast growing markets for biodiversity-linked products" are creating new opportunities for projects that advance both conservation and development objectives.^[88] The IFC's draft feasibility study for the project states that, among its priorities, the fund will support investments in "alternative, certified organic, or biologically diverse agricultural methods."^[89]

3. Multilateral Development Banks

Within their Western Hemisphere lending, the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) appear to be increasing their programmatic emphasis on biodiversity and other environmental objectives. The 1987-1993 World Bank portfolio contains numerous projects involving agriculture and forest management in Latin America and the Caribbean.^[90] The IDB's draft plan for implementing the Action Plan from the 1994 Summit of the Americas states that the Bank will "make biodiversity concerns an integral element of rural development initiatives."^[91]

Support for sustainable coffee production should be a priority for multilateral development bank programs in Latin America. World Bank and IDB loans for forestry and agriculture projects in the region should be assessed for potential impacts on small-scale, traditional coffee growers and local communities. The Banks could play a particularly important role in addressing funding needs for projects requiring significant capital investment, such as pollution prevention technology in coffee processing facilities. For example, water use reduction and recycling are part of an IDB-funded project being implemented by small-scale grower cooperatives in El Salvador in partnership with Appropriate Technology International.^[92]

The World Bank is currently developing a $200 million Agriculture Development and Rural Poverty project for Mexico. Slated for approval in mid-1996, the project targets the extremely poor rural areas in Mexico's southern states that encompass much of the country's coffee-growing lands. If properly designed and implemented, the project could benefit sustainable, shade-grown coffee enterprises. The Bank's public information document describing the project observes that "government price and trade policy for agriculture has favored larger commercial farmers. . .as well as commercial livestock producers" and, moreover, that "[D]uring the past six years, government agricultural programs aimed at poor producers have diminished in scope and in effectiveness."^[93]

The project's defined objective is to promote long-term sustainability for poor, small-scale farmers and rural organizations through measures such as soil and water conservation, and improved processing and marketing of agricultural commodities. Examples of possible areas for project financing include on-farm investments in sustainable natural resource management, applied research and agricultural extension, and assistance to producer organizations to improve their capacity for marketing, access to credit and adoption of sustainable production technologies.

Two additional funding institutions, created under the environmental agreements accompanying the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among Mexico, Canada, and the United States, have potential to fund sustainable coffee production in Mexico. One is the North American Development Bank (NADBank), whose estimated $7-8 billion in total financing capability over the next decade will be directed toward funding public works projects for sewage treatment, solid waste management and other environmental infrastructure projects needed in the U.S.-Mexico border region. The Bank nevertheless features a "Community Adjustment and Investment Program" under which 10 percent of the NADBank capital is supposed to go toward grants and loans to communities throughout Mexico and the U.S. affected by economic integration. Support for communities in southern Mexico engaged in environmentally sound coffee production should receive priority attention within implementation of the NADBank's community adjustment window.

The other institution of concern is the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). At the October 1995 meeting of the CEC Council, the environmental ministers from the three countries jointly announced creation of a $2 million North American Environment Fund. Grants from the fund will support local community organizations "for projects that promote an integrated approach to ecosystem management and the sustainable use of natural resources important to the region as a whole."^[94] Use of the fund to support sustainable, shade-grown coffee would fit well with the Commission's current priority focus on protection of migratory bird habitat.

4. National environmental funds

An additional funding source for ecologically sensitive coffee production may be found in national environmental funds, which comprise various mechanisms such as trust funds, foundations and endowments that provide financial support for activities that benefit biodiversity conservation and other environmental purposes.^[95] Such funds are typically governed by Boards of Directors with governmental and non-governmental representatives, are able to receive and manage money from a variety of sources, and can disburse grants to non-governmental organizations and community groups.

National environmental funds have demonstrated considerable promise in financing local conservation and sustainable development projects, building NGO capacity, and strengthening democracy and the role of civil society in conservation policy choices.^[96] The role of national environmental funds becomes even more compelling in the face of cutbacks in U.S. bilateral and multilateral assistance for sustainable development in developing countries.

Recent years have witnessed a rapid and diverse proliferation of national environmental funds in Latin America. One example is ECOFONDO, which is a private trust fund established in 1993 and managed jointly by the Colombian government and the NGO community. Major funding sources for ECOFONDO have included forgiveness of official USAID debt through the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, and a subsequent grant from the government of Canada. Environmentally sound coffee production certainly falls within several categories of activities eligible for ECOFONDO grants, such as "sustainable development of watersheds," and "conservation and sustainable management of ecologically important areas."^[97]

B. Reform of agriculture and tax policies

It is essential that national farm policies -- through whatever mix of price and income support, commodity supply management, credit assistance, research, extension, conservation cost-sharing or other instruments they may employ -- be structured to encourage rather than penalize traditional coffee producers who practice good land stewardship. Government intervention, for example, should be targeted to boost the productivity of under-managed, "passively" organic coffee farms that, for reasons of poverty and/or neglect, have not attained adequate yields. Another priority is to ensure that small-scale coffee growers have access to adequate credit to enable them to implement environmentally sensitive practices and obtain good prices for their coffee.

Unfortunately, agricultural policy frameworks in Latin America have done little to provide incentives for sustainable coffee producers. It has instead been more common for commodity subsidies and related programs to reward large-scale operations and create bias against small-scale, diversified farming systems.

Mexico is a case in point. Until the early 1990s, Mexico subsidized livestock heavily through artificially low feed prices; this created implicit taxation of shade coffee crops and encouraged conversion of forests to pasture.^[98] Notwithstanding benefits delivered to some small producers, the National Solidarity Program implemented under the Salinas administration has been criticized for not addressing underlying problems facing the Mexican coffee sector such as the untenable debt loads of many small growers.^[99] Recent social unrest in southern Mexican states such as Chiapas and Guererro, has been attributable, at least in part, to the longstanding failure of government policies to address the extreme poverty among coffee growers.

As noted above, during the 1970s and 1980s, the Mexican government's Instituto Mexicano del Café (INMECAFE) promoted intensified coffee production through the reduction or removal of diverse shade cover, planting of high-yielding hybrid coffee varieties, and increased agrochemical inputs.^[100] Privatization of INMECAFE went forward in the late 1980s and early 1990s without effective safeguards against small farmer dislocation.^[101] In a move that seems reminiscent of the production-oriented policies of the 1970s and 1980s, the Mexican government recently announced an ambitious proposal to provide coffee plants, credit and technical assistance to growers wishing to renovate their operations in search of higher yields. As part of a larger production-oriented program known as "Alianza Para El Campo" ("Countryside Alliance"), planners believe this new policy can position Mexico's total coffee output ahead of Colombia's within the next decade. Experts have criticized this initiative, among other reasons, for ignoring its negative environmental implications.^[102]

Since 1993, Mexico has been instituting a package of agricultural reforms known as PROCAMPO (Programa de Apoyos Directos al Campo, or "Program of Director Support to the Countryside"), designed to replace commodity price supports with fixed income support payments made directly to farmers over the next 10 years, and phased out over the subsequent five years. In one change that could conceivably benefit the competitive position of organic coffee growers, the PROCAMPO reforms remove most subsidies for inputs such as purchased chemical pesticides.^[103]

The overall impact of PROCAMPO on the environmental practices of coffee producers is not immediately clear because the program is so new and its early implementation has been complicated by the Mexican economic crisis following the December 1994 peso devaluation. Changes announced by a Mexican inter-governmental commission in October 1995 will broaden the scope of PROCAMPO to include greater emphasis on technical assistance, decentralization of decision-making authority to the state and local levels, and a new program called "PRODUCE" under which the government will pay up to 50 percent of certain costs incurred by the poorest farmers.^[104]

Because its benefits are not linked to production of specific commodities, PROCAMPO is expected to reduce incentives for surplus production of major crops such as corn, soybeans and sorghum.^[105] This represents a shift away from certain previous policies that, as noted above, have favored large-scale grain producers and commercial livestock operations at the expense of forest conservation and diversified farming systems including coffee. On the other hand, some non-governmental organizations and community forestry associations in Mexico have expressed concern that PROCAMPO encourages conversion of land to production of agricultural commodities as opposed to sustainable forestry enterprises.

Reforms to change the incentive structure for coffee producers will not be complete without a review of tax policies.^[106] This examination should focus on removing perverse tax preferences that favor unsustainable farming methods, as well as on providing tax benefits to encourage development of sustainable land use and resource management.^[107]

One promising strategy would be the creation of sustainable agriculture funds through taxes on pesticides. Such revenues could be channeled into national environmental funds, as mentioned above. This would be a means of "internalizing" the costs to environmental quality and human health that result from chemical-intensive sun coffee production. Useful precedents for taxing agricultural chemicals exist in several European countries, as well as in states such as California and Iowa.^[108]

A related approach is to recapture a portion of revenues associated with international coffee trade, to be directed toward social and environmental purposes. For example, Colombia has used savings from the 1990 elimination of the European Community's four percent tariff on coffee imports to establish an Ecological Fund for Coffee Zones. Interest from the investments of these revenues now supports projects focusing on the integrated management of watersheds, the recycling, composting, and management of municipal garbage, water treatment, and community development via environmental education programs. The Fund, overseen by the Federación Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia, is administered in Bogotá, with each coffee department receiving funds proportional to its coffee production.^[109]

Finally, agricultural and tax policy reforms should be accompanied by measures to strengthen regulation and monitoring of pesticides. Tighter restrictions are needed on exports of banned pesticides, in addition to upgrading of domestic regulatory regimes. Another priority for countries throughout the Americas is to implement "right-to-know" requirements that assure provision of reliable pesticide use information to farmworkers, regulators and the public.

C. Research

Scientific evidence now available makes a compelling case documenting the environmental damages of industrial coffee production, and the corresponding environmental advantages of traditional methods. The various studies conducted to date provide a strong basis to move forward, without delay, to mobilize market and policy forces on behalf of sustainable coffee systems.

A coffee strategy to promote environmental protection and sustainable development in northern Latin America, however, will require a commitment to expanded research. This commitment is needed to improve our understanding of the complex agro-ecology and economics of coffee, and thus to give needed direction to choices made in policy, funding and markets. The research strategy should be geared toward providing practical information to coffee growers on how they can implement environmentally sound production systems, and acheive success in domestic and international markets.

The following are examples of priorities for additional research on environmentally sensitive coffee:

• mapping of Latin American countries to determine the current spatial distribution of traditional, shaded, biodiverse coffee lands;
  
  
• research on the tree species known to be associated with greater biodiversity of birds, insects, etc.;
  
  
• studies to determine the appropriate levels of thinning or pruning of the overstory trees that will maximize associated biodiversity and coffee production;
  
  
• the role of physiological characteristics of shade species, such as flowering and fruiting patterns, to determine what mix of shade best enhances biodiversity levels;
  
  
• studies comparing the performance of shade and sun coffee on environmental parameters such as migratory species, biological diversity, soil productivity and water pollution;
  
  
• market analysis for environmentally sound coffee and the non-coffee products raised on coffee farms;
  
  
• economic studies to measure the external costs of coffee production, and to describe options for internalizing those costs; and
  
  
• studies comparing the economics of environmentally sound versus conventional production systems at the farm level.

Research strategies in these and related areas will necessarily include documentation of traditional knowledge by working with local people and communities; development of incentives for case studies on working farms and farmer-to-farmer information exchanges; increased support for research and monitoring activities over long time horizons; and establishment of regional networks of researchers and data bases for biogeographical and market information.^[110]

D. International coffee agreements

International coffee markets are subject to wide fluctuations, in general adhering to supply and demand relationships.^[111] Major swings in coffee prices may go largely unnoticed by consumers in wealthy industrial countries, but are critical to individual coffee growers and national economies throughout much of Latin America. When coffee prices drop precipitously, the impacts fall hardest on low-income farmers and laborers. The consequences are frequently acute for small-scale growers practicing environmentally sound coffee production.

Since the early 1960s, a series of international agreements have failed to achieve long-term solutions to price instability in the coffee sector.^[112] Unemployment and financial impoverishment resulting from the collapse of the International Coffee Agreement in 1989 affected millions of farmers and farm workers in the coffee growing countries of Latin America. Prices have risen dramatically since the 1993 Coffee Retention Plan, which is an accord among 28 coffee producing countries from Latin America, Asia and Africa that seeks to restrict international market supplies by requiring members to withhold 20 percent of coffee stocks from exportation.^[113] However, much of the recent boost in prices is attributable to a mid-1994 freeze that destroyed a large portion of the Brazilian coffee crop. It is too early to assess whether the 1993 scheme will lead to more enduring coffee price stabilization than the previous international agreements.

The world's trading partners have taken initial steps toward integrating environmental concerns into the International Coffee Agreement. Article 35 of the 1994 version of the Agreement requires members to:

[g]ive due consideration to the sustainable management of coffee resources and processing, bearing in mind the principles and objectives on sustainable development agreed at the Eighth Session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.^[114]

Agenda 21, the comprehensive action plan adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (the "Earth Summit"), contains abundant provisions that apply to ecologically sound coffee. Examples include commitments aimed at "international cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries," "combating deforestation," and "meeting agricultural needs without destroying the land."^[115]

Future coffee trade negotiations should better serve the interests of sustainable coffee producers, with the goal of ensuring prices that enable a reasonable return on sales and that reflect costs incurred in making production systems environmentally sound. Toward this end, for example, international agreements should never undercut the ability of producers to bypass the "middle man" in international commodity markets, and to sell their products directly to roasters and consumers wishing to purchase coffee that is grown and processed without environmental degradation.

One option for future reform of coffee trade regimes is to promote agricultural shifts from sun-grown coffee into environmentally sound alternative crops. In addition to reversing the environmental damages from industrial coffee plantations, such shifts could help reduce surplus coffee volumes and thus contribute to more lasting price stability for sustainable coffee producers. Precedent for this approach might be found in the "Diversification Fund" contained in the 1968 version of the International Coffee Agreement. This fund required contributions from signatory countries to be used for the purpose of developing alternative crops and economic enterprises in coffee exporting countries.^[116] Reinstatement of a diversification fund or similar instrument should be carefully structured to promote shifts away from unsustainable sun-grown coffee and into crops that reduce chemical inputs and conserve natural resources.

Notes

84. For further information about the financing institutions discussed in this section, contact: Global Environment Facility Secretariat, 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, USA, phone (202) 473-1053, fax (202) 522-3240/3245; Inter-American Development Bank, 1300 New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20577, USA, phone (202) 623-1000; U.S. Agency for International Development, Office of Public Inquiries, State Department Building, 2201 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20523, USA, phone (202) 647-1850; World Bank Public Information Center, 1818 H Street, N.W., Room GCI-302, Washington, D.C. 20433, USA, phone (202) 458-5454, fax (202) 522-1500, e-mail: pic@worldbank.org.

85. Michael Saxenian, Director, Conservation Enterprise Department, Conservation International, Washington, DC, personal communication, December 5, 1995.

86. Global Environment Facility, "Revised Draft GEF Operational Strategy" (Washington, D.C.: GEF/C.6/3, Sept. 29, 1995), 19, (paragraph 2.22).

87. Ibid., 21, (paragraph 2.30(3)).

88. Global Environment Facility, "GEF Project Proposal: Biodiversity Enterprise Fund for Latin America," in Work Program Proposed for Council Approval (Washington, D.C.: GEF/C.6/4/Rev.1, Oct. 18, 1995, section B.4), p. 1.

89. International Finance Corporation, Technical and Environment Department, "Draft Feasibility Study: Biodiversity Enterprise Fund for Latin America" (October 1994), p. 4.

90. The World Bank, A Partnership for Progress: The World Bank in Latin America and the Caribbean (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1994), pp. 59-67.

91. Inter-American Development Bank, "Draft: Implementing the Action Plan of the Summit of the Americas" (Washington, D.C.: March 3, 1995), p. 5.

92. Gilberto Amaya H., Appropriate Technology International, personal communication, January 22, 1996.

93. The World Bank, Mexico: Agricultural Development and Rural Poverty Project, (Washington, D.C.: Public Information Document, July 28, 1995), pp. 1-2.

94. Commission for Environmental Cooperation, "Communiqué of the Second Annual Regular Session of the Council of Ministers: Oaxaca, Mexico, October 13, 1995" (Montreal: CEC Secretariat, October 1995).

95. IUCN - The World Conservation Network, The Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund, Report of the First Global Forum on Environmental Funds (Washington, D.C.: IUCN, 1994), p. 2.

96. Interagency Planning Group, "Environmental Funds: A New Approach to Sustainable Development" (Report of April 26, 1995 briefing in Paris for the OECD/DAC Working Party on Development Assistance and Environment), p. 6.

97. ECOFONDO In Brief (Brochure) (Bogata, Colombia, 1995).

98. The World Bank, Mexico: Resource Conservation and Forest Sector Review (Washington, D.C.: Report No. 13114-ME, March 31, 1995), 29.

99. Luis Hernández Navarro and Fernando Célis Callejas, 1994 Solidarity and the New Campesino Movements: The Case of Coffee Production, In Transforming State-Society Relations in Mexico: The National Solidarity Strategy, ed. Wayne A. Cornelius, Ann L. Craig and Jonathan Fox (San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, U. of California), pp. 217-231.

100. David Nestel, 1995 Coffee in Mexico: international market, agricultural landscape and ecology Ecological Economics 15:165-178; Dr. Arturo Gomez-Pompa, Professor of Ecology, University of California, Riverside, personal communication, October 8, 1995.

101. Luis Hernández Navarro and David Bray, 1991 (Summer) Mexico:Campesinos and Coffee, Hemisphere.

102. Luis Hernández Navarro, Café con aroma de burocracia La Jornada November 14, 1995; Lu's Hernández Navarro, personal communication, January 18, 1996.

103. Id.

104. Kevin G. Hall, New Farm Policy Focuses on Technical Assistance, Journal of Commerce, 1 November 1995, sec. A; Mexico's Farm Plan Carries Benefits, Risks, Journal of Commerce, 3 November 1995, sec. A.

105. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Agriculture, Trade and Environment: Achieving Complementary Policies (Washington, D.C.:OTA-ENV-617, May 1995), p. 165.

106. Arturo Gómez-Pompa et al., 1994 Mexico, In Sustainable Agriculture and the Environment in the Humid Tropics, National Research Council (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press), p. 527.

107. See Justin R. Ward, F. Kaid Benfield and Ann E. Kinsinger, Reaping the Revenue Code: Why We Need Sensible Tax Reform for Sustainable Agriculture (New York: Natural Resources Defense Council, 1989); see also Ian Bowles et al., Encouraging Private Sector Support for Biodiversity Conservation (Washington, D.C.: Conservation International, forthcoming).

108. Robert Repetto et al., Green Fees: How a Tax Shift Can Work for the Environment and the Economy (Washington, D.C., World Resources Institute, November 1992), 81.

109. Fondo para la Protección y Recuperación del Medio Ambiente, Document from Dr. Edgar Echeverri G-mez of the Federaci-n Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia; Dr. Pablo Tarazona, Divisi-n de Producci-n y Desarrollo Social of the Federaci-n Nacional de Cafeteros de Colombia, personal communication, May 8, 1996.

110. Gómez-Pompa et al., Mexico, pp. 529-532.

111. There is some evidence to suggest that the International Coffee Agreement, instituted initially in the late 1950s, played a geopolitical role (at least in the Latin American context and the United States' willingness to participate in the accord) in providing adequate prices to growers during the Cold War era. (Benoit Daviron, 1994 La crisis del mercado cafetalero internacional en un perspectiva de largo plazo, (unpublished ms., CIRAD, Montepellier); John Vandermeer, personal communication, February 26, 1996.

112. Matthew J. Foli, 1995 International Coffee Agreements and the Elusive Goal of Price Stability, Minnesota Journal of Global Trade 4:80, 101.

113. Ibid., pp. 80-81.

114. International Coffee Organization, "Article 35 of the Agreement: Environmental Aspects" (London: International Coffee Council, August 21, 1995), p. 1.

115. United Nations, "Press Summary of Agenda 21" (New York: UN Department of Public Information, May 1993).

116. Foli, pp. 89-90.