Vincent de Leijster

133 Chronosequence analysis of economic performance of agroforestry coffee farms in Colombia 6 gross revenues of tree fruits, timber and Musa fruits were significantly higher on farms selling coffee to a coffee association compared to farms selling to the national coffee cooperative, and did not differ from farms selling to private intermediaries (Tukey test: Z=2.4, P=0.04; appendix Figure A6-7). Table 6-5. Best models explaining economic performance. We included canopy characteristics, management intensity, farm and location characteristics and supply chain characteristics as presented in Table 6-2. Δ AIC is the delta Akaike information criterion ( Δ AIC), R 2 is the adjusted R 2 (• = P < 0.10, * = P < 0.05, ** = P < 0.01). Boxplot of actual net revenue and intermediary choice in appendix Figure A6-6. Economic Performance Factors coefficient ± SD Δ AIC F P-value R 2 Coffee gross revenue Altitude 2.2 ± 0.7*** 18 4.4*10 -5 0.15 Pest control 3.5 ± 1.2** 7 8.4 Coffee net revenue Altitude 1.2 ± 0.58* 3 4.0 0.02 0.046 Farm size 16 ± 9.8• 2 Actual net revenue Intermediary * 3 3.2 0.04 0.04 Value non-marketed products and services Fertilization 2100 ± 770 ** 5 Intermediary * 5 5.7 3.3*10 -4 0.13 Tree density 2.8 ± 1.2* 5 6.4 Discussion We tested whether economic performance of coffee farms varied over time since transition from monoculture to agroforestry. We found that approximately 20% of all the coffee farms were not profitable. This is confronting evidence that shows that the current global coffee crisis, characterized by low prices, strongly affects the livelihoods of millions of smallholders who produce this commodity (Amrouk, 2018). Further, we found no significant differences in the actual net revenue or in the coffee net revenue between agroforestry and monoculture farms, and we found that actual net revenues were stable over time since agroforestry was implemented. These results are in line with a meta-analysis of the economic performance of agroforestry in coffee and cocoa compared to monocultures (Jezeer et al., 2017), which showed that in 13 out of 15 studies agroforestry farms had lower coffee yields than monoculture, but higher net revenues in 8 out of 15 cases (Jezeer et al., 2017). Further, we found that tree fruits and timber provided a contribution to actual net revenues, similar to what was found in coffee farms in Brazil (Souza et al., 2011), Peru (Jezeer et al., 2018), and for cocoa in Ecuador (Bentley et al., 2004) and Bolivia (Schneider et al., 2017). The revenues of these co-products also increased with time since agroforestry was implemented. However, in line with (Millard, 2011), their potential was highly under-utilized, as the gross revenues of