Month: September 2011

Research: Types of fruit trees on shade coffee farms important

By

On September 28, 2011

In Birds and other biodiversity, Research on coffee growing

The value of fruit security for the conservation of a neotropical frugivore in human-dominated landscapes. Peters and Nibbelink. 2011. Biodiversity Conservation.

This study looked at the feeding patterns of a fruit-eating tropical bird, Blue-throated Toucanet (Aulacorhynchus caeruleogularis) in shade coffee farms in the Monteverde region of Costa Rica.

Blue-throated Toucanets were once considered a subspecies of Emerald Toucanet, which was featured in the Know Your Coffee Birds series here on C&C. The goal was to determine how fruit resources — in particular the reliability of fruit energy throughout the year — influenced the persistence of fruit-eating birds in agroforestry systems like shade coffee.

Finca La Bella is a group of 24 independently owned small farms that grow coffee under a high diversity of shade (unlike much of Costa Rican coffee). Around 20 different tree species per ha are used for shade here, but different farms may have different types of shade trees. The authors looked at the types of fruit growing on six of the organic farms, and measured the fruit calories available to birds over most of the year.

Researchers found that the toucanets were located 20-30% more often on farms that were considered to have ”high fruit security.”  These were farms on which the fruit energy available was greater than 1000 calories for four months or more. This calorie threshold has been found in other studies to be the point at which more birds immigrate into a farm rather than leave to find food resources elsewhere. The home range of toucanets was also found to be smaller on farms with high fruit security, indicating the birds did not have to roam as far to find the fruit they needed.

Although Blue-throated Toucanets have been observed eating many dozens of types of fruits, some are preferred over others. The fig Ficus pertusa accounted for 69% of all observations in this study. The fruits of the familiar Cecropia (Cecropia obtusifolia) and of Firebush (Hamelia patens) were also important.

The authors concluded that to improve the quality of the agroforestry systems for fruit-eating birds, the type of trees used for shade or preserved on the property should be taken into account, including the year-round availability of fruit resources. Ficus were especially important in this study.

Aside from the preservation of biodiversity, fruit-eating birds perform the critical service of seed dispersal in tropical forests. Therefore, managing shade coffee farms to benefit these birds is of high conservation value.

Peters, V., & Nibbelink, N. 2011. The value of fruit security for the conservation of a neotropical frugivore in human-dominated landscapes Biodiversity and Conservation, 20 (9), 2041-2055 DOI: 10.1007/s10531-011-0073-5

Blue-throated Toucanet photo by Scott Ableman under a Creative Commons license.

Fair Trade USA muddies the waters

By

On September 19, 2011

In Fair and Direct Trade

When it comes to the world of Fair Trade (FT), Coffee & Conservation tries to stick to providing basic information to consumers on what the certification means, the specific environmental standards in FT certification, and major news. A recent announcement qualifies as major news that changes the meaning of “Fair Trade” certification in the U.S., and which may mean changes to environmental standards for coffee certified as FT by Fair Trade USA.

Background

Fairtrade International (FLO) is the organization that coordinates labeling initiatives around the globe. FLO develops the FT standards for all FT-certified products, including coffee. Member organizations in other countries use the standards to license and promote FT-certified products. In the United States, the member organization is Fair Trade USA (formerly TransFair USA).

One of the strengths of FT certification was that FLO provided global standards for FT-certified products (coffee being just one of many). Whether or not you agreed that the standards were the right ones to achieve the stated goals, at least you knew that FT-certified products all conformed to the same standards — everyone was on the same page. Even if many consumers don’t have a full understanding of the purpose and means of FT, this single system, applied consistently, has built their trust in the certification.

Break up

Last week, Fair Trade USA (FTUSA) announced it is resigning its membership in the FLO system effective December 31, 2011. The main departure point is that FT certification for coffee has been restricted to cooperatives; for other agricultural products such as bananas or tea, larger estates and other producer models have been able to get FT certification. FTUSA wants to expand the availability of FT certification, starting with coffee.

FTUSA noted that it may revise some of the standards currently being used for FT-certified products. The language in FLO’s response was much clearer:

“Fair Trade USA has announced a new initiative under the banner Fair Trade For All.’ We wish to clarify that the proposals it contains regarding major changes on coffee certification are the views of Fair Trade USA alone, and do not constitute a change to the policy or standards of Fairtrade International (FLO).”

Therefore, FLO has stated as of January 1, 2012, they (FLO) will “no longer be able to accept FTUSA’s certification for sales into other Fairtrade markets under the global Certification Mark.” FTUSA will continue to recognize producer organizations who hold FT certification from FLO.  Eventually, then, a product in the U.S. may have FTUSA’s seal, the FLO seal, or both. Consequently, consumers will have to figure out what the standards are for the certifications.

The FLO global certification mark (seal).

Recap of current standards

At least initially, it appears that the major changes will have to do with who qualifies for FT certification. How or if this will effect the environmental standards is not known at this time. Update: Please see the Quick Guide to Coffee Certifications for graphs that  illustrate that FLO has more criteria or requirements related to the environment and biodiversity than FT USA.

FT environmental standards developed by FLO, as I outlined in a previous post, are fairly generic. They cover ( with a very broad brush) pest management;  general soil, water, and waste management; GMO policy; energy use; and very broadly and non-specifically, biodiversity protection.

New FLO standards were rolled out in early 2011, but not much has changed.  The revised generic environmental standards for all small producers (which apply to coffee), while re-worded, expanded, and providing more detailed guidance, did not substantially strengthen biodiversity protection from previous versions. FLO said this upon the revision:

“Revised environmental requirements: Putting people first

The revised environmental requirements in the New Standards Framework keep people at the heart of the Fairtrade system. Strong core criteria protect producers’ health and safety, conserve nature and ban the use of GMOs and dangerous chemicals. Then, through the benefits received through Fairtrade, producers are encouraged to work on development priorities of their choice which lead to even greater sustainability.”

The Fair Trade USA seal.

As before, the standards specific to coffee do not have any additional environmental criteria (e.g., any sort of shade tree, density, species, or pruning requirements).

Here are the links to official statement by FLO and FTUSA. As the coffee industry responds, I’ll add links to especially relevant content.

Updated news links:

Additional links:

Climate change threatens east African coffee via borers

By

On September 15, 2011

In Climate change, Coffee regions, Research on coffee growing

Some like it hot: The influence and implications of climate change on coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) and coffee production in east Africa. Jaramillo et al. 2011. PLoS One.

An important new paper published this week outlines the threat posed by the expansion of coffee berry borers in east Africa due to climate change.

This paper follows up research by the authors that was published in 2009. That paper looked at life history characteristics of the coffee berry borer (CBB), one of the worst pests of coffee, and how they might react to various climate change scenarios. This paper built on that data, looked at current distribution of CBB in east Africa, and modeled the change in distribution by 2050 based on two climate change scenarios.

The models indicated that CBB infestation will be worse in the arabica coffee producing regions of Ethiopia; the Ugandan part of the Lake Victoria and Mt. Elgon regions; Mt. Kenya, particularly in the coffee-producing areas of Embu and Meru, and the western part of Kenya, around Kitale and the Kenyan aide of Mt. Elgon; and most of Rwanda and Burundi. Further, it appears that increasing temperatures will likely double the number of generations of CBB per year in all current arabica-producing areas. Both models (using slightly different projections of climate change) are very similar, one figure is reproduced below.

Suitability of climate for CBB, year 2050. EI values indicate suitability, where 0 is unsuitable, and 100 is perfect. Click to enlarge. From Jaramillo et al. 2011.

Lest you view climate modeling (or climate change) with skepticism, the authors note that as recently as ten years ago, CBB were not reported above 1500 m. Now, due to increasing temperatures in coffee growing regions around the world, CBB can be found at higher altitudes, where arabica coffee is typically grown. CBB have been documented 300 m higher in Tanzania than they were ten years ago. The authors note that some of the changes predicted in their earlier paper, such as increased number of generations and broader distribution, seem to already be occurring.

The damage an increase in CBB to now-untouched coffee growing areas is serious and sobering. These impacts do not even incorporate other changes that are likely to take place with increasing temperatures: a change in the distribution of biological enemies of CBB, and the impact of changes in rainfall patterns, disrupted seasonality, and thermal stress to coffee plants.

The authors state,

We suggest that the best way to adapt to a rise of temperatures in coffee plantations could be via the introduction of shade trees in sun grown plantations.

They note adding shade trees can lead to a decrease in the temperature around coffee berries by up to 4°C, which in turn may reduce the rate of increase in CBB by 34%.  They go on to say shade coffee agroecosystems can serve as a refuge for beneficial arthropods, leading to higher levels of biological control of CBB, and they create a diversified and therefore more resilient system that will perform better under climate change. They conclude that while it is only one of many adaptation strategies, the use of shade trees is “… rational, affordable, and relatively easy for coffee farmers and other stakeholders to implement.”

The paper is open access, and you can read it the whole thing and view all the maps here. A link to an abstract in Spanish is available near the end.

Jaramillo, J., Muchugu, E., Vega, F., Davis, A., Borgemeister, C., & Chabi-Olaye, A. (2011). Some Like It Hot: The Influence and Implications of Climate Change on Coffee Berry Borer (Hypothenemus hampei) and Coffee Production in East Africa PLoS ONE, 6 (9) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024528

Greenwash alert: Nespresso capsule recycling

By

On September 12, 2011

In Corporate coffee, Nestlé/Nespresso

(Revised and updated throughout as of January 2022)

Nespresso, the single-serve espresso machine/pod division of giant conglomerate Nestlé, has received accolades for its “Ecolaboration” sustainability project. Nespresso accounts for only 5% of Nestlé’s sales, but Ecolaboration provides the majority of the company’s public green image. I’ve written about the coffee sourcing aspect of this project in the past, revealing what a tiny fraction of Nestlé’s coffee is to be sourced sustainably under this initiative. Here, we’ll take a look at Nespresso’s coffee capsule/pod recycling efforts, which are frequently misrepresented in the media — unfortunately, in Nespresso’s favor.

Nespresso will put in place the capacity to recycle 75% of its capsules. They never claim this many will be recycled, and don’t reveal how many have been recycled in the past. Nespresso’s proprietary coffee capsules, used in their single-serve espresso machines, are made of aluminum, a metal that is entirely recyclable. But just because the capsules are made of a recyclable material doesn’t mean they are being recycled.

What Nespresso is actually doing – increasing capacity

Nespresso encourages recycling by establishing “collection points” (big bins) for the capsules in their boutiques and local communities; in a few areas Nespresso Club customers can return them via courier when new capsules are delivered. Nespresso has never set actual recycling goals, they have only claimed they would increase capacity to recycle the capsules. The current goal is 75% by 2013, up from the current 60%. This means establishing enough collection systems to collect 75% of the capsules — it says absolutely nothing about how many capsules are actually recycled.

What Nespresso is not doing – revealing recycling rates

In their June 2011 progress report, Nespresso repeats their capacity goals, and despite listing all kinds of metrics, never once mentions the true recycling rate for the capsules, only the number of collection points in various countries.

I don’t care if Nespresso’s capacity is 200% of the capsules sold. It means nothing unless the capacity is being used. Nespresso states that 12,300 capsules are used PER MINUTE. That’s 6.4 billion a year*. Even if half are being recycled that means over 3200 metric tons of aluminum is being sent to landfills annually. This is just another example of convenience and profit (the coffee works out to $60/pound, generating an estimated 30% profit margin) trumping environmental responsibility.

As of 2020, it was estimated that *14 billion capsules are sold per year, but as the linked article notes, as the criticism of the company’s environmental impact has increased, the less they’ve reported regarding sales and recycling rates. Experts have said the rate is as low as 5%, with Nespresso claiming about 30%. Even at 30%, the remaining capsules represent 12,600 tons of aluminum being landfilled annually (enough to create 60 Statues of Liberty, according to the article in the Guardian).

What the media is doing – ignoring the above

What is really discouraging is that the media frequently overlooks that Nespresso is talking about capacity and not actual recycling rates. Examples of articles that mistakenly say Nespresso will be recycling 75% of its capsules are here, here, and here, just to show a few. Careless media outlets either miss the distinction, or are unmotivated or don’t care to question the effectiveness and results. As a result is that consumers are left thinking Nespresso is recycling large numbers of capsules instead of distributing tons of waste.

Barriers to recycling Nespresso capsules

I’m not sure if people who already find preparing a cup of coffee from whole beans too much effort are the best candidates to recycle the capsules.  For the most part, they’ll have to collect the capsules at home and schlep them into a Nespresso retail outlet. In the U.S., as I noted in my post about Keurig’s K-Cup recovery program, American consumers don’t always recycle even when it’s easy for them; voluntary residential curbside recycling without incentives in the U.S. averages around 68%.

And why can’t Nespresso capsules just be tossed in recycling bin, like other aluminum? As with K-Cups, the coffee grounds have to be separated from the capsules by the consumer. This leads to the second problem: many recycling programs cannot process items as small as the Nespresso capsule because they fall through the holes used for weeding out debris, or jam the sorting machines. Therefore, well-meaning consumers may very well just be sending them to someone else to toss in the garbage.

An update in 2019, verifes that 1) most recycling systems cannot handle these little pods and 2) only 33% of U.S. Nespresso customers send back their pods to the company, even though it’s free. Yes, the company has spent some money in New York City so that the pods (as well as similar metal items) can be recycled at their facilities. But that’s one city in the entire country. Piffle.

A final insult

For years, Nespresso produced many billions of capsules made entirely of new aluminum. This even though they repeatedly touted the recyclability of aluminum on their websites and promotional materials, as if they utilized it themselves. It wasn’t until 2021 that Nespresso introduced (some) recycled aluminum content in (some) of their capsules. The company’s use of new aluminum contributes to the environmental hazards of mining the raw products and producing aluminum. And for the icing on the cake, Nespresso states that their aluminum supplier is the mining giant Rio Tinto, a company with an incredibly long list of environmental degradation, cultural desecration, human and labor rights abuses, and corporate corruption, the linked examples just to name a few!

Greenwash

Strictly speaking, greenwashing is the use of marketing to imply that a company’s products are environmentally friendly. Nestlé’s  statements are clear in what they are (and are not) doing when it comes to their Nespresso capsule recycling, and even their green coffee sourcing. They can’t be entirely blamed for the lack of critical examination of their efforts. However, Nespresso’s very heavily promoted Ecolaboration campaign says nothing about the sustainability of the rest of Nestlé’s coffee division — the other 94% of the coffee they buy.  Or about the lack of genuine corporate citizenship by the entire company itself. I think it’s fair to categorize Nespresso’s capsule recycling initiative, and Ecolaboration itself, as a greenwashing tool for Nestlé, don’t you?

P.S. As they have with Keurig K-Cups, enterprising people have come up with refillable replacement pods for some Nespresso machines. As of 2021, several have gone out of business. The three most popular still available are Sealpod, Capmesso, and RECAPS.

Nespresso capsule photos by Sarah Deforche and Jean-Yves Romanetti.

Research: Shade coffee important to amphibians

By

On September 8, 2011

In Birds and other biodiversity, Research on coffee growing

The role of the matrix-edge dynamics of amphibian conservation in tropical montane fragmented landscapes. 2011. Santos-Barrera and Urbina-Cardona. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad.

Birds, insects, and occasionally bats are the most frequently studied taxa in shade coffee agrosystems. This paper looked at the diversity and abundance of frogs and salamanders in an area of tropical montane cloud forest, shade coffee farms, and corn plantations in southern Mexico.

The Pygmy Free-fingered Frog (Craugastor pygmaeus) was one of the most common species found in this study, and one which dominated in shade coffee. © 2010 Division of Herpetology, University of Kansas

The study took place near the community of El Molote in the state of Guerrero, part of the Sierra Madre de Sur de Guerrero. Montane forest remnants are embedded in a matrix of other land uses, primarily shade coffee, corn plantations, and areas of cultivated ornamental plants.

Researchers found that the diversity and abundance of amphibians in the forest was highly dependent on what type of land was adjacent to it — coffee or corn. Where shaded coffee plantations bordered forest patches, they helped to buffer the effects of the forest edge, improving the overall quality of the forest interior habitat. Amphibians prefer higher humidity and leaf litter cover which the shade coffee helped preserve, both in the forest and on the farms.

In contrast, where corn bordered the forest, high disturbance and the abrupt change in vegetation had a negative impact on habitat quality. None of the seven amphibian species were found in the corn plantations, and some species, including an endangered endemic frog, the Mourning Treefrog (Plectrohyla pentheter), were never found in the corn/forest ecotone.

The authors recommend that shade coffee farms should be managed to improve habitat and ecological connectivity.

Santos-Barrera, G., & Urbina-Cardona, J. N. (2011). The role of the matrix-edge dynamics of amphibian conservation in tropical montane fragmented landscapes. Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 82, 679-687

K-Cups are now recyclable! Not really.

By

On September 1, 2011

In Coffee and the environment, Coffee-related products, K-Cups/Keurig brewers: alternatives

Update: In early 2016, the New York Times reported on Keurig’s annoucement that they would finally be coming out with a K-Cup made of plastic recyclable by typical municipal facilities. But it also pointed out the continued environmentally-negative aspects of K-Cups outlined below, including high energy costs to produce and potentially low consumer cooperation. It did not address problems with the size of the cups jamming sorting machines at recycling facilities, or potential contamination if consumers don’t remove the lids. Or, oh yeah, the insane cost. See this post for alternatives.

Green Mountain Coffee Roasters’s Keurig division has announced a “recovery” program for their naughty little K-Cups (already incorrectly being referred to in the media as a recycling program). I’ve talked about the waste issue surrounding these single-serve coffee portion packs specifically, as well as posted two ways to re-use them, and three different products that allow you to use the Keurig brewers and avoid the K-Cup dilemma altogether.

In response to the environmental impact of K-Cups, Keurig has launched the Grounds to Grow On program. This sounds like a great idea, but it has some limitations.

  • It is only available in some (22) states. This program is in a testing phase with an intention to go national next year.
  • It is only available for business locations. Only about 10-11% of Keurig brewer sales are to “away-from-home” locations, based on 2006-2008 data.
  • It costs $59.75  for five small “recovery bins” which hold 175 K-Cups each, or $114.75 for larger bins which hold 450 K-Cups.  Shipping to and fro is included in the cost.
  • The K-Cups aren’t recycled. The grounds are composted, while the K-Cups themselves are burned to produce steam energy by partner Covanta Energy. This is referred to as “renewable energy” a few times. I have a hard time seeing how waste-to-energy could be considered renewable, and I’m not the only one.  The irony, of course, is that recycling is the enemy of the never-ending stream of garbage needed to feed waste-to-energy facilities. Covanta is one of the companies pushing to have waste-to-energy defined as renewable, as it would make the company eligible for subsidies. Keurig’s choice of Covanta as a partner in the Grounds to Grow On venture is unfortunate. Multiple Covanta incinerator facilities have been fined in several states for emissions violations, including Connecticut (twice), New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. Further, they have a history of labor relations problems.

I certainly love the idea of all the coffee grounds being made into compost. As for the K-Cups, perhaps burning them is better than having them end up in a landfill, providing you believe waste-to-energy is clean and safe. Even if this aspect weren’t a topic of debate, the success of Grounds to Grow On depends on participation. This program was rolled out after a pilot test in 2010, but I have seen no figures on the participation rate for the pilot.

Purchasing the bins is pretty expensive, and adds 5 to 7 cents, or about 10%, to the cost of each K-Cup. Once a supply of bins has been returned, more will have to be purchased. How many businesses and consumers will make this investment?

Even in a bin is available, it is not a sure bet that everyone will drop in their K-Cups.  An EPA study (PDF) of found that participation in voluntary residential curbside recycling without incentives averaged around 68%.  With the disincentive of having to purchase the bins, I’m not sure how many K-Cups will be actually be removed from the traditional waste stream with this program.

Finally, some of the patents on K-Cup technology are due to expire next year.  This may mean others will manufacture K-Cups with different materials that cannot enter the Grounds to Grow on recovery program.

It looks like a lot of effort went into this program, and I don’t want to seem like too much of a curmudgeon. As my mom would have said, it’s better than a sharp stick in the eye, but perhaps not quite as rosy as first meets the unpoked eye. You can read more details at Grounds to Grow On.

In an upcoming post, I’ll be looking at the recycling of Nespresso coffee capsules. Due to a stunning bit of greenwashing, not nearly as many capsules are being recycled as Nespresso/NestlÁ© would have you believe.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén