78 Search results

For the term "rust".

Certifications / Coffee and the environment / Coffee news and miscellany / Organic coffee

A rusty nail in the coffin of organic-certified coffee?

Coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix) is a highly contagious fungal disease that is devastating coffee production in Latin America, with losses estimated at 15 to 70%, depending on the region. One essential component to combating this disease is the use of fungicides. Copper-based fungicides are relatively inexpensive and are permitted under organic certification. However, they must be reapplied frequently (around every three weeks, or more often if it rains and gets washed off) and are not without ecological risk. If used frequently or in excessive amounts, copper can build up in soils and can also be harmful to aquatic organisms. Some types of synthetic fungicides*, not allowable under organic certification,  can be more effective — and in some circumstances may actually be safer for the environment.

Some of the best reporting on the coffee rust crisis is from Michael Sheridan writing at CRS Coffeelands. As I was contemplating writing this post on the connection between coffee leaf rust and organic certification, Michael hit on the topic himself.  He notes that farm management [use of shade, planting density, pruning, proper timing of fungicide applications] has as much or more to do with crop losses from rust as does whether the farmer uses organic or conventional production; this was echoed in survey results gathered by Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. The severity of this disease is also very dependent on climate and weather factors such as wind, moisture, and temperature. Still, Michael notes that the “official response to coffee rust in Central America so far seems to have been heavily skewed toward agrochemical-intensive approaches”.

For example, at a recent coffee rust summit, a representative from PROMECAFE, a Central American coordinator for coffee-related technical training, suggested that in the short term, organic farmers might consider leaving organic for conventional production.

nailCRS Coffeelands quotes Miguel Medina of the Guatamalan national coffee organization Anacafé as saying, ”I don’t know how organic coffee can have a future.  There is nothing that works to control rust in the field and I am not seeing anyone in the market offering more to create additional incentives for organic farmers.”

Despite a strong commitment by farmers in many Latin American countries to preserve their environment and even a suspicion by a few that chemical companies may be behind the rust epidemic, many farmers may feel compelled to give up their organic certification to fight the rust. With the severity of this threat to their livelihoods — and even survival — the choice between trying to salvage their coffee trees with artificial fungicides or stick with organic certification is straightforward. Many will do what they can to keep afloat and give up organic certification. This not only allows them to use more potent artificial fungicides to try to control the coffee leaf rust, but it also frees them to use pesticides and artificial fertilizers that may be considered necessary to protect or help vulnerable or ailing coffee trees.

Over the past few years, some farmers have already abandoned organic certification because the extra money they receive for it simply does not compensate them for the added expense of producing coffee this way. The rust crisis adds to this dilemma. Eventually, coffee fields are likely to be replanted with rust-resistant varieties, but even those in the ground today will take three to five years to produce a crop. Meanwhile, we as consumers need to brace ourselves for higher coffee prices as crop yields decline, and be that much more willing to pay extra for organic coffee.

More reading on the topic:

*Some media mention “Triazaline” as the synthetic fungicide used for coffee leaf rust control. From what I can tell, there is no fungicide named triazaline. However, there is a group of synthetic fungicides called triazoles that are used. Triazaline may be a brand name in this family, or a misinterpretation/misspelling of triazole.

Update (January 2025): A study has now confirmed the toxicity of triazoles to humans using these fungicides to combat coffee rust.

Rusty nail photo by Scott Robinson under a Creative Commons license.

Coffee news and miscellany

Sips: Coffee rust crisis

320px-Hemileia_vastatrix_-_coffee_leaf_rust

Wikipedia

A round-up of the many stories and news items about the devastating impact of the fungus Hemileia vastatrix (coffee rust, roya). Central and South America are experiencing the worst outbreak in decades.

This crisis has some serious consequences beyond the obvious impacts of increasing consumer prices and endangering the survival of some producers.

One is a decrease in the number of producers that will stay with organic certification. Most of the fungicides that are used to combat rust are allowed under organic certification. However, coffee plants attacked by rust need substantial boosts in nutrients (because they lose their leaves) in order to keep them alive. These levels are often just too hard to achieve at reasonable prices with available organic fertilizers. Recall that in the last few years, many farmers have already given up on organic certification because the price premium is just not enough to justify the extra cost and labor.

 

 

Research on coffee growing

Coffee leaf rust: a complex disease

Coffee leaf rust in Bolivia. Photo by Neil Palmer (CIAT).

Coffee rust (Hemileia vastatrix) is fungus that is one of the most devastating coffee diseases in the world. Native to Africa, it is now present in every coffee-growing nation. Infected leaves drop off, weakening the plant. Copper-based fungicides can be effective against coffee rust. However, it must be on the leaf surface to prevent infection, and copper can build up in soils, eventually reaching toxic levels.

The spores of coffee rust are spread by wind or rain, and will only germinate when exposed to one to two days of continuous wetness. Usually humidity is not enough; rain provides the necessary conditions.  Latin America has suffered through more frequent and prolonged rainy periods in recent years as have parts of Asia, thought to be due to climate change. As a result, coffee rust has been having increasing detrimental effects on coffee production.

Aside from fungicide application, there are two lines of defense against coffee rust: planting resistant hybrids, and modifying cultivation methods.

When coffee rust first arrived in the New World, around 1970 in Brazil, nearly all coffee being grown commercially was genetically nearly identical and very susceptible to rust. Thus, the development of rust-resistant hybrids has been an important element in battling this disease. Rust fights back, of course; there are over 40 strains of coffee rust, some of which now attack previously-resistant hybrids.

Colombia has made a large investment in “renovating” the nation’s coffee farms by swapping out older coffee varieties with rust-resistant types. This has been accomplished on a third of Colombia’s coffee lands so far. Some of the resistant varieties include Castillo, Tabi, and Colombia. One thing they all have in common is parentage that includes Hibrido de Timor, which in itself is a natural hybrid between arabica coffee (Coffea arabica) and robusta coffee (C. canephora).

Reliance on selective breeding and fungicides have more or less dominated the fight against rust, because there is debate about which cultivation method, sun or shade, helps mitigate this disease. This is in large part because the various factors that influence the severity of coffee rust outbreaks can be influenced, sometimes dramatically, by microclimate. This makes farm-wide management decisions tricky. Some examples of the quandary:

  • In full sun, plants dry out faster, hindering the germination and spread of rust, and sun may kill the fungus. However, pores (stoma) on the surface of leaves open up at high levels of light intensity, allowing more frequent and deep penetration of rust spores that are present.
  • Coffee grown in sun (especially if generously fertilized, as is usually the case) produces heavy yields. This over-bearing stresses the plants and makes them more apt to succumb to rust and other diseases.
  • Shade increases the life of leaves and their size, so rust spores have more leaf area to colonize and time to be dispersed.
  • Coffee types that are less genetically resistant to rust show lower levels of infection at lower levels of light intensity.
  • Shade trees intercept raindrops in gentle rains, so spores are not dispersed. In heavier rains, however, larger drops of rain accumulate and splash on the coffee, releasing many spores.

One very interesting bit of research suggests that growing coffee under shade can facilitate complex ecological connections that help fight coffee rust in Latin America. Green coffee scale (Coccus viridus) is a small insect that has many hosts, including coffee (on which it is usually more of a nuisance than a pest). Like many scale insects, it has a mutalistic relationship with some species of ants. The ants feed on “honeydew,” a sweet substance exuded by the scale insects. In exchange, the ants defend the scale insects from predators.  Meanwhile, green coffee scale can be infected with a fungus (Lecanicillium [Cephalosporium] lecanii) …which also attacks coffee leaf rust. Researchers have found that where green coffee scales are protected by a particular common species of ant (Azteca instabilis) which nests primarily in the shade trees, the scale insects reach localized population levels that enable the Lecanicillium fungus to attack the coffee rust.

Although not conclusive, this study suggests that shade coffee systems may provide some level of biological control over coffee leaf rust, and in fact this ant-scale-fungi relationship may be one reason rust was not as devastating in the New World as it was in the Old World. (The ants, scales, and fungi are only part of this very complicated system, which also includes a decapitating fly, wasps, and a lady beetle; see Vandermeer et al. 2010 for more fascinating details.)

Avelino, J., Willocquet, L., & Savary, S. (2004). Effects of crop management patterns on coffee rust epidemics Plant Pathology, 53 (5), 541-547 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2004.01067.x

Vandermeer, J., Perfecto, I., & Liere, H. (2009). Evidence for hyperparasitism of coffee rust (Hemileia vastatrix) by the entomogenous fungus, Lecanicillium lecanii, through a complex ecological web Plant Pathology, 58 (4), 636-641 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2009.02067.x

Vandermeer, J., Perfecto, I., & Philpott, S. (2010). Ecological Complexity and Pest Control in Organic Coffee Production: Uncovering an Autonomous Ecosystem Service BioScience, 60 (7), 527-537.

Coffee news and miscellany

Sips: Site updates

First, a general housekeeping update. A couple months ago, I had to re-do the appearance of C&C due to a theme implosion. The temporary one was awful, but I’ve now tidied things up considerably. There are no doubt still a fair number of startling font sizes, misaligned bullet points, peculiar spacing, and the like, but progress has been made. As I worked on code, I also edited and refreshed posts and links. A lot of this would not be obvious unless you came upon a post in which I made updates. Thus, I will provide some highlights by resurrecting the “Sips” news briefs, and link to the older material. I’ll begin with research that has been highlighted in the excellent Daily Coffee News by Roast Magazine.

  • Daily Coffee News had a story (January 2025) about recent research confirming that the fungicides used to combat coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix), known as “la roya”, have health risks to farm workers applying them to coffee in Brazil. Full use of personal protective equipment was reported by only 23% of farm workers, and health impacts revealed disruption to endocrine and metabolic functions. My posts on coffee leaf rust include this overview of the disease, the impact it has had on organic coffee, and other overall impacts. The study summarized by Daily Coffee News is cited below, and is open access.
  • Sticking with Brazil, the journal Nature Conservation (January 2026, citation below) published a lengthy and detailed review of the dire habitat destruction in the Brazilian cerrado region. I wrote an overview of coffee growing in the Brazilian cerrado, and in the ensuing years the crisis has grown. Over 55% of the native vegetation has now been destroyed. Agricultural expansion, especially in the coffee growing regions, is an important reason, although coffee is not the only agricultural product grown there. The paper provides an excellent analysis of the biodiversity of the area, which unique species are at risk, the extent and source of threats, impediments to conservation, etc.
  • Although arabica coffee is self-pollinating, cross-pollination by insects improves fruit set and yields. I’ve written several posts on this topic, including how coffee grown in shade provides habitat for pollinators, how shade coffee specifically benefits suites of bees in Mexico, and even the status of bees as pollinators of robusta coffee in India. This story, again at Daily Coffee News (January 2026) and featuring Brazilian research, summarizes the use of managed colonies of a species of stingless bees on sun coffee farms, their impact on yield (it increased), and the uptake (traces were found) in coffee leaves, pollen and nectar of neonicotinoid pesticide applied to the soil (citation below). The Daily Coffee News story also referenced another meta-study (2022) of the impacts of bees and other pollinators on coffee yield worldwide. I’ve included that citation below as well.
  • I have also written an overview of coffee growing in China, as well as an update. Daily Coffee News (Janaury 2026) summarized how models utilizing machine learning can analyze satelite images to map land growing coffee. Also cited below.
Marciano LPA, Kleinstreuer N, Chang X, Costa LF, Silvério ACP, Martins I. 2024. A novel approach to triazole fungicides risk characterization: Bridging human biomonitoring and computational toxicology. Sci Total Environ.953:176003. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.176003.

Pereira, C. C., W. Kenedy-Siqueira, L. R. Maia, V. da F. Sperandei, L. Arantes-Garcia, S. Fernandes, G. F. C. Fernandes. 2026. The Cerrado crisis review: highlighting threats and providing future pathways to save Brazil’s biodiversity hotspot. Nature Conservation 61: 29–70.

Ramos JD, Santos GS, dos Santos CF, De Oliveira Kaminski TS, Cione AP, Alves DA, Quenzer FCL, Campbell AJ, Pereira AM, Thompson H, Martins de Queiroz AC, Bento JMS and Menezes C. 2026. Stingless bees in coffee: yield gains and assessing neonicotinoid impact. Front. Bee Sci. 3:1644205. doi: 10.3389/frbee.2025.1644205.

Moreaux, Céline, et al. 2022. The value of biotic pollination and dense forest for fruit set of Arabica coffee: A global assessment. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 323: 107680.

Huang Q, Cheng X, Chen Y, Ding X and Jia H. 2025. Coffee extraction from remote sensing imagery based on multiple features: a case study of Pu’er City, China. Front. Remote Sens. 6:1696570. doi: 10.3389/frsen.2025.1696570

 

K-Cups/Keurig brewers: alternatives

K-Cup recycling: I told you so

Encore! Here’s another piece on K-Cup recycling, published in Grist in December 2024. The (same) beat goes on.

Some years ago, I swore off writing any more about K-Cups, a product line that was antithetical to the concept of sustainable coffee.  A few years later, I did post yet another update on the lack of recyclability of used K-Cups. And here I am again, back to beat the dead horse!

Daily Coffee News reports that K-Cup owner Keurig Dr Pepper (itself owned mostly by JAB Holding and minority holder Mondelēz International) has reached settlements in Canada and the U.S. in lawsuits stemming from false or misleading claims regarding the recyclability of K-Cups. As I described in my last post on the topic, although the K-Cups are (finally) made of a recyclable material, it is #5 plastic (polypropylene), which is not accepted in all communities. The Daily Coffee News piece notes less than 3% of polypropylene plastic is recycled in the U.S., due to both logistical and capacity issues. The Canadian settlement is for US$2.3 million. The U.S. case is class action, the preliminary agreement has not yet been disclosed, and the parties have another month to begin the finalization of the settlement.

These lawsuits are separate from the antitrust/price-fixing settlements agreed to by Keurig in 2021.

Recycling plastics is a failure at best and a big con at worst. There are plenty of no-waste ways to make a single cup or whole pot of exceptional coffee. Since coffee making is often a daily occurrence, kicking the single-use pod/cup is a great step on the road to quitting plastic.

And while we’re on this pony, I have also revised and updated my post on the recycling saga of Nespresso coffee pods. That’s a product made of a completely recyclable material, aluminum, that also has a poor recycling rate for some of the same reasons as K-Cups (consumer inertia, lack of acceptance at recycling centers). I’ve tossed in Nespresso’s dirty little secret that despite all their splashy ballyhoo discussing how great their pods are because they are made of recyclable aluminum, they only just started using any recycled aluminum in their pods. And all the new aluminum they use is supplied by the nasty mining conglomerate Rio Tinto. Ugh.

 

Certifications

Birders still in the dark about shaded Bird-Friendly coffee

A group of authors have an open-access paper in the journal People and Nature, a publication of the British Ecological Society: Tapping birdwatchers to promote bird-friendly coffee consumption and conserve birds. The authors noted there are 45 million birdwatchers in the U.S. alone, and they are considered the primary target of coffee certification schemes.

They surveyed birders who were members of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and subscribers to the Lab’s magazine; thus, a relatively well-off* demographic that was also highly educated, with 55% having a graduate degree or higher. They found (quoting the abstract, my emphasis added):

Nearly half (49%) of respondents reported considering bird habitat when purchasing coffee. However, only 38% of respondents were familiar with the Smithsonian Bird Friendly certification and only 9% reported purchasing it. … The highest rated constraints on buying bird-friendly coffee were lack of awareness, cost, and lack of availability.

I don’t have a lot to say about this. Over a decade ago (!) right here on this site I expressed my frustration at the resistance of birders at changing their coffee buying habitats, and made a pointed plea to birders and conservationists, as knowledgeable consumers, to set an example and drink coffee that was grown in a sustainable manner, and spread the word to others. Several months later, I again lamented the lack of action (or hypocritical behavior) on the part of this generally affluent group.

Considering the demographic of the survey respondents in this study, lack of awareness and cost are excuses, in my opinion. The very magazine these respondents subscribe to has had at least two articles about shade coffee and birds, as well as additional articles on their website. Other major birdwatching magazines have also published similar articles, including this one by yours truly.

Lack of availability, however, is a legitimate reason why more birders (and others) don’t drink Smithsonian Bird-Friendly coffee. As of 2018, less than 0.1% of world coffee production was grown on Bird-Friendly certified farms, and only 9% of that was sold as Bird-Friendly certified**. Despite improved efforts to promote this coffee and make it easier to find and purchase, this is indeed a niche product. Lack of demand and lack of availability create a destructive feedback loop.

There is more to mull over in this paper, but we might bear in mind that it focuses specifically on certified coffee. The trend over the last decade of a proliferation of coffee certifications with a vast array of different standards (and in particular the effort to dilute ecological criteria to make certification more accessible) has created a complex, confusing, and opaque landscape for consumers.

Certified coffees are only part of the solution to ecologically-sustainable coffee production and sustainable livelihoods for farmers. While the market works itself out, I think it’s worthwhile to not only encourage the purchase of Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certified coffee, but also stress the importance of what coffee not to buy — cheap, corporate coffee with mystery origins. Boycotting Folgers and Maxwell House, two brands that represent nearly 30% of the retail volume of coffee sold in the United States, is the least we can do given their unimpressive efforts at sustainability.

More on this study:

————–

*The study did not ask about income, but noted that the participants had either paid a $44/yr membership fee and/or made a $100 donation to the Lab, indicating some level of disposable income.
**For various reasons, growers may not sell all of their certified crop to buyers who will sell it as such. For example, Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certified coffee cannot be mixed in with other beans and sold as certified.

Market data in last paragraph via Euromonitor Passport.

Housekeeping

15 years of Coffee & Conservation

I made the first post on this website on this day in 2005. I initially envisioned a modest collection of resources explaining the importance of “shade-grown coffee” to biodiversity, birds in particular. As an ornithologist, I knew how critical wintering habitats in the tropics are to the birds that I studied here in North America. As a coffee drinker, I was frustrated and surprised that there was no single go-to place for consumers that would enable them (us!) to make an informed choice about what coffees were grown under ecologically-responsible methods. I thought I would just whip one up!

Here I am, fifteen years and hundreds of posts later. There were so many layers of nuance to explore: not only ecology, but also agronomy, economics, marketing, and the social and cultural aspects of coffee. I attended trade shows, and visited coffee farms. And drank a lot of coffee.

There has been so much evolution in the coffee world over these years. Consolidation among the big players in coffee buyers (often to private ownership) has made it nearly impossible for me to provide what I considered to be some of the most valuable data on this site: which corporations owned which brands, and how much certified or eco-certified coffee they purchased. A proliferation of certifications or sustainability claims, with increasingly copious criteria and similar but unequal definitions, has made my other crucial task — attempting to explain what these labels, standards, and seals mean to the consumer — tedious at best.

The coffee and product reviews have been fun, and I have especially enjoyed writing about birds and biodiversity. But the difficulty in updating information on certification standards and corporate ownership, purchasing, and sustainability issues that I consider the core of my mission has me uncertain as to the future of this site. So I’ve while had some long dry spells without posting, depending on what was going on in my own life, now I feel I am at a crossroad.

I welcome constructive comments on what direction this website should take as I ponder the future. Just leaving the site here indefinitely is likely not an option. Although I am now accepting donations, I haven’t tried very hard to monetize this site because my emphasis was on providing information, not making money. As a recent semi-involuntary retiree, I don’t think I can commit to supporting the site long-term.

Thank you, readers and friends, for this interesting journey. We’ll see where the future takes us.

Coffee and the environment

Integrated Open Canopy: a land sharing strategy for coffee

Some time ago, I wrote a detailed post about “land sharing” versus “land sparing“, two agriculture strategies. In a nutshell, land sharing is the use of cover crops, interplantings, and other measures that seek to approximate natural habitat, inviting birds and other biodiversity within the crop. Land sparing utilizes a patchwork of more intensive agriculture co-mingled with natural habitat.

Most discussions debating land sharing vs. land sparing revolve around food crops and the best way to feed a growing population without further devastation to biodiversity. A good review on the pros and cons is at the open-access paper Reframing the land-sparing/land sharing debate, as well as my previous post. This debate is somewhat different concerning coffee, because issues deal with sustainable farmer livelihoods rather than more general food security and availablility. That being said, shade coffee is an example of land sharing, while sun coffee plots in a matrix of forest would be an example of land sparing.

Over the summer, I attended (if that’s the word for a virtual meeting) the North American Ornithological Conference and listened to research on “Integrated Open Canopy” (IOC)*, a land sparing method in which intensively grown coffee plots (little or no shade) are grown at a 1:1 ratio with forested plots (primary or second growth). It reminded me it’s time to revisit this topic.

Why IOC/land sparing methods are becoming more important

The perceived advantage to farmers with IOC is that they can increase yields on the coffee plots while still preserving biodiversity on the forest plots. I add the qualifier for a few reasons. First, it’s not always true that shade coffee results in lower yields. Even when it does, shade coffee tends to be higher quality, and may be sold for higher prices (see the summary by the Specialty Coffee Association: Why Does Shade Matter?). Shaded systems provide additional benefits including increased pollination and pest control (proximity to natural habitats can also support these services). Sun or intensive coffee farming requires more inputs of fertilizer or for pest control and coffee plants need to be replaced more often, and may therefore be more costly. The decision on how to manage shade in coffee farms is therefore not simple, and it’s gotten more complicated.

A warming climate is pushing arabica coffee cultivation to higher, cooler elevations, driving deforestation. Climate change is also disrupting the distinct seasonality of tropical growing regions, expediting the spread of pests and disease. Coffee rust has become particularly devastating. The relationship between shade cover and rust is very complex; dense shade can facilitate rust, but open conditions promote spore dispersal and lack of natural vegetation disrupts ecosystem processes that bolster biological control of the fungus [1]. Small coffee farmers are giving up coffee farming for easier or more profitable crops. The importance of allowing flexibility to coffee farmers in their production methods to sustain their livelihoods while offering a way for them to preserve biodiversity at the same time is becoming more urgent.

A Slaty-backed Nightingale Thrush, Catharus fuscater, a forest-dependent species found only in primary forest and IOC farms in this study. Photo by Cephas, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Does IOC/land sparing help birds?

Only a few studies have carefully looked specifically at coffee and birds in an IOC system. The most frequently cited is a paper out of Costa Rica [3], looking at small farms (<3 ha in coffee) in the Montes de Oro cooperative. Birds were surveyed in primary forest, secondary forest, IOC farms, and shade farms using mist-netting./bird banding. The authors noted most “shade” coffee in Costa Rica is commercial polyculture and thus they couldn’t compare IOC farms to shade coffee farms that might qualify for Bird Friendly certification. However, they did choose shade farms with more than 40% shade cover and 10 species of native trees.

The most important result in this study showed that IOC coffee farms had more forest-dependent bird species than shade coffee farms. In fact, forest-dependent species were least abundant on shade coffee farms. Forest-dependent species are typically found in large and/or primary forest and may be of higher conservation value due to their relative rarity in general as well as their more specialized roles — as seed dispersers, for example. Simple measures of presence/absence of species or even abundance (if those species are generalists, common, or non-native species) do not tell us much about the biodiversity value of forest.

Some further things to consider when contemplating these results:

The use of mist-netting is biased towards birds that spend most of their time in the lowest levels of the forest — from ground level to about 3 m, the height of the nets used to capture birds. Mean canopy height in their primary forest sites was 25 m, in IOC forest 18 m and in shade coffee 7 m. The mesh size they used was also small and suitable for birds only up to the size of a large jay, precluding capture of many larger species of birds. Mist netting misses many bird species, especially in plots with high canopy. If I had to guess, I would say their methods may have under-sampled forest-dependent birds, because canopy-dwelling species are often more specialized and sensitive to disturbance, and would not be sampled with standard mist nets.

On the other hand, proximity to large, intact forest greatly influences which species might occur in nearby plots, and the IOC farms were closer to the Monteverde Reserve Complex than the shade coffee farms, which may have biased the results towards more forest-dependent species. Additional survey methods are needed for clearer understanding and comparisons.

Of the 148 species they captured across all sites, only 24% were forest-dependent. Further, a third of those 148 species were only captured once or twice; not much can be concluded from such infrequent captures. These species may just be transients, and little can be surmised about their use of any of the habitats. Considering just the 36 species captured 20 or more times, only 8 were forest dependent. The capture rates for 5 of these was highest in primary forest, 2 in IOC, and 1 in shade coffee. All species were found in primary forest and on IOC farms, and all but one in secondary forest. Only half were found in shade coffee farms.

An additional limitation to this study was that it took place over several years in the months of November-March. This is the dry season, and resident birds (comprising 34 of the 36 forest-dependent species) nest later, in the rainy season. An important metric of the conservation value of land is whether it can support reproductive success, which was not possible in this study.

Nonetheless, there are encouraging trends in this study; similar results were presented for Honduras at the meeting I described, although this research has not yet been published. The results indicate that in regions where there are still intact forested plots combined with a tradition or need for more intensive forms of coffee farming, land sparing may be a good way to preserve birds and biodiversity. In addition to better bird sampling methods, examining the ecological and functional roles played by various birds (and ultimately other taxa), their reproductive success, and evaluating their usage of IOC forest plots, will need to be incorporated into further studies.

That being said, the benefits of land sparing to birds and wildlife are highly dependent on geography, climate, and plot configuration at farm, local, and landscape levels. In addition to scale, many other variables will factor into the value of land sparing for birds or other taxa, some of which I mention below.

How can certification play a role?

There really isn’t a mechanism for certifying IOC-type farms right now. Bird Friendly (which is currently the only true biodiversity-friendly/shade coffee certification) requires organic certification and canopy cover of at least 40 percent, as well as other vegetation parameters. It represents the classic land sharing concept. Building a framework for certification of land sparing IOC-type farms will require ecologically sound, scientifically-based criteria.

Some things to consider:

  • There should be some minimum size to the forest plots themselves, as well as requirements on their shape. This is because very small plots or plots with a lot of edge rather than core area are less valuable to forest-dependent species of birds (as well as other taxa).
  • The configuration of coffee plots and forest plots could play critical roles in habitat connectivity throughout the landscape (important to wildlife) or acting as buffers or windbreaks (important to coffee). These factors should be examined and taken into account.
  • While regenerating or second-growth forests should by all means be permitted under any certification scheme, forest age should also be taken into consideration, with older usually being more valuable. Fortunately, tropical forests mature quickly, and farmers should also be able to take advantage of tree biomass and receive credit for carbon sequestration. While this should be obvious, there should also be some way to define and evaluate whether a forest patch is actually a forest patch, and prohibit inappropriate plots such as gardens, etc. that are permitted in some certification schemes.
  • Clearing of new intensive farming plots, even if adequate offsetting natural forest is present, should not be allowed.
  • Forest composition (diversity of plant species, emphasizing natives) and structure (density and layers of vegetation, presence of vines and epiphytes) are important components. Many of these details are already incorporated into the Bird Friendly standard, but could probably use some tweaking depending on the region which may have birds or other taxa with specialized habitat needs, or where growing conditions are varied or unique.
  • The issue of chemical use in plots embedded or directly adjacent to forest plots also requires some thought. While organic practices are ideal, they will be more challenging for farmers in these situations because intensive coffee cultivation often requires supplemental fertilization, if not pest control.

When I visited coffee farms in Panama years ago, the patchwork of coffee and other land uses clearly demonstrated to me the difficulties in assessing these farms for certification. Several farms I went to in both Panama and Nicaragua would not qualify for Bird Friendly certification but had hectares of high-quality forest preserved on their farms. They were deserving of a certification that would recognize their efforts and afford them access to market incentives and increased income.

There are a number of slippery slopes on this road, but it is one that should be traveled. Coffee growing is becoming more difficult, and biodiversity loss in the tropical areas where coffee is grown is accelerating.

——

*Integrated Open Canopy is a term trademarked by the Mesoamerican Development Institute, an NGO working primarily in Honduras. They couple IOC farming with solar or biofuel drying methods for post-harvest processing — important to reduce deforestation for firewood typically used to fuel drying; read more here, as well as their goals and commitments at the Sustainable Coffee Challenge website.

[1] Vandermeer, J., D. Jackson, I.Perfecto. 2014. Qualitative dynamics of the coffee rust epidemic: Educating intuition with theoretical ecology. BioScience 64: 210—218. doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bit034
[2] Arce, V.J.C., Raudales, R., Trubey, R., King, D.I., Chandler, R.B., Chandler, D.C., 2009. Measuring and managing the environmental cost of coffee production in Latin America. Conservation and Society 7: 141-144.
[3] Chandler, R.B., King, D.I., Raudales, R., Trubey, R., Arce, V.J., 2013. A small-scale land-sparing approach to conserving biological diversity in tropical agricultural landscapes. Conservation Biology 27: 785-795.

Research on coffee growing

Coffee berry borer update

The coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) is one of the most serious pests of coffee. The larvae of this beetle, which is native to Africa, live and feed exclusively on coffee beans. It has spread to coffee farms across the world and despite strict monitoring and prevention measures, showed up in Hawaii a decade ago. It has since island-hopped, most recently being found on Kauai. (Coffee rust, another serious threat to coffee, has also just been found in Hawaii.)

Because it lives inside the coffee cherry and bean, detection and particularly control can be challenging. Due to intense interest in the effects of shade/sun management, biological control (including by birds), and climate change impacts on this insect, I have published a number of posts about it. Although for many years I added CBB research to my coffee bibliography, but it became rather overwhelming and it goes only into early 2016. In 2015, the Journal of Insect Science published a more comprehensive literature review on CBB, which is open access. Google Scholar can provide links to peer-reviewed papers published since that time.

Here are my other previous posts on CBB:

Coffee news and miscellany

Sips

I’ve been keeping up with many important developments in the world of sustainable coffee. Here are the ones you should be reading:

Regarding coffee certifications:

Regarding shade-grown coffee in particular:

Regarding the dangers of cheap coffee and the current frightening drop in the price of commodity coffee:

We’ve been here before and the results are catastrophic for farmers and have a ripple effect throughout economies. Read my piece about corporate coffee for an overview.

And also:

Certifications / Rainforest Alliance

The new Rainforest Alliance shade requirements

[Update: Newest 2020 standard discussed here.]

[This post also appears at Daily Coffee News]

After many months, the latest revision to Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) standard, which provides the requirements for Rainforest Alliance certification, have been approved. The 2017 standard will be used for audits beginning in July 2017.

The 2017 standard covers a lot of ground. In addition to various environmental topics, it also addresses management, social, and livelihood aspects (wages, worker rights, etc.). As the standard has gone through periodic updates, it has refined not only individual criterion, but also tweaked the overarching structure and scoring protocols.

My focus here is on the ”shade criteria.” These requirements are what many people have in mind when they are looking for ”shade coffee” that is eco-friendly and provides habitat for birds and other biodiversity.

Background

The SAN criteria regarding shade for coffee farms has slowly changed in the past decade. A full explanation of these changes is provided in the post The (De)evolution of Rainforest Alliance shade criteria. That post provides a timeline and interpretation of the modifications to the shade criteria. It also introduces and explains the changes proposed for the 2017 standard. A follow-up post (Rainforest Alliance drastically revises shade requirement) describes a revised interim draft of the standard, and a final update briefly outlined the public comments and SAN’s response.

For the most concise before-and-after comparison of the changes in the shade requirements for Rainforest Alliance certification, I provide below the criterion for coffee from the 2005 SAN standard. Note that while this was not a critical (required) criterion, it was worded so that certain conditions were mandatory for initial certification; my emphasis highlights these provisions.

Farms located in areas where the original natural vegetative cover is forest must establish and maintain, as part of the conservation program, permanent shade distributed homogenously throughout the plantations; the shade must meet the following requirements:

a. A minimum of 70 individual trees per hectare that must include at least 12 native species per hectare.

b. A shade density of at least 40% at all times.

c. The tree crowns must comprise at least two strata or stories.

A farm without shade can be certified once it has a shade establishment or expansion plan and shade established in at least 25% of the production area. Shade must be established in the remaining 75% of the production area within five years. Farms in areas where the original natural vegetation is not forest must dedicate at least 30% of the farm area for conservation or recovery of the area’s typical ecosystems. These farms can be certified once they have a plan to establishment or recover natural vegetation within ten years. Vegetation must be re-established or recovered in an equivalent of 10% of the total farm area (one-third of the 30%) during the first three years of the plan.

The 2017 standard

The standard lists dozens of critera, broken into four tiers. “Critical” criteria are mandatory. The others are labeled Level C (“good”), B (“better”), or A (“best”) representing increasing levels of sustainablity performance. Farms can be initially certified by meeting all critical criteria plus  50% of the Level C/good criteria. To remain certified, farms have to comply with increasingly higher criteria. By the sixth year of certification, farms must meet all critical criteria, plus 90% of Level C criteria, 90% of Level B criteria, and 50% of Level A criteria.

The standard also has a section of Terms and Definitions. It includes the term “SAN canopy cover and species diversity parameters.” For coffee farms, the definition states there must be 40% minimum canopy cover and a minimum 12 native tree species per hectare. The definition also states that canopy cover is measured when foliage is most dense.

The 2017 “shade” criterion

The criterion covering shade in the 2017 SAN standard is in the topic area “Native Vegetation.”  There are no critical criteria (required for initial certification) in this topic area.

The specific criterion comparable to the 2005 shade criterion is a Level A criterion. It reads as follows (emphasis on section that applies to coffee):

Farms with shade-tolerant crops have at least 15% total native vegetation coverage across the farm or groups of farms or a shade canopy fulfilling the SAN canopy cover and species diversity parameters. Farms or groups of farms with non shade-tolerant crops have at least 10% total native vegetation coverage across the farm or groups of farms.

What this means

Specifically for habitat

As noted, this new criterion is Level A — the highest performance level. However, it is less stringent and not as encompassing of ecological requirements in previous standards.

This new criterion does not address shade density/canopy density. It targets 15% native vegetation cover. Ecologically speaking, these terms represent vegetation structure with very different ramifications for habitat quality. Read why this is important here.

Although there is mention of the minimum 40% canopy cover and 12 native tree species per hectare in the criterion, it states that farms can meet those parameters OR have 15% native vegetation cover.

There is no requirement for vegetation to be contiguous (e.g., not in small fragments that have less value to biodiversity), to be part of the coffee production area, or even to be on each individual farm in a group such as a cooperative.

There are no strata requirements. These strata are the various ”layers” of trees, seen in the shade diagram here. This type of structure is critical to biodiversity in ecosystems; the more the better.

In practical terms

In general, a product certified under this system represents a product somewhere along the path to sustainability, not a product that has necessarily acheived some specific benchmark. Specifically, as a Level A criterion, the 15% native vegetation cover criterion is not required until the sixth year after initial certification, perhaps longer if other Level A criteria make up the 50% that are needed by that time. Contrast with Smithsonian Bird-Friendly standards, which not only encompass shade canopy density, strata, and organic certification criteria — but all of must be met to certify.

In other words, a coffee farm with less than 15% native vegetation cover could be Rainforest Alliance certified and remain so for years as long as they had a management plan to progressively increase this amount. Levels greater than 15% are not required at any point.

Many Rainforest Alliance certified farms may, in fact, have ecologically-significant shade/canopy density and meet many other biodiversity-enhancing measures. And rarms that have existing agroforestry shade cover are required to retain this shade cover. The problem is that there is no way for the public to differentiate between these types of farms and those that have yet to achieve even the far less valuable 15% vegetation cover benchmark.

Broader ramifications

This lack of transparency to a consumer seeking out ”shade coffee” or coffee that is grown using field-tested approaches to maximizing the value of agroforestry to biodiversity is, in my opinion, an enormous problem. It has great potential to erode consumer trust. This seems like an especially treacherous road for an organization such as Rainforest Alliance whose stated mission is conserving biodiversity. It may also be a disservice to other certifications. If Rainforest Alliance certification — with a high public profile and reputation for ”saving the rainforest”– does not deliver what consumers thought it did, it may foster distrust in other certifications as well.

The SAN standard overall has committed to encouraging continuous improvement. However, by lowering the bar (again, focusing on ”shade”), it can have the effect of removing some incentives to truly improve habitat. The main drivers for farmers to obtain certification is access to buyers/markets, forming long-term supplier relationships, and thus added income. Low barriers to certification means farmers may reap benefits without having fully met the requirements implied to the consumer by the certification. These low barriers can be especially appealing because the benefits can be realized before full investment in upgrading production have taken place.

Lower entry barriers to the ”shade coffee” market means coffee quality will span a broader spectrum. The lower sunlight levels of a shade canopy result in physiological changes in the coffee cherry, which can translate into higher cup quality. Since taste is probably the ultimate catalyst for a coffee purchase, diluting the ”shade coffee” market with potentially lower quality beans not actually grown under shade may potentially lower market demand for shade coffee.

Finally and perhaps most troubling to me is that this considerable weakening of the shade requirements devalues science-based shade and biodiversity criteria. If low requirements for shade production become mainstreamed and legitimized, and are seen as the true benchmarks for eco-friendly coffee production, habitat quality and biodiversity will suffer.

The Sustainable Agriculture Network and Rainforest Alliance have made, and continue to make, great contributions to the environmental and economic sustainability of many agricultural products and producers. Therefore it is with regret that I report that I feel the changes in the new standard regarding shade criteria have negative effects and, due to lack of transparency, I can no longer recommend Rainforest Alliance certified coffee to consumers specifically seeking “shade grown” coffee.

 

Background information / Research on coffee growing

Coffee growing bibliography update

journalsI have made another periodic update to my coffee bibliography, peer-reviewed papers that deal with various ecological and economic aspects of coffee growing.  Now that the list is over 400 papers, I thought it might be useful to publish a list of the most recent additions when I update the larger list.

Here are the most recent ones. Note that not all are new publications, because when I read new literature, I often find references to older papers I missed. I’ve included the abstracts of papers I found particularly interesting, revealing, or relevant. Warning: long and nerdy!

Barham, B.L., M. Callenes, S. Gitter, J. Lewis and J. Weber. 2011. Fair Trade/Organic coffee, rural livelihoods, and the ”agrarian question”: southern Mexican coffee families in transition. World Development 39: 134—145.

Barham, B.L. and J.G. Weber. 2012. The economic sustainability of certified coffee: recent evidence from Mexico and Peru. World Development 40: 1269—1279.

Consumers increasingly act on preferences for a more just and sustainable world by purchasing certified agricultural products. Using survey data from coffee growers in Mexico and Peru, we explore the economic sustainability of certified coffee, looking at conventional, Fair Trade/organic, and Rainforest Alliance certified growers. The analysis reveals that yields rather than price premiums are most important for increasing net cash returns for coffee growing households. Given the link between net returns and producer participation in certified coffee schemes, the findings suggest that certification norms that permit improving yields are essential for improving grower welfare and attracting and maintaining growers.

De Beenhouwer, M., L. Geeraert, J. Mertens, M. Van Geel, R. AcuÁ±a Castillo, K. Vanderhaegen and O. Honnay. 2016. Biodiversity and carbon storage co-benefits of coffee agroforestry across a gradient of increasing management intensity in the SW Ethiopian highlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 222: 193—199.

Bravo-Monroy, L., S.G. Potts and J. Tzanopoulos. 2016. Drivers influencing farmer decisions for adopting organic or conventional coffee management practices. Food Policy 58: 49—61.

Colombia is one of the world’s most important producers of Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica), whose coffee-growing zone coincides with a biogeographic hotspot of biodiversity. Given that coffee agroecosystems are grown by both organic and conventional schemes of management in Santander, a region which produces coffees with specialist distinctive flavours, this study aims to better understand the factors that influence the adoption of these different schemes of management. A combination of ethnographic techniques and quantitative methods were used to examine the predominant drivers of adoption and revealed farmer perceptions associated with coffee farming, and the complexity of interacting factors, that surround their decision making. The results of qualitative analysis suggests that social identity of coffee growers, the existence of farming spaces (lived, perceived, rationalised), the influence of coffee institutions, attitudes about management practices, and social relations of production, all play an important role in the process of decision making. In quantitative terms, we identified 18 socioeconomic drivers, some with interacting effects that had significant influence on the decision to adopt either organic or conventional practices. In particular, at local scale, important factors were technology availability, the type of landowner, formal education of farmers, the role of institutions, membership of community organisations, farm size, coffee productivity and the number of coffee plots per farm. Likewise, economic drivers, such as crop profitability, determined how farmers are involved in trade and market networks at broad regional, national, and international spatial scales. By adopting a more integrated approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methodologies, we characterised the complexity of factors that influencing adoption of coffee management schemes and show that not only financial factors but also a variety of other social factors drive farmer decision making. Identifying the most influential behavioural drivers provides policy with opportunities to better support farmer livelihoods.

Chaves, B. and J. Riley. 2001. Determination of factors influencing integrated pest management adoption in coffee berry borer in Colombian farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 159—177.

Faure, G., J.-F. Le Coq, I. Vagneron, H. HocdÁ©, G.S. MuÁ±oz and M. Kessari. 2012. Strategies of coffee producers’ organizations in Costa Rica toward environmental and social certification processes. Cahiers Agricultures 21: 162—168.

GuzmÁ¡n, A., A. Link, J.A. Castillo and J.E. Botero. 2016. Agroecosystems and primate conservation: Shade coffee as potential habitat for the conservation of Andean night monkeys in the northern Andes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 215: 57—67.

Haggar, J., M. Barrios, M. BolaÁ±os, M. Merlo, P. Moraga, R. Munguia, et al. 2011. Coffee agroecosystem performance under full sun, shade, conventional and organic management regimes in Central America. Agroforestry Systems 82: 285—301.

Changes in coffee economics are leading producers to reduce agrochemical use and increase the use of shade. Research is needed on how to balance the competition from shade trees with the provision of ecological services to the coffee. In 2000, long-term coffee experiments were established in Costa Rica and Nicaragua to compare coffee agroecosystem performance under full sun, legume and non-legume shade types, and intensive and moderate conventional and organic inputs. Coffee yield from intensive organic production was not significantly different from intensive conventional in Nicaragua, but in Costa Rica it was lower during three of the six harvests. Full sun coffee production over 6 years was greater than shaded coffee in Costa Rica (61.8 vs. 44.7 t ha−1, P = 0.0002). In Nicaragua, full sun coffee production over 5 years (32.1 t ha−1) was equal to coffee with shade that included Tabebuia rosea (Bertol.) DC., (27—30 t ha−1) and both were more productive (P = 0.03) than coffee shaded with Inga laurina (Sw.) Willd. (21.6 t ha−1). Moderate input organic production was significantly lower than other managements under all shade types, except in the presence of Erythrina poepiggina (Walp.) O.F. Cook. Inga and Erythrina had greater basal area and nutrient recycling from prunings than other shade species. Intensive organic production increased soil pH and P, and had higher K compared to moderate conventional. Although legume shade trees potentially provide ecological services to associated coffee, this depends on management of the competition from those same trees.

Hardt, E., E. Borgomeo, R.F. dos Santos, L.F.G. Pinto, J.P.P. Metzger and G. Sparovek. 2015. Does certification improve biodiversity conservation in Brazilian coffee farms? Forest Ecology and Management 357: 181 — 194.

Socio-environmental certification uses evaluation criteria to promote the conservation of the natural environment and landscape connectivity, with the aim of constructing agricultural landscapes more suitable for biodiversity conservation. To test this, we examine whether socio-environmental certification of Brazilian coffee farms contributes to local conservation, particularly in terms of deforestation control, habitat protection and regeneration, and connectivity. The analysis compared changes in landscape structure and connectivity in certified farms before (1995—2002) and after nine years from the beginning of the certification process (2002—2011), using as a reference the surrounding landscape and a control group of non-certified farms. To quantify changes in landscape connectivity we used probabilistic indices of functional connectivity based on graph theory, and two species of terrestrial mammals with contrasting dispersal capacities and habitat requirements: Priodontes maximus (giant armadillo) and Marmosops incanus (gray slender mouse opossum). Our results show that changes in the last decade have been subtle, but that certified farms differ from surrounding areas for the greater deforestation control and habitat availability for both land cover types, and for the greater connectivity for P. maximus. The difference between certified and non-certified farms is not clear-cut, however, we have evidence that the certified farms contributed more than the surrounding areas to the conservation of the studied species when the balance of gains and losses of connectivity is considered. The subtle differences in temporal changes and groups might be partially explained by the fact that certified farms already had a different conservation profile at the beginning of the certification process. Despite the limitations in the sampling size (small number) and time scale (only nine years after certification) which may hinders the detection of certification effects, our findings indicate that certification was important in controlling deforestation and the conversion of new natural areas to agricultural lands.

de JesÁºs-Crespo, R., D. Newsom, E.G. King and C. Pringle. 2016. Shade tree cover criteria for non-point source pollution control in the Rainforest Alliance coffee certification program: A snapshot assessment of Costa Rica’s TarrazÁº coffee region. Ecological Indicators 66: 47—54.

Management of non-point source pollution is of great importance in the context of coffee agriculture, as this land use often coincides with headwater streams that influence water quality at the basin scale. Sustainability certification programs, such as the Rainforest Alliance (RA), provide management guidelines that promote non-point source pollution control in coffee. One of these practices is the maintenance of shade trees within farms, required by RA at a minimum of 40% shade tree cover. Here we assess the effectiveness of this practice in TarrazÁº, a high elevation coffee growing region in Costa Rica. We monitored indicators of non-point source pollution in streams with both high and low shade tree cover. Streams with High Shade Tree Cover (HSTC, N = 5 subwatersheds) had 35—55% cover, approximating or exceeding the RA recommendation of at least 40%; and streams with Low Shade Tree Cover (LSTC, N = 5 subwatersheds), had 18—31% cover. We monitored the ten study streams during the dry (April & December), transition (July), and peak (October) rainfall seasons of 2013, and compared responses using t-tests. We found support for the effectiveness of shade tree cover in controlling non-point source pollution: HSTC streams had significantly (p = 0.042) lower mean annual turbidity and significantly (p = 0.004) lower turbidity during the transition season. HSTC streams also had significantly (p = 0.05) lower conductivity values during the transition period, although this trend was weaker through the year. Subwatersheds with HSTC streams were characterized by a higher percentage of RA-certified coffee than LSTC streams. Our study provides evidence of the benefits of RA shade tree cover criteria for managing water quality within high elevation tropical agro-ecosystems, especially if implemented at the watershed scale. These results contribute to our understanding of the role of agroforestry certification on tropical ecosystem conservation, and are the first account of the effectiveness of a specific coffee certification guideline on non-point source pollution control.

Mansingh, G., H. Reichgelt and K.-M. Bryson. 2007. CPEST: An expert system for the management of pests and diseases in the Jamaican coffee industry. Expert Systems with Applications 32: 184—192.

MarÁ­n, L., S.M. Philpott, A. De la Mora, G. Ibarra NÁºÁ±ez, S. Tryban and I. Perfecto. 2016. Response of ground spiders to local and landscape factors in a Mexican coffee landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 222: 80—92.

MariÁ±o, Y.A., M.-E. PÁ©rez, F. Gallardo, M. Trifilio, M. Cruz and P. Bayman. 2016. Sun vs. shade affects infestation, total population and sex ratio of the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) in Puerto Rico. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 222: 258—266.

McCook, S. and J. Vandermeer. 2015. The big rust and the Red Queen: long-term perspectives on coffee rust research. Phytopathology: PHYTO—04—15—0085—RVW.

Milligan, M.C., M.D. Johnson, M. Garfinkel, C.J. Smith and P. Njoroge. 2016. Quantifying pest control services by birds and ants in Kenyan coffee farms. Biological Conservation 194: 58—65.

Ecosystem services, such as pest control and pollination, are critical benefits of biodiversity important for agricultural production. Predators, including insectivorous birds and ants, can provide important biological controls in agroecosystems, boosting crop yield and offsetting the need for expensive inputs such as pesticides. Local habitat and landscape characteristics can affect the delivery of ecosystem services, thereby influencing optimal land allocation for crop production and biodiversity. In order to better understand the relationship between ecosystem services and the surrounding habitat, we conducted a sentinel pest experiment to investigate predation levels in response to a novel pest on coffee farms in central Kenya. The frequency of predation decreased significantly with increasing distance from adjacent forest fragments and was correlated with bird species richness. Predation was also significantly higher on shade compared to sun coffee farms. We conclude that a land sharing approach, via both the integration of shade trees and the conservation of small forest fragments within or adjacent to a farm, can support increased levels of pest control services provided by birds and ants in Kenyan coffee farms.

Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer and S.M. Philpott. 2014. Complex ecological interactions in the coffee agroecosystem. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 45: 137—158.

Rueda, X. and E.F. Lambin [online]. 2013. Responding to globalization: impacts of certification on Colombian small-scale coffee growers. Ecology and Society 18.

Rueda, X., N.E. Thomas and E.F. Lambin. 2014. Eco-certification and coffee cultivation enhance tree cover and forest connectivity in the Colombian coffee landscapes. Regional Environmental Change 15: 25—33.

Segura, H.R., J.F. Barrera, H. Morales and A. Nazar. 2004. Farmers’ perceptions, knowledge, and management of coffee pests and diseases and their natural enemies in Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Economic Entomology 97: 1491—1499.

Soto-Pinto, L., Y. Romero-Alvarado, J. Caballero-Nieto and G. Segura Warnholtz. 2001. Woody plant diversity and structure of shade-grown-coffee plantations in Northern Chiapas, Mexico. Revista de BiologÁ­a Tropical 49: 977—987.

Valencia, V., S. Naeem, L. GarcÁ­a-Barrios, P. West and E.J. Sterling. 2016. Conservation of tree species of late succession and conservation concern in coffee agroforestry systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 219: 32—41.

Valencia, V., P. West, E.J. Sterling, L. GarcÁ­a-Barrios and S. Naeem. 2015. The use of farmers’ knowledge in coffee agroforestry management: implications for the conservation of tree biodiversity. Ecosphere 6: 1—17.

Weber, J.G. 2011. How much more do growers receive for Fair Trade-organic coffee? Food Policy 36: 678—685.

Wollni, M. and B. BrÁ¼mmer. 2012. Productive efficiency of specialty and conventional coffee farmers in Costa Rica: Accounting for technological heterogeneity and self-selection. Food Policy 37: 67—76.

Caribou Coffee / Retail and specialty roasters

Caribou Coffee sourcing update

Background
In 2013, Joh. A. Benckiser Group (JAB), a private German holding company, purchased Minnesota-based Caribou Coffee.  JAB had already acquired Peet’s Coffee & Tea, and went on to buy European coffee company D.E. Master Blenders 1753. JAB is now in the process of merging D.E Master Blenders with Kraft spinoff MondelÄ“z International, which would create the first or second largest coffee company in the world.

Just prior to being taken over by JAB, Caribou Coffee had become the first major coffee company to source 100% of its coffee from Rainforest Alliance certified farms. At the time of the changeover, I was concerned that JAB would begin sourcing less certified coffee, in part because they were closing many Caribou locations and/or converting them to Peet’s, which had little in the way of certified coffee of any type.

In 2012, Caribou had approximately 550 stores. Their website says that today they have fewer than 500 (although an exact number seems elusive). While we can go with a 9% reduction in stores, some were considered “under performing” and there’s no good way to determine if Caribou buys more or less coffee than it used to; around the time JAB acquired it, Caribou was buying over 9,000 metric tons of Rainforest Alliance certified coffee a year.

How they’re doing
I’m pleased to see that under JAB, Caribou is still publishing a “sustainability” report, which they refer to as their “Do Good” report. The report discloses that Caribou does not have a department dedicated to sustainability efforts. Instead, they rely heavily on employee volunteerism and community engagement. That seems like a lot of heavy lifting for employees. Since coffee sourcing is rolled into the Do Good strategy, one can’t help but wonder if or how sustainable coffee sourcing is baked into the company policy.

Initial sourcing goals, from their 2013 report (PDF), indicated that they wanted to source more Rainforest Alliance certified coffee from Kenya and Sumatra, and expand into East Africa and Papua New Guinea by encouraging and educating suppliers. I consider this a positive move, as East African coffees are often lacking in organic or Rainforest Alliance certifications (see my post on coffee growing in Kenya). Details in the report were scarce, but it appears they met this goal.

Their 2013 goals were more of the same — diversifying Kenyan and East African suppliers. However, the 2014 report doesn’t state any specific headway, and Caribou gave itself only 2 out of 3 “cups” (points), meaning they only met a portion of their goals.

The lack of detail is frustrating, but expected from a privately held company. Unfortunately, Caribou no longer discloses the amount of coffee they buy, but it is still all Rainforest Alliance certified. I’m glad to see that JAB hasn’t completely retreated from public disclosure and sustainability efforts. Their recycling, energy, and charitable accomplishments are very nice, but I think consumers would like to see much more specifically about their coffee.

Certifications / Corporate coffee

Corporate money and pseudo-certifications

Destroying consumer trust and undermining the value of certifications

In return for financial support that represents a tiny fraction of profits, large corporations are receiving “endorsements” in the form of product badges promoting health benefits or sustainability efforts — despite the fact that many of these corporations have rotten sustainability records. This includes purveyors of corporate coffee, including Nestlé and JM Smuckers (Folgers).

It isn’t apparent from the badges or labels what they truly represent, nor in some cases is it even possible to figure out from viewing the websites of the organizations, corporations, or sponsors.

“Made by Sustainability Leaders” badges on Walmart products, backed by The Sustainability Consortium (TSC)

The Sustainability Consortium was originally established with funds from Walmart, and is “dedicated to improving the sustainability of consumer products” through “implementation of credible, transparent and scalable tools” that are “accessible for all producers, retailers, and users.” However, the only publicly-available documents are the “sustainability insights” for various products and sectors. These brief, very general overviews aren’t particularly insightful (e.g., for coffee, “clearing land for agriculture can lead to deforestation.”). The “toolkits” containing Key Performance Indicators, presumably the guidelines or criteria for sustainability assessment, are only available to members; annual memberships cost between $5000-$100,000. Thus, consumers do not know how corporations are evaluating sustainability. The FAQs, however, indicate that companies are using a self-administered survey and state that “TSC does not verify Key Performance Indicator responses.”

walmart-leaders-badgeNow Walmart is putting a “Made by Sustainability Leaders” badge on many products. While this gives the appearance that these are products are good for the environment, the badge really represents any product made by a company determined to be a sustainability leader based on the (self-administered, unverified) TSC survey. Not only do we not know the TSC criteria, the badge does not pertain to the actual sustainability of the individual product, and none of this is apparent to the consumer.

Are these corporations truly “sustainability leaders”? One probably needn’t go much further than noting paper products by Georgia Pacific are badged by Walmart. Georgia Pacific is a TSC member that is owned by the Koch brothers, and its products are boycott targets.  Other Walmart suppliers that are not TSC members (e.g., Nestlé) can also display the badge; Walmart uses the toolkits developed by TSC to rank its suppliers and hand out badges.

Other TSC members include JM Smuckers, Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Dupont, and BASF. Following Walmart’s lead, other retailers or the corporations themselves could label their own products with some similar sort of badge or claim. I can’t get behind a mystery badge that puts money in the pockets of companies that are often so egregiously anti-environment.

For more details, read this excellent article by The Grist about this greenwashing initiative.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) has allowed Kraft to put it’s “Kids Eat Right” badge on their pasteurized prepared cheese product.  This seems dubious on the face of it, and more so when you learn Kraft is a major sponsor of AND. The New York Times has a report on this initiative, noting that other nutrition scientists are so uncomfortable with the Academy’s funding by big food corporate sponsorships that they have formed their own group, Dietitians for Professional Integrity, that calls for better transparency and ethical sponsorship. There are more resources on their website regarding the conflict of interest generated by corporate sponsorships.

What this has to do with coffee

The proliferation of different types of certifications, labels, endorsements, badges, etc. is confusing to a public that is already suspicious about them. We can debate the legitimacy and ethics of TSC, AND, and similar organizations all day, it really doesn’t matter. What does matter is that the basis for the badges, endorsements, and labels must be honest, transparent, and easily accessible and understood by the public.

Same goes for genuine certifications. People need to be able to understand what (and who) is behind the certification. When they do not, it leaves consumers to be duped into purchasing products that are not sustainably produced, or so distrustful of certifications or other claims that they disregard them all and just buy what is cheap and convenient. Either way, it’s a win for the profits of these companies (which in turn increases their power and influence) and a loss for the environment.

Corporate coffee / Jacobs Douwe Egberts/KraftHeinz

More corporate coffee consolidation

Two of the giants in the corporate coffee world want to merge in an attempt to rival the world’s current biggest coffee buyer, Nestlé I’ve been waiting for the merger to go through to write about this deal, but it is being investigated by European anti-trust regulators, so I’ll go ahead and provide some background now.

The proposed merger is between the #2 and #3 coffee companies in the world: Mondelēz International and D.E. Master Blenders 1753.

mondelez-logoMondelēz International was the name given to the Kraft Foods division that spun off from the company’s grocery segment in 2012. Coffee brands include Gevalia, Tassimo, and Kenco. (Kraft Food Group and Kraft Foodservice control Maxwell House, Yuban, General Foods International and the Gevalia and Tassimo brands in North America. Although I’ve not read that Kraft brands are part of this deal, Maxwell House is shown as an included coffee brand in this fact sheet put out by Mondelēz.)

master-blenders-logoD.E. Master Blenders 1753 is owned by JAB Holding Company (Joh. A. Benckiser) — the private firm that recently purchased Caribou Coffee and Peet’s Coffee.  Their main coffee brand, though, is Douwe Egberts (once owned by Sara Lee Corporation). There are other coffee brands owned by D.E. Master Blenders, mainly European; the most familiar to Americans is probably Senseo.

A merger between these two companies was agreed upon in mid-2014. If approved, the new company will be called Jacobs Douwe Egberts. Mondelēz will own 49% of the new company, and JAB will have controlling interest at 51%.

Mondelēz International purchases about 500,000 tons of coffee annually. D.E. Master Blenders purchases 300,000 tons, according to Coffee Barometer 2014 (PDF). Combined, their purchases equal Nestlé’s 860,000 tons. Thus, if the merger proceeds, Nestlé and the new Jacobs Douwe Egberts will be purchasing around 20% of the entire world production of coffee.

In my table describing Corporate Coffee: How much is eco-certified, you can see how little of this coffee is falls under any of the meaningful eco-certifications (Smithsonian Bird-Friendly, Rainforest Alliance, or organic). A mere 57,000 tons — 3.3% — of the coffee purchased by Nestlé, Mondelēz International, and D.E. Master Blenders* falls under these three certifications!

I can fall back on my usual advice: avoid inexpensive, mass-produced, commodity traded, grocery store coffee. The largest coffee companies in the world control this category, and do little, if anything, to make sure the coffee they buy is produced under conditions that protect farmland, natural habitat, biodiversity, or the farmers that grow it.

*I’ve not historically included D.E. Master Blenders in my table as I have concentrated on North American brands, but I will do so if the merger goes through. D.E. Master Blenders mainly purchases UTZ Certified coffee, which does not have strong, specific, or meaningful ecological criteria; Coffee Barometer 2014 indicates the company has plans to procure more organic and Rainforest Alliance certified coffee in the future. Even adding in UTZ and Nestlé’s own self-certified, mystery Nespresso AAA Sustainable Quality program purchases, the total only amounts to 202,000 tons, or 12% of what these three companies buy each year.