JulieCraves

Birds and other biodiversity / Research on coffee growing

Research: Borer-eating warblers may need nearby forests

Roosting behaviour of a migratory songbird on Jamaican coffee farms: landscape composition may affect delivery of an ecosystem service. Jirinec, Campos, and Johnson 2011. Bird Conservation International.

This is another paper from Matt Johnson and his students from Humboldt State University (CA) who study how birds provide pest control on coffee farms in Jamaica.  Previous papers summarized here include the primary research on which species of North American-breeding birds prey on coffee berry borers on Jamaican farms, and an analysis of how birds controlled the borers on shade and sun farms, and the economic value of the pest reduction.

This study looked at the most important bird species preying on the borers, the Black-throated Blue Warbler. This species was profiled here as part of our Know Your Coffee Birds series.

Researchers captured warblers on two farms in cultivated coffee patches. The birds were fitted with tiny radio transmitters, and the movements of 21 warblers were followed for 7 to 10 days with radio telemetry.

While the birds spend most of their days in the coffee cultivation areas, most (81%) birds roosted (spent the night) in nearby forested habitat patches, not on the coffee farms. Even if a bird roosted within the boundaries of the farm, it was usually in large shade trees or vegetated non-cultivated areas. The average distance between the daytime range and the roost sites was 119 m.

The structure of the vegetation on the farms where the birds foraged was quite different from where the warblers spent the night. Roosting sites had more canopy cover (averaging 94% closed) than the shaded coffee (36% closed). Roosting areas were also very dense. Thus, the Black-throated Blue Warblers in this study appear to choose coffee farms for their good food supply — which includes the coffee berry borer — and forests with dense protective cover to safely spend the night.

This implies that preserving forests, which provide safe haven for roosting birds, in or near coffee farms may encourage them to remain in an area. For farmers to benefit from the pest control services of migratory and resident birds, as well as other ecological services such as pollination provided by other fauna, local land use must be taken into account.

Male Black-throated Blue Warbler banded at the Rouge River Bird Observatory, photo by Julie Craves. All rights reserved.

JIRINEC, V., CAMPOS, B., & JOHNSON, M. (2011). Roosting behaviour of a migratory songbird on Jamaican coffee farms: landscape composition may affect delivery of an ecosystem service Bird Conservation International, 1-9 DOI: 10.1017/S0959270910000614

Research on coffee growing

Endemic Tanzanian coffee threatened by dam

Coffea kihansiensis from Davis and Mvungi 2004.

In 2001, an endemic coffee species, Coffea kihansiensis, was discovered in the Kihansi River gorge in the Udzungwa Mountains of Tanzania. The entire range of this species is estimated at about 17 ha between 775 and 950 m. The habitat was shaped by huge amount of spray from an 800-meter-high waterfall which stabilized temperature and humidity.

A hydroelectric project completed in 1999 diverted over 90% of the flow of the river, severely altering the spray-dependent ecosystems and threatening a range of plant and animal taxa, many of which are unique to this gorge. Prior to the diversion, average temperature and humidity was 70° F and 77% respectively; in 2007 after diversion it was 75° F and 69%. The environmental assessment performed prior to the project initiation only  looked impacts on habitat inundated by the reservoir. It wasn’t until 2001, after completion of the diversion, that monitoring of species at risk from the loss of spray was initiated. This was when Coffea kihansiensis was discovered.

A just-published three-year study (2007-2009)  looked at the health of the coffee trees in the gorge. Because the species was only discovered after completion of the project, pre-diversion parameters are not available. However, field observations made in the immediate years after diversion (2000-2003) found no evidence of insect or other parasitic infestation. In the recent study, over half of the sampled coffee trees had either insect damage (aphids, beetles, or crickets/grasshoppers) or a heartwood-boring insect larva that was usually lethal. The worst infestations were at sites closest to the river which had formerly been constantly drenched in spray. This suggests that the stress of increased temperatures and decreased humidity is making the coffee susceptible to these pests.

Since the general ecology of the area has changed dramatically, it is possible that conditions are now also favorable to the increase in pests; perhaps they were not even present prior to diversion. At least one fruit-eating bird has declined in the gorge, which may have negative effects on the dispersal of Coffea kihansiensis seeds in the area. The reduced flow of the river has also changed the water chemistry and quality. For example, dam releases have resulted in pulses of pesticides from upstream maize farms. The long-term effects of these changes on soils, nutrient dynamics, and the coffee are still not known.

Kihansi Spray Toad, wiped out in the wild by a dam that also threatens an endemic coffee species. Photo Copyright © 2005 Dennis Demello.

Sadly, Coffea kihansiensis is not the poster-child for the environmental damage caused by this project. The Kihansi Spray Toad (Nectophrynoides asperginis) was first described in 1998. It was also endemic to the gorge and dependent on the spray, with a population estimated at nearly 20,000 in a 2-ha range. By 2004, after the diversion, fewer than 5 individuals were found, and it is now extinct in the wild. Fortunately, a group was taken into captivity in 2001, and after much trial and error is now being bred in several zoos.

Ironically, the hydro project was funded by the World Bank and several other development agencies, and now the World Bank is funding much of the spray toad preservation efforts. The World Bank also funded an elaborate, gravity-fed sprinkler system in the gorge designed to mimic the spray from the waterfall. The system has failed at least once due to silt clogs, and it is not known if the toads can be re-introduced in the area because the vegetation changed significantly when the area dried out.

Nobody can begrudge a developing country an opportunity to produce much-needed clean energy. But when can we learn it is less expensive — monetarily and for the environment — to perform due diligence and minimize our impact?

Davis, A., and Mvungi, E. 2004. Two new and endangered species of Coffea (Rubiaceae) from the Eastern Arc Mountains (Tanzania) and notes on associated conservation issues Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 146:237-245. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2004.00328.x

Krajick, K. 2006. The Lost World of the Kihansi Toad Science 311: 1230-1232. DOI: 10.1126/science.311.5765.1230 (PDF)

Rija, A. A., Mwamende, K. A., and Hassan, S. N. 2011. The aftermath of environmental disturbance on the critically endangered Coffea kihansiensis in the Southern Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science 4:359-372. See summary here.

Birds and other biodiversity / Research on coffee growing

Research: Types of fruit trees on shade coffee farms important

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 and Direct Trade

Fair Trade USA muddies the waters

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: