Coffee and the environment

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.

My last post summarized research on current and historical pollinators and their role in robusta coffee fruit set in India, and I noted it was in recognition that this is Pollinator Week — an international celebration of the valuable ecosystem services provided by bees, birds, butterflies, bats and beetles.

I’ve summarized a couple of other papers on pollinators and coffee:

• Research: Shade coffee = more pollinators = higher fruit set (Pollinator diversity increases fruit production in Mexican coffee plantations: The importance of rustic management systems)
• Research: Shade coffee conserves bee diversity (Impacts of coffee agroforestry management on tropical bee communities)

These are by no means the only research done on pollination, pollinators, and coffee! Below I have listed many peer-reviewed papers specifically dealing with bees and coffee pollination, and often the role of preserving shade in and near the coffee farm to preserve the habitat of pollinators and improve the fruit set of the coffee and other crops on the farm. If you are especially interested in one of the papers and do not have academic access, please let me know and I can try to provide you with a copy.

Meanwhile, I also encourage everybody to head over the the website of the Pollinator Partnership, which sponsors Pollinator Week. They have every resource you can think of regarding pollination and pollinators — not just bees, but all the other insects and animals that perform this incredible service — and their conservation and status. New this year is a free app (iPhone or Android) called BeeSmart, a database of hundreds of North American native plants for attracting pollinators.

(more…)

Intensifying production while conserving biodiversity

Food security and the ability of agricultural lands to feed over 9 billion people by 2050 is an increasingly-discussed topic. Part of this issue is how to conserve biodiversity while boosting agricultural capacity, either by increasing the productivity of land currently in production through some sort of intensification, or expanding the farmed area itself. Two methods of production are frequently mentioned in the overall debate: “land sparing” and “wildlife-friendly farming.” If this sounds familiar, it’s because these concepts have helped frame the sustainable/shade coffee certification movement.

Increasing yield is not the only way for coffee farmers to increase their income, of course. Increasing quality can also lead to handsome profits for farmers. However, most coffee grown around the world — in tropical biodiversity hotspots — is destined for the commodity market. A look at how the agricultural models attempt to balance productivity and biodiversity can reveal some of the complexities of coffee production, and the challenges for coffee certifications.

Land sparing. This approach promotes the intensification of agriculture on existing farmed land in order to increase yield so that more land does not have to be converted. This allows for adjacent land to be permanently preserved. Biodiversity within the crop space itself is limited, but the protected natural habitats are meant to harbor species native to the region.

The catch-all term for this type of coffee agriculture (minus the set-aside component) is “sun coffee,” as coffee is grown in a monoculture under full sun, rather than under a canopy of trees.  Growing coffee in the sun generally requires generous use of pesticides, herbicides, and artificial fertilizers.

Wildlife-friendly farming. As the name implies, this approach seeks to preserve biodiversity within the agricultural landscape via modifications of the production area (addition of different crops, incorporation of natural habitat) and/or more eco-friendly growing practices (reduction in agrochemical use, organic mulching).  A variety of fauna can utilize the farmed land, but this type of production method usually means lower crop yield per unit area.

In the case of coffee, wildlife-friendly farming means the use of a multi-layered canopy of diverse shade tree species, limited pruning of the shade trees and their epiphytes, preservation of leaf litter, and minimal (or no) use of chemicals — all hallmarks of what we call “shade coffee.”

Coffee certifications favor wildlife-friendly farming

When we talk about coffee production, birds, and conserving biodiversity, intensification is the boogeyman — the state to be avoided. Sun coffee has been considered the antithesis of shade coffee and all that is good in sustainable coffee growing. Thus, aspects of wildlife-friendly farming have become the building blocks of many coffee certifications. Some, like Smithsonian Bird-Friendly, deal exclusively with wildlife-friendly farming techniques while others, such as Rainforest Alliance, incorporate wildlife-friendly criteria along with other types of requirements for certification.

Wildlife-friendly coffee farming (from here on out, we’ll just call it shade coffee) is therefore the intuitive choice in the spare-or-share debate. But there are rarely one-size-fits-all solutions in ecology.  While the benefits of shade coffee to birds and other biodiversity are great, even high quality shade coffee does not hold the same levels of biodiversity as intact natural habitat. This is especially true for forest specialists that do not thrive in small forest remnants or agroforestry areas. Many of these important species are unlikely to reproduce and maintain their populations in shade coffee alone if there is not gene flow from nearby natural habitats. Some sort of land sparing (protection of native habitat on the farm) is likely needed to conserve species of high conservation concern in at least some areas, even if shade coffee techniques are used.

There are many variations of “shade.” There is rustic shade similar to forest, all the way to shade limited to a few pruned, non-native tree species. The closer we approach the latter, the less value a shade coffee farm has for biodiversity. Shade coffee may not be suitable if it creates expanses of marginal habitat for species that need high quality land, or if the production areas prevent the movement of some species between patches of prime habitat. Incorporating specific criteria into certification standards provides assurance that the amount and type of shade fosters biodiversity. Unfortunately, becoming certified is beyond the means of many farmers.

Another issue is that in some coffee-growing regions, growing coffee under shade is not practical. At high elevations, for instance, light and humidity levels limit growing coffee under multiple layers of shade because of increased fungal diseases and decreased yield. In these instances, where coffee is grown in sun, biodiversity need not be forsaken if some form of land sparing is utilized.

Should we revisit intensification of coffee production?

There is some evidence that the concept of land sparing can help prevent deforestation, which in turn helps preserve biodiversity. In Latin America during the 1980s, countries with a higher crop yields had lower deforestation rates, and countries that increased the crop yields per unit area had lower rates of cropland increase. Similarly, between 1970 and 1995, a period of intensification of coffee farming in Latin America, there was a 44% increase in production, largely due to intensification, while the area planted with coffee increased 27%. Colombia is a country that embraced intensification as a way to combat the arrival of coffee rust; between 1970-1997, more than 70% of the coffee area in Colombia intensified coffee growing practices. During this period, the area planted in coffee decreased 18.5% and forest and secondary growth increased 12.1%.

This suggests that with very careful planning, intensification of coffee production with planned land sparing could take place without disastrous results for the environment. Among other things, a land sparing scheme won’t work for biodiversity preservation unless the set-aside lands are actively protected and probably managed in some way so that they do not become degraded.

And while the production area itself can be farmed more intensively, it can’t be farmed in an “anything goes” manner. If intensification results in negative impacts beyond the farm (e.g., in the protected area, such as pesticide run-off), then the value of the protected area is likely to be diminished.

Finally, there needs to be some incentive for farmers to protect their spared land. Adjacent forest patches can provide benefits to coffee production even if the farmed area is sun coffee. This includes a source of pollinators as well as birds and insects which prey upon coffee pests. However, further financial benefits will likely need to be built into this scheme. If all economic gain is seen in the  high-yielding production areas of their property, farmers may be inclined to expand those areas at the expense of protecting habitat.

How do we integrate agriculture and biodiversity?

When ethical consumers consider a coffee purchase, they are often presented with a dichotomous view of coffee production. The reality is more nuanced. Full-blown “wildlife-friendly” farming may not be the only or best choice (or even an option for some farmers). And “land sparing” may not be its polar opposite. Coffee can be and is grown in a myriad of blended models. Consider patches of sun coffee, supplemented by some artificial fertilizers, using no pesticides, interplanted with natural habitat and fruit and timber trees, with protected forest nearby. In some instances, this could be preferable to an extensive landscape of shade coffee (especially low quality shade).

Right now, the obstacles to establishing criteria to certify blended models are daunting. For example, how do you set a threshold on how much land must be set aside? Is 60% better than 55%, and how can it be measured?  The amount and quality of land to be set aside would need to be determined on a regional basis, and be dependent on local land use, conservation issues, coffee farming traditions and conditions, and farmer needs.

This post is already long-winded, so it represent a simplification of a very complex issue. It’s not meant to endorse sun coffee or intensifying coffee production, or to disparage coffee certifications. It’s just an exercise to illustration the complexities of sustainable coffee production, and provide some food for thought.

This post drew from the following sources:

• Fischer, J., Brosi, B., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., Goldman, R., Goldstein, J., Lindenmayer, D., Manning, A., Mooney, H., Pejchar, L., Ranganathan, J., & Tallis, H. 2008. Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6:380-385.

• Green, R., Cornell, S.J., Schalemann, J.P.W., Balmford, A. 2005. Farming and the Fate of Wild Nature Science 307:550-555.

• Guhl, A. 2008. Coffee production intensification and landscape change in Colombia, 1970-2002. Pp. 93-115 in Land Change Science in the Tropics: Changing Agricultural Landscapes, A. C. Millington and W. Jepson, eds. Springer: New York.

• Phalan, B., Balmford, A., Green, R.E., & Scharlemann, J.P.W. 2011. Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more food globally. Food Policy, DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.11.008

• Rice, R. 1999. A Place Unbecoming: The Coffee Farm of Northern Latin America Geographical Review, 89 (4) DOI: 10.2307/216102