Coffee and the environment

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.

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.

Climate change / Coffee and the environment / Research on coffee growing

Is coffee really at risk of extinction?

Recently, a paper was published in the peer-reviewed, open-access journal, PLoS ONE: “The impact of climate change on indigenous arabica coffee (Coffea arabica): predicting future trends and identifying priorities.”

It specifically looked at wild, endemic populations of Coffea arabica in Ethiopia (and a few points in nearby areas). In a nutshell, the authors created computer models using known localities, environmental conditions, and various climate change scenarios to predict current and future distribution of these populations. The models determined a reduction (ranging from very worrisome to nearly complete) in suitable locations in this region by 2080. This is no surprise. I’m not sure I’ve seen any models that do not show some impact on the ranges (whether expansions, contractions, or shifts) of plants and animals under any accepted climate change scenarios. And we all know coffee is a very climate-sensitive species, especially arabica coffee.

It is a big leap to go from what this paper actually examined and concluded to the shrill, frantic headlines and stories pumped out by mainstream  media. For instance, under the headline So Long, Joe? World Coffee Supply Could Be Threatened By Climate Change, US News and World Reports declared “Nearly 100 percent of the world’s Arabica coffee growing regions could become unsuitable for the plant by 2080.” This is way off base, given the study was only looking at wild arabica in the vicinity of southwest Ethiopia. The article also stated that “If Arabica becomes impossible to raise in its native areas, it could wreak havoc on the economies of the mainly third-world countries in which it grows,” which is ridiculous considering that coffee is already grown on millions of acres in dozens of countries around the world where it is not native. Likewise, Salon.com made the even more extreme statement, “By the end of this century, climate change could wipe out nearly all the world’s coffee” in their piece, Coffee beans at risk of extinction.

I could cite more hand-wringing examples of failure by news outlets to make an honest effort at reporting what this paper really said, but you get the gist. As a scientist, journalist, editor, and world citizen, this lack of accuracy disgusts me. First, there is no excuse for it; the paper is open-access and anyone can read it for themselves! Apparently, this dismal reporting stems from incomprehension, laziness, and/or incompetance on the part of writers and their editors, as well as a disregard for actually informing the public in favor of profit for the news outlet via sensationalism.

If you’ve read this far and want a more nuanced analysis of the paper, I’ll give a few of my thoughts.

I thought the  paper was thorough and well-conceived. The bioclimatic modelling used is pretty standard for looking at the distribution of species under future climate change situations. Computer models, of course, are as robust as the data one feeds into them.  In this paper, the bulk of the data used to model current distribution was based on unpublished field work done by one of the authors; the rest was from herbarium specimens or literature reports, some dating back to 1941.  Ergo, it is technically not possible to evaluate the quality of this data. The climate data emphasizes factors like temperature, rainfall, and seasonality. These are all critical for coffee growing, but the models did not integrate other important environmental influences on coffee production such as soil types, microhabitats, and ecological processes, and the authors acknowledge those shortcomings.

The results and discussion provided didn’t stray far beyond these limitations and delivered on the authors intended goals: to identify conservation, monitoring, and research needs for wild, native Coffea arabica. It established baseline data to help assess future impacts of climate change on these populations, having identified suitable localities for them.

Two paragraphs in the discussion are devoted to the implications of the findings for cultivated arabica coffee, and they are also presumed to be negative. Does this mean the news headlines, while not the subject of the actual paper, are true? Not exactly. The authors note that optimum cultivation requirements for arabica coffee will likely become harder to achieve in the face of climate change, productivity will probably be reduced, and more intense management (especially irrigation) will be needed.

Is the potential loss of genetic resources in these populations something to worry about? In their article Climate change threatens sweet smell of morning coffee, Reuters took a stab at trying to interpret what the paper had to say by writing, “Although commercial coffee growers would still be able to cultivate crops in plantations designed with the right conditions, experts say the loss of wild arabica, which has greater genetic diversity, would make it harder for plantations to survive long-term and beat threats like pests and disease.”  Indeed, a reason the authors focused on wild populations of arabica in their native range was that their genes may be valuable for breeding disease and pest resistance and climate resilience into commercially grown coffee. While this is logical, and maybe even likely, the paper did not provide detail on the genetic diversity, number of unique arabica strains, or other features of the coffee being mapped and modelled. In fact, the authors noted that genetic variation in wild arabica still needed to be assessed. Further, other more tolerant species of coffee (primarily Coffea canephora, robusta, and its hybrids) are being used in breeding programs today and probably hold the best hope for resilience in commercial coffee. (This is not to discount the importance of preserving these populations; I’m a strong believer that genetic biodiversity should be preserved regardless of it’s commercial value.)

One point was made in the paper that I thought was not given enough emphasis. The biggest driver of the loss of wild coffee populations has been and is deforestation and land conversion, which themselves exacerbate climate change. We can sit on our hands and watch one of the models in this paper play itself out, with what the authors term as “profoundly negative influence” on coffee. Or we can encourage the production (and consumption) of coffee grown in an ecologically-sustainable manner, using carbon-capturing shade trees and sensible agroforesty techniques — and reward farmers for their troubles by paying more for eco-friendly coffee. The press  could make a real contribution by informing the public on the issues surrounding the sustainability of one of the world’s most popular beverages, rather than thoughtlessly spew out faulty proclamations with little basis in fact and no call to action.

More of my posts on coffee and climate change here.

Davis AP, Gole TW, Baena S, & Moat J (2012). The Impact of Climate Change on Indigenous Arabica Coffee (Coffea arabica): Predicting Future Trends and Identifying Priorities. PloS one, 7 (11) PMID: 23144840

Coffee and the environment

More pollinator research for Pollinator Week

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:

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…)