Coffee and the environment

Coffee and the environment / Coffee regions

Coffee growing in Brazil’s Cerrado region

Coffee growing in Brazil, in brief:
Coffee was first planted in Brazil in the early 1700s. By the mid-1800s, Brazil was already the world’s #1 producer of coffee, a distinction it still holds today. However, it produces a great deal of low quality arabica, as well as quite a bit of robusta. With so much invested in the coffee market, Brazil was in trouble during the coffee crisis of the 1990s. It turned to increased technification (high-density sun coffee, chemicals, and mechanization) to increase productivity. About 70% of Brazil’s coffee is technified coffee, much to the detriment of the environment in many places.

There are three main growing regions in Brazil. Mogiana is along the border of Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais states. Sul de Minas is a more hilly/mountainous region in southern Minas Gerais state.  Here, we will discuss coffee growing in the Brazil’s cerrado region, mainly in Minas Gerais, as it is a primary area where Brazil’s specialty coffees are grown.

The Brazilian Cerrado: A biodiversity hotspot
The cerrado, consisting of grassy savannah, scrub lands, and gallery forest, is found on the high, flat, central plateau of Brazil. It covers over 2 million square kilometers — three times the size of Texas. Portions extend into Bolivia and Paraguay, making it the largest woodland-savannah in South America, and the richest savannah in terms of biodiversity in the entire world.

The World Wildlife Fund states it plainly: “The biodiversity of cerrado is extraordinary.” Nearly 45% of the 10,000 plants species found in this region are found nowhere else on earth. Almost 20 of the 800 bird species are endemic, such as the critically endangered Blue-eyed Ground-Dove (Columbina cyanopis). There are numerous unique mammals, reptiles, and amphibians as well. The Maned Wolf (Chrysocyon brachyurus), South America’s largest canid, is an iconic mammal of the cerrado.

Since the 1960s, vast areas of the cerrado have been destroyed. Over 40% of the original cerrado area has already been converted to agriculture (especially soy and sugar) and livestock (40 million cattle), with 67% of the land having been modified in some major way. The world demand for biofuels is now increasing agricultural conversion in the cerrado. Less than 2% of its region protected in national parks and conservation areas.

A recent article in the New York Times (Scientists are making Brazil’s savannah bloom), notes that the cerrado “has been transformed in less than a generation into Brazil’s grain belt, thanks to the discovery that soils could be made fertile by dousing them with phosphorus and lime.” Coffee has only been grown here for around 40 years, but the cerrado now supports around 3000 farms, mostly in small holdings.

Coffee growing in the cerrado
As indicated above, soil in the cerrado is quite lean, and requires fertilization. While organic fertilizer is used, non-organic nutrients are almost always necessary, and it is said that the soil in the cerrado must be “engineered” to grow coffee. Coffee production in this region is the most highly mechanized in the world, with little hand picking. The flat terrain lends itself to machine harvesting, as do the sharply defined wet and dry seasons, which result in most coffee trees ripening simultaneously. This synchronized ripening is further choreographed by targeted irrigation. Given the pronounced dry season, most farms in the cerrado are at least partially irrigated. Drip irrigation is very expensive, so pivot-arm irrigators (which are more wasteful) are frequently used.

Because the natural habitats of the cerrado have few trees, the whole concept of “shade coffee” is not applicable here — coffee is grown in the sun. Preserving biodiversity in the cerrado relies on setting aside areas of natural habitat.

Consumers will often read that Brazilian coffee farms have preserved natural areas on their property. For the most part, this doesn’t mean they have a commitment to the environment. The Brazilian Forest Code is a law that states that in certain areas, a proportion of the land must be permanently preserved for conservation of natural resources and wildlife. In the cerrado, the percentage is 35%.

A close friend of mine lives in Minas Gerais, Brazil, and is active in the bird conservation community, serving on the boards of several national bird organizations. Responding to my recent inquiry regarding the Forest Code, he wrote to me,

“[T]here is intense lobby to change the law to reduce these numbers and/or to allow other forms of compensation (such as: I destroy a virgin forest and buy some useless land *in another biome* and set aside to compensate for it). Also, farmers include everything in their reserve: useless land, land that is already set aside for permanent protection (such as water course margins and hilly slopes).

Unhappily, corruption is, let me make it clear, ***WIDESPREAD*** in Brazil, by far our biggest problem and the source of many others. Many people and companies do not obey the laws and [bribe] the inspectors.”

This lack of compliance is well documented. This is truly disturbing, for the amount of acreage set aside is critical. Unlike growing coffee in a rustic forest setting, which is similar enough to native habitat to support many insects, birds, and other animals, little if any of the fauna of the cerrado utilizes the densely planted fields of coffee. Coffee replaces the native vegetation of the cerrado, and does not in any way resemble the natural ecosystem, unlike shade grown forest coffee systems.

Currently covering around 160,000 hectares, coffee farms represent only a fraction of the agricultural landscape of the cerrado. Nonetheless, coffee growing is agent of habitat conversion in this unique ecosystem, offering fewer opportunities to preserve biodiversity than coffee growing in other regions.

Update (January 2026): This review paper in the journal Nature Conservation updates the dire situation of the destruction of the cerrado. It goes into excellent detail on the biodiversity of the area, which unique species are at risk, the extent and source of threats, impediments to conservation, etc.

Maned Wolf photo = World Wildlife Fund, UK.

Coffee and the environment

5 top actions coffee drinkers can take to help the environment

Today is Blog Action Day: thousands of bloggers are uniting to put a single important issue on everyone’s mind. This year, it’s the environment.

Coffee & Conservation is all about the impact of coffee growing on the environment. Because coffee consumption is so ubiquitous, coffee drinkers have tremendous influence on habitat preservation and the conservation of biodiversity. The small actions of many people have enormous power — your actions can make a difference!

Here are the top 5 actions you can do as a coffee drinker to help the environment.

  1. Stop buying coffee from “the big four”: Nestlé, Kraft, Procter and Gamble, and Sara Lee/Doewe Egberts. Here is a list of their brands. These multinational companies, aside from having other dubious business practices outside of coffee, are motivated entirely by profit and market share. The only way they can offer cheap coffee at their huge volumes is to increase production and decrease production costs. Coffee is grown as a monoculture in the sun on large plantations with high chemical inputs and farmers are not paid a living wage. Read more about how sun coffee destroys biodiversity and the issues surrounding corporate coffee. I can’t emphasize enough: if you do one thing, this is it, quit buying commodity coffee.
  2. Buy organic coffee. Certified organic is great. Quite a lot of coffee is grown organically but not certified (“passive organic”) or nearly organically (even occasional use of spot-applied herbicide or non-organic fertilizer is a disqualifier). If you are willing to do a little research to learn which ones, these are great, too. You can read more in the organic coffee category; of special interest is this post summarizing organic certification.
  3. Use your own mug! Disposable coffee cups have to be the most wasteful product in the Western world. Here’s something you own for less than a half-hour, and throw away. And you get another the next day, or perhaps sooner. Good for the companies that are developing cups made from recycled or biodegradable materials. They still get thrown away, and in the anaerobic conditions of a landfill, even grass takes a very long time to break down. In the U.S. between 15 and 39 billion cups are tossed every year (Starbucks uses nearly 2 billion a year). How many do you throw away? Stop!! Bring some mugs to work, keep a couple of travel mugs in the car. How hard is that?
  4. Buy from a local roaster. Unless you live in the tropics, it will not be possible for you to drink locally-grown coffee. But you can cut down on the fuel used to ship roasted coffee by purchasing from a local roaster. You can check out my interactive roaster map for some great roasters around North America — feel free to make suggestions for additions. If you don’t have a local roaster, look for Allegro coffee at your nearest Whole Foods Market. There’s an added bonus for supporting your local roaster. You develop a relationship with them and can let them know what’s important to you. You increase their business, providing them with resources which enable them to develop direct relationships with farmers, which nearly always means improving sustainability efforts. Win-win-win.
  5. Quit using paper coffee filters. Don’t kill trees and send a filter a day to the landfill. There is a reusable gold filter for virtually every pot. This action also saves money in the long run, and makes your coffee taste better. Most paper filters tend to change the taste of the coffee, either by adding their own paper/chemical taste, and/or by absorbing some of the oils in the coffee that help give each bean its unique flavor.

Coffee and the environment / Coffee awards and competitions / Coffee news and miscellany

Recent sustainability awards

Rainforest Alliance Cupping for Quality. This event was started in 2004 as a competition for Rainforest Alliance certified coffees. The most recent cuppings took place last December and in April, with over 100 samples submitted. There are many top-flight sustainable coffees available; I was disappointed to see that most of these coffees scored under 90 points (specialty coffee = 80 or greater).

Here are the top farms:

  1. La Esmeralda, Panama, 90.04. Arguably, the most famous and pricey specialty coffee in the world.  We offered background here and a review here. It also won first place in the SCAA 2007 Roasters Guild Cupping Pavilion Competition earlier this month (for the third year in a row), and the Best of Panama, once again, last month. We have a jar on my desk to save up to try this one again. It just sold at auction for $130/pound, $80 more per pound than last year, it is just not worth it.  It was very distinctive and interesting, but this pricing reflects novelty/celebrity status.
  2. Carmen Estate Coffee S.A., Panama, 88.96.
  3. Santa Teresa, El Salvador, 88.25. (All bourbon coffee from four farms, from western El Salvador in Ahuachapan, is milled at the Santa Teresa Estate.)
  4. Finca Medina, S.A., Guatemala, 87.46 (Antigua;10% of the farm is regenerated native forest.)
  5. Grupo Aguadas de Caldas, Colombia, 87.04.

SCAA Sustainability Awards.  Established in 2004, this award recognizes specialty coffee companies that have created innovative projects to expand sustainability within the coffee world while inspiring others to initiate similar endeavors. These are the winners for 2007 announced earlier this month.

  • Poabs Organic/Biodynamic Estates, India. In the Nelliyampathy hills in the Western Ghats (Palakkad district, Kerala), pioneers of organic farming not only of coffee, but also tea and other crops.
  • Selva Negra Coffee Estate, Nicaragua. Sustainable coffee producer — read about their shade production, which incorporates Smithsonian Bird-Friendly criteria.
  • International Paper Company and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. For producing the first hot beverage cup made from fully renewable resources (ecotainer), a compostable corn-based material produced in a greenhouse-gas neutral manufacturing process.
  • SOPPEXCCA, Jinotega, Nicaragua. Cooperative alliance of coffee producers with many community initiatives, as well as a move from conventional to organic production.

Rainforest Alliance Green Globe Awards. RA honored companies which significantly advanced the goals set forth by the Rainforest Alliance and have integrated environmental and social sustainability into their work at their 20th anniversary gala last month. Honored were:

    • Caribou Coffee. Caribou has made a larger commitment than any other big coffee house to buying RA-certified beans, and they are up-front about exactly how much they use. By 2008, Caribou Coffee has pledged that 50 percent of its coffees will come from Rainforest Alliance-certified farms. Caribou Coffee’s lines that currently bear the seal, and the percentage certified in each blend include:    — Daybreak – 50 percent
      — Colombia – 100 percent
      — Guatemala El Socorro – 100 percent
      — Caribou Blend – 75 percent
      — Fireside Blend – 30 percent
      — Espresso Blend – 75 percent
      — French Roast Blend – 75 percent
      — Reindeer Blend – 30 percent
      — Perennial Blend – 30 percent
      — Amy’s Blend – 50 percent
  • Nestlé Nespresso SA. Okay, this is why I take a somewhat dim view of some of RA’s work. This recognition is for their AAA Sustainability Program. I’ve read through their whole web site, and the emphasis here is more on quality than environmental practices, and seems to lack stringent environmental criteria. Although this is a partnership with RA, it is not indicated that RA certification criteria are even required.  Some of the individual projects seem quite worthwhile. But even if we could agree that this particular program is completely righteous, it supplies 30% of Nespresso’s beans (50% by 2010).  Nespresso is a subsidiary of Nestlé and represents only a small amount of the total  beans purchased by this huge company which has a poor track record on many environmental issues, including pollution, water rights, and recycling (read more at Responsible Shopper).  I just can’t get behind rewarding a company like this unless they make an across-the-board effort to clean up their act.
  • Another award went to “innocent”, a UK smoothie brand.

Coffee and the environment / Coffee regions / Corporate coffee / Jacobs Douwe Egberts/KraftHeinz

Illegal coffee growing threatens wildlife, Kraft major buyer

In a well-investigated and detailed report (pdf) released yesterday, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) revealed that robusta coffee is being illegally grown in southern Sumatra, with most being purchased by large coffee producers such as Kraft and Nestlé.

“Illegally grown coffee is mixed with legally grown coffee beans and sold to such companies as Kraft Foods and Nestlé among other major companies in the U.S. and abroad.” — WWF

The coffee is being grown inside Indonesia’s Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park, which has over 300 bird species and is one of the few places where the endangered Sumatran subspecies of tigers, elephants, and rhinos coexist. This park has already lost 30% of its land to illegal agriculture, mainly coffee. WWF found 173 square miles being used for illegal coffee growing, with a yield of nearly 20,000 tons of coffee annually.  Wildlife has abandoned these cultivated areas.  WWF tracked the illegal coffee from the park through export routes to multinational coffee companies using satellite imaging, interviews with coffee farmers and traders, and trade route monitoring.

The U.S. received 17% of the coffee tainted with illegally grown beans.  Illegal beans are sold to local traders, who mix them with legally grown beans which then make their way to exporters. Major international companies purchase beans from exporters, and if they are not conscientious about their supply chain, they may not know they are buying illegal beans. The main buyers are shown in this graph from the report (click to enlarge), with Kraft being the number one buyer.

Exports of robusta beans from Lampung province, where most the park lies, have been steadily increasing, and the top six companies on the graph buy 55% of all Lampung beans. The profits spurring the encroachment into the park are financed by the purchases of these global roasters, and all Lampung beans have a very high probability of being contaminated with illegally grown beans, according to WWF. Talcoa (part of Kraft Foods), Kraft, and Nestlé were the top recipients in 2003-2005; Folgers (Procter & Gamble) and Starbucks received smaller amounts in 2004.

After being contacted by WWF, Kraft and Nestle were among five companies in the early stages of “engaging with WWF” on the problem. Four companies, including ED&F Man, parent company of VOLCAFE (which supplies beans to Nestlé and Maxwell House), denied involvement. Eight other companies did not reply (full list in report).

Remember this is robusta coffee, so you don’t have to worry about the Sumatran arabica beans from your favorite specialty roaster. The illegal beans are those used in most supermarket blends.  Another reason to not buy these coffees!

See update #1 here and a late 2007 update here.

Hat tip to Ned Potter’s ABC News Science and Technology blog.  Map adapted from GoVacation Indonesia.

Coffee and the environment / Organic coffee

Pesticides used on coffee farms, part 4: Organic coffee & further resources

I’m sure once you examine the effects of the pesticides that are commonly used on coffee, you will agree that the workers, the environment, and the folks downstream are all better off if coffee is grown without pesticides.  Careful cultivation and biocontrol makes it possible to combat many common pests and grow coffee without these chemicals.  And you can support the farms that have taken these steps by purchasing organic coffee.

Organic coffee information
First, a few facts about organic coffee. Certified organic coffee means that it has been produced under standardized conditions, which are verified by inspections. Farms or cooperatives pay for certification, including accommodating inspectors and paying for their travel. American consumers often see the label on the left certifying organic products, including coffee. Requirements for this seal include no use of prohibited substances on the land for at least three years.  This includes most synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Other certification requirements include a buffer between the coffee and any other crop not grown organically, and a plan that demonstrates methods the prevent erosion and other sustainable methods.

The USDA also accredits other agencies to certify organic products using the same standards.  A common one for coffee is the OCIA. There are also various state agencies. The Eco-labels web site has much more information.

Many farms have never used any sort of chemical input on their coffee crops, often because chemicals are expensive and the farmers cannot afford to purchase them. The farms, or cooperatives they belong to, may not have the financial resources to pay to have their product certified organic even if they qualify, because it incurs various fees. These could be considered “passive organic.”

Other farms may be missing an element which disqualifies them from certification.  While I believe all of the elements are important, I’d much prefer to buy coffee from, for example, a farm that judiciously applies small amounts of non-organic fertilizer and preserves 100 ha of native forest on its land than a certified organic farm that uses half its land for a cattle pasture.

That being said, if your coffee is not certified organic, it will take careful research to know if your coffee is sourced from farms that practice sustainable methods. Because a number of common coffee pests and pathogens are more difficult to control naturally when the coffee is grown in the sun, it’s often a good bet that organic coffee is also grown under shade.  Certified organic coffee represents less than 1% of the market, an astonishingly low figure.  Therefore, buying organic coffee is nearly always good for the environment.

A final thought: it is abundantly true that Americans apply more frightening chemicals to their lawns than most coffee farmers apply to their crops.  And specialty coffee (e.g., not produced by the big four) is still one of the most rustically farmed crops in the world. I don’t think that makes it hypocritical to encourage and support organic coffee farming. As my mom used to say, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Pesticides birds, humans, and wildlife

Coffee without chemicals

Coffee and the environment / Organic coffee

Pesticides used on coffee farms, part 3: Common pesticides

(Updated) Even though many chemicals that have been found to be harmful to the environment have been banned or are strictly regulated in the U.S. or Europe, they remain legal to use in less-developed countries, including many countries that grow coffee (a 2016 documentary, Circle of Poison, covered this topic).  This is troubling on many levels, beyond the fact that dangerous chemicals are being applied to crops.

For instance, workers in these countries may be less likely to be well-informed about the dangers of the chemicals, less likely to be provided with protective gear, and less informed about proper application methods (see this abstract, for example).  These regions are also much higher in biodiversity and ecosystem complexity, increasing the risk to the environment.

Here are just some of the more common chemicals used on coffee farms to control major pests and pathogens (which were described in a previous post).  I’ve included the World Health Organization classification, based on human risk.  Click on the link for more information.

Endosulfan (brand name Thiodan) — used against coffee cherry borer. (UPDATE:  As of early 2011, Endosulfan has now been slated to be banned globally, although it does not take place immediately. Here is a 2016 article about its continued use around the world.) Does not dissolve readily (but does degrade) in water and sticks to soil particles, so may take years to completely break down. Its breakdown products are more persistent than parent compounds. It is toxic to mammals, birds, and fish. Effects the central nervous system, and in animals causes kidney, testes, and liver damage. Class II (moderately hazardous). In Colombia, more than 100 human poisonings and one death were attributed to endosulfan use in coffee during 1993; more than 100 poisonings and three deaths were reported in 1994.  Here is an article on growing coffee without endosulfan.

Chlorpyrifos (brand name Dursban). A broad spectrum organophosphate used against coffee cherry borer and coffee leaf miner. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency banned most household uses in 2000.  It is a contact poison.  It has caused human deaths, and has been linked to birth defects. It is extremely toxic to birds, freshwater and marine organisms, bees, and other wildlife.  It can bioaccumulate and effect bird reproduction. Class II. An article about chlorpyrifos is here.

Diazinon (brand name Basudin). Used against coffee borer. Not very toxic to mammals unless inhaled, it is nonetheless highly toxic to wildlife and beneficial insects, and acutely toxic to birds.  In the U.S. where it is still commonly used on turfgrass, diazinon has caused the second largest number of total known incidents of bird mortality of any pesticide. Class II. Another profile here, and a Sierra Club Canada fact sheet here.

Disulfoton. A systemic organophosphate insecticide used against leaf miner.  In the U.S., restricted use due to its high toxicity to mammals by all routes of exposure.  It is also highly toxic to birds and fish. Secondary exposure and poisoning occurs after birds feed on insects that have consumed residue-laden plants; these insects are impaired by the disulfoton and are easier for birds to capture, compounding the problem. High levels of toxins can be attained in this manner and has resulted in avian mortality in connection with disulfoton use.  It is delivered in granular form, which poses the threat of runoff and contamination of other crops when applied on slopes, on which coffee is often grown. Degrades or is metabolized by plants into harmful compounds that are very persistent in the environment. Class 1a, extremely hazardous (highest toxicity).

Methyl parathion (a.k.a. ethyl parathion, parathion). Organophosphate used against leaf miner. One of the most toxic pesticides,  highly restricted in U.S. Very toxic to birds when ingested or through skin exposure.  Also highly toxic to animals and fish. Persistent in soil and will bioaccumulate.  Areas sprayed with this chemical should not be entered for 48 hours. It is banned in Indonesia and restricted in Colombia, but Pesticide Action Network reports that there is evidence that methyl parathion is not used safely in Central America and is regularly misused in developing countries. Class 1a, extremely hazardous.

Triadimefon (brand name Bayleton). Copper-based fungicide used to against coffee rust. Only slightly toxic to birds, little is known about its effect on humans, but it is suspected that there is potential for reproductive problems with chronic exposure.  It has been found to induce hyperactivity in rats. The major concern is that long-term use of this and other copper-based fungicides is copper accumulation in soils, such as been found in coffee farms in Kenya and in Costa Rica.  Copper toxicity has been found in other crops grown in these soils, and copper impacts other biochemical and biological processes in soil, and little is known about long-term effects in tropical ecosystems. The primary metabolite of triadimefon is triadimenol, which is Class III (slightly hazardous).

Cypermethrin. A synthetic pyrethroid used against coffee cherry borer. Generally low direct toxicity to birds, but ingestion via contaminated insects causes mortality in young birds.  Extremely toxic to fish other aquatic organisms, and should not be applied any place where it may drift into water.  Class II.

Next in this series: Resources on organic coffee, and further reading.

Background information / Coffee and the environment

Pesticides used on coffee farms, part 2: Common coffee pests

Coffee is equipped with an excellent defense against herbivory: caffeine. Caffeine is one of many alkaloids that evolved in various plants to prevent them from being eaten by insects.  Evolution doesn’t stand still, however, and some insects have fought back. Coffee is attacked by several pests and diseases. Here are the most important, the ones that are most frequently combated with pesticides.

Coffee cherry/berry borer or “Broca” (Hypothenemus hampei). Native to Central Africa, but now found in many coffee-producing nations. The female of this tiny beetle (shown here on a green coffee bean) bores into the coffee cherry and lays about 15 eggs; the larvae feed on the developing bean. Usually, the cherry drops from the tree. The best defense is making sure there are no unpicked beans left on the trees or laying on the ground. Because they spend much of their life inside the cherry, controlling borers with insecticides can be difficult or downright ineffective.

Coffee leaf miner or “bicho mineiro” (Leucoptera coffeella). The leaf damage from the larvae of this small moth means less leaf surface is available for photosynthesis, resulting in stunted plants and reduction in yield. Native to Africa, but now found in many coffee-producing nations. This insect has developed resistance to insecticides in some areas.

Other insect pests include root nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.), green scale (Coccus viridis), and twig borers (Xylosandrus compactus).

Although not an insect, the next pathogen also prompts chemical onslaughts:

Coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix). A fungus that causes yellow spots on leaves, reduced photosynthetic ability, and eventually leaf drop. This causes a lack of nutrients going to growing shoots, and so can impact future growth of the plant. Spores require rain to germinate (high humidity is not adequate). Disease spreads more quickly in dense plantings and is less severe in shaded plantings, as the spores require a certain light intensity to germinate. Temperatures at farms at higher elevations are often too cool for the fungus.  Native to Africa, but now found in many coffee-producing nations. Some coffee cultivars have resistance, notably the catimor variety, and also catuai and mundo novo.

Next in this series: Common pesticides used on coffee farms.

Coffee berry borer on bean photo by P. Greb.

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

Coffee growing and climate change

Coffee (Coffea sp.) requires quite specific growing conditions.  It grows in subtropical regions that have distinct wet and dry seasons.  Although plants can live and produce fruit for decades, drought or heat in summer can diminish production and quality.  And while coffee requires a dry period in the spring, heavy rains in this season can disrupt flowering.

This sensitivity to climatic variables means that global climate change is likely to have profound impacts on coffee growing and production.  An upcoming article in the journal Climatic Change (1) modeled what could happen to coffee production in Veracruz, Mexico if observed trends in climate change continue and coffee prices remain steady.  The report concludes that coffee production will not be economically viable in Veracruz by 2020 due to lowered yields and many current areas becoming unsuitable for coffee growing.

Although there is some work being done on breeding coffee varieties that are more heat-resistant, it will do little to prevent losses due to the climatic instability brought on by global warming (droughts and floods, unusual cold spells) or the pests whose ranges will also change as temperatures rise.

Farmers will be left with few choices.  Areas at higher latitudes (which although too cool now to grow coffee will become warmer) could be used. However, most small holders do not have the money or credit to buy property, even if it is available to purchase; most land is already under ownership that is passed down in families.  If land upslope is turned into coffee farms, it means some conversion and clearing of existing forest, and the old coffee farms will be converted to other crops, none of which is likely to be as environmentally friendly as shade coffee.  This means a loss of biodiversity, and the deforestation of new and old coffee farms will exacerbate and accelerate warming trends, since trees help sequester carbon and buffer temperature changes.

We all have a great deal at stake as the planet warms. Unfortunately, the poor in developing countries, such as coffee growing nations, often bear a large burden.  Even growers of more heat-tolerant lowland robusta coffee, where it is indigenous, stand to lose their livelihoods, as this graphic illustrates.

The authors of the Veracruz report recommend supporting farmers to move into specialty coffee to help to provide some financial security. Purchasing shade coffee and providing incentive for farmers to plant trees rather than cut them down will also help.  As the Fresh Cup article notes,

In the past several decades, roughly half of the world’s coffee plantations have cut down their trees, or cut down forest to plant unshaded coffee. This decreases the ability of vegetation to counteract global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide, and it also raises local temperature.

All the more reason to stay away from corporate technified sun coffee, and enjoy the superior taste of environmentally-friendly coffee.  I’ll be following the research on climate change and coffee, and report further news and suggestions.

(1) Gay, C., F. Estrada, C. Conde, H. Eakin, and l. Villers. 2006. Potential impacts of climate change on agriculture: case study of coffee production in Veracruz, Mexico.  Climate Change 79:259-288.

Birds and other biodiversity / Coffee and the environment

Cerulean Warblers and shade coffee

The Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) is a bird in trouble. It breeds in the eastern U.S. and winters in South America, and populations have been on the slide in recent decades — faster than any other eastern warbler.  It is on the Audubon WatchList and is listed as vulnerable by BirdLife International.  Primary threats are loss of habitat both on the breeding grounds as well as their wintering areas in the tropics, where an estimated 64% of its habitat has vanished.  For more information on on the importance of coffee fincas to Cerulean Warblers and other migrants, read the excellent article from the National Wildlife Federation  called “The Case of the Disappearing Warbler.”

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) is partnering with the American Birding Association to help coffee growers preserve critical wintering habitat around the new 500-acre Cerulean Warbler Bird Reserve in the Rio ChucurÁ­ basin of Santander, Colombia (click map to enlarge for range of the warbler and location of reserve).

The area, one of the last natural remnant forest fragments in the region, shelters high populations of wintering Cerulean Warblers. The reserve also contains three Critically Endangered bird species: the Gorgeted Wood-Quail, Colombian Mountain Grackle, and Chestnut-bellied Hummingbird, along with many other threatened and endemic birds. A new species of bird, a very colorful brush-finch (below) was recently discovered just outside the reserve, which emphasizes the importance of protecting the area from deforestation due to growing technified coffee.

I dug around for farms that were located in the Santander area. Beans from this region are usually marketed under the name Bucaramanga after the capital city of the department. Coffees from this area are said to be milder and fuller-bodied than other Colombians, and remind some people of Sumatran coffees.

The well-known finca Mesa de Los Santos is located here, which produces organic shade coffee certified by both SMBC and RA.  Paramito is another farm in the area, RA certified, that was the only farm from Santander to place in the 2006 Colombia Cup of Excellence competition.

Another conservation project in a coffee-growing area, the El Dorado Nature Reserve on the northwest slope of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, was preserved by ABC, Conservation International, and FundaciÁ³n ProAves. This summer, two critically endangered frogs were rediscovered there.

In a country where 60% to 70% of the coffee is technified “sun” coffee, it is important to support both the conservation of areas as reserves, and to look for coffee grown in small holdings that preserve biodiversity.   I will be on the lookout for farms that will be working with these two bird organizations on the habitat preservation project.

~~

Cerulean Warbler portrait on a notecard by John Sill, available at Acorn Designs.  Brush-Finch photo from ProAves.

Certifications / Coffee and the environment

Is promoting shade-grown coffee really a good conservation strategy?

In 2003, a number of important researchers debated the conservation value of promoting shade-grown coffee in the pages of the journal Conservation Biology.

First Rappole et al. [1] wrote that if the result of promoting shade coffee resulted in the conversion of sun coffee to shade coffee, they would have no qualms about the whole shade coffee campaign.  However, they felt that the more likely outcome of the added incentives and profit of an increased demand for shade coffee would be

  • that farmers considering converting from shade to sun coffee would decide not to do so (a good thing),
  • and/or more primary forest would be converted to coffee (a bad thing), albeit shade coffee (still not as good as natural forest).

This conversion of primary forest to coffee would most likely occur, the authors wrote, on slopes that are too steep to grow sun coffee, representing new exploitation of the land. They were especially concerned with higher elevation pine-oak forests, important endangered tropical habitats.  Coffee is one of the only crops that can be grown in these forests, and providing financial incentives through shade coffee promotion might convince farmers to begin cultivation in these areas.  Removal of the oak layer, which presumably would occur even in shade coffee management, would have profound impacts on the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler, a migrant that depends on the oaks in the winter.

In general, the authors felt that endorsing shade coffee plantations as refuges of biodiversity was a “lowering of the bar” in terms of conservation goals.  They argued that diversity only measures numbers of species, which does not tell us anything about how ecologically equivalent two communities may be.  A shade coffee plantation may have 50 open-country species whereas the primary forest may also have 50 species, but they would be forest specialists which would be lost when the area was converted to coffee.  Finally, the authors were concerned that the consumer might not realize there are many variations in the way shade coffee is grown, and not all are good for biodiversity.

Philpott and Dietsch [2] replied, making the point loss of species richness in highly shaded coffee farms is minimal compared to the huge losses from other forms of agriculture. They argue that financial incentives that prevent farmers from converting their farms to sun coffee, cattle pasture, or illegal crops is beneficial.

Primarily, the authors argue for rigorous shade-certification programs to prevent premiums from going to farms that do not truly preserve biodiversity, and strong linkages between organic, shade-grown, and Fair Trade certification.  Further, to discourage conversion of primary forest to coffee, certification could be withheld for new farms, for a specified period, so that farmers are not rewarded for clearing forest.

The original authors [3] came back to say that there were a lot of “ifs” in Philpott and Deitsch’s vision of how shade coffee can advance conservation goals.  They felt certification programs had a long way to go, were uncoordinated, and that the promotion of shade coffee was outstripping certification efforts.  They end by saying that they feel the conservation value of coffee is hypothetical, dependent upon assumptions, especially considering certification, that have yet to be realized.

All the points in the papers are valid.  The lesson to consumers is that we have to be diligent in our choices by purchasing certified Fair Trade, organic, truly shade grown coffee.  Certainly, if we are going to purchase and drink coffee, we won’t be doing the environment any good by buying cheap coffee from a corporate giant that pays little to farmers and buys most of its coffee from sun plantations.

The primary goal of this blog is to continue to keep up with current research on biodiversity in coffee plantations, and current issues and debates on the conservation value of coffee to help consumers make informed choices.

[1] Rappole, J. H., D. I. King, and J. H. Vega Rivera.  2003.  Coffee and conservation.  Conservation Biology 17:334-336.

[2] Philpott, S. M. and T. Dietsch.  2003.  Coffee and conservation: a global context and the value of farmer involvement.  Conservation Biology 17:1844-1846.

[3] Rappole, J. H., D. I. King, and J. H. Vega Rivera.  2003.  Coffee and conservation III: reply to Philpott and Dietsch. Conservation Biology 17: 1847-1849.

Background information / Coffee and the environment

What is shade-grown coffee?

Coffee (Coffea sp.) is a small understory tree or shrub, and has traditionally been grown amongst forest trees, in the shade. Various studies indicate that arabica coffee has the highest yields under 35 to 65% shade. In addition, growing coffee under shade also discourages weed growth, may reduce pathogen infection, protect the crop from frost, and helps to increase numbers of pollinators which results in better fruit set. Coffee grown in the shade takes long to ripen and is often thought to taste better because the long ripening times contribute to complex flavors.

However, in order to produce faster, higher yields and prevent the spread of coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix), many coffee plantations began to grow coffee under sunnier conditions. The fewer shade trees that are in coffee plantations, the less biodiversity there is in those plantations.

This loss of biodiversity, especially in birds, has led conscientious consumers to look for “shade grown” coffee.  However, coffee is grown under a continuum of conditions, from rustic or traditional, to full sun, and these “shades of shade” are not all equal when it comes to the health of ecosystems. Unfortunately, there is no official definition of “shade grown,” so coffee so labeled may be grown under what are technically shady conditions, but which are little better full  sun.

Categorizing types and levels of shade

It is important to understand the various levels of growing coffee under shade. Here are the five most typical categories, from the most desirable, traditional growing method, to the least diverse, most modern and technified method.

  • Rustic. Often used on small family farms. Coffee is grown in the existing forest with little alteration of native vegetation. Tree species are diverse, with an average of 25 species. Shade strata (layers of vegetation) three or more. Shade cover = 70-100%.
  • Traditional polyculture. Coffee is grown under a combination of native forest trees and planted tree and plant species, including fruit and vegetables both for the farmer and for market, fuel wood, medicinal plants, etc. Common tree species under which coffee is frequently grown include Inga, Grevillea, Acacia, Erythrina, and Gliricidia. Shade cover = 60-90%.
  • Commercial polyculture. More trees removed in order to increase the number of coffee plants, and shade is provided mostly by planted timber and fruit trees. Canopy trees are regularly pruned, and epiphytes are typically removed. More often involves use of fertilizers and pesticides due to the lack of vegetative cover which helps prevent loss of soil nutrients, etc. Typically only two vegetation layers, the canopy, and the coffee. Shade cover 30-60%.
  • Shaded monoculture. Dense plantings of coffee under an overstory of only one or two tree species (usually Inga), which are heavily pruned. Epiphytes are removed. Shade cover = 10-30%.
  • Full sun. Lacks a tree canopy, or has a few isolated trees. No shade cover.

And here is a diagram from a paper by Patricia Moguel and Victor Toledo [1] to help you visualize the categories:

As you can see, coffee grown in a shaded monoculture could technically be labeled “shade grown,” but it would probably not be what the consumer, concerned about biodiversity, is looking for.

Benefits of growing coffee in the shade

The post “The problems with sun coffee” outlines some of the negative environmental impacts of growing coffee in the sun. Here are some of the benefits of growing coffee in the shade:

  • Shade coffee supports biodiversity, and farms can act as wildlife corridors between plots of natural habitat. Numerous studies have shown that the diversity of birds, orchids, bats, ants, amphibians, bees, beetles, spiders, mammals, and other taxa are higher in shaded coffee than in sun coffee.
  • Shade coffee provides pollination services, increasing the fruit set of coffee itself, as well as other plants on the farm.
  • Shade coffee farms have a higher diversity of predators that help control coffee pests (just a few examples of research here, here, and here).
  • Shade coffee typically has fewer weeds. Weeds often require more sunlight and are also controlled by the natural mulch supplied by fallen leaves from the shade trees.
  • Nitrogen-fixing trees on shade coffee farms enrich the soil, as do the fallen leaves from the shade trees.
  • Soil erosion is reduced in shade coffee, also improving soil quality.
  • Shade coffee farms have more stable microclimates and can buffer against temperature and humidity fluctuations caused by climate change.
  • Coffee grown in shade can improve quality.
  • A diversity of shade trees can provide other economic benefits to farmers.

The Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center has developed standards that are targeted specifically at shade management and preserving biodiversity; their certification is called “Bird-Friendly” (this is a trademarked term and should always carry the Smithsonian seal). More on their criteria here. The Rainforest Alliance has a certification program for coffee that has an array of environmental standards, although shade cultivation is not a requirement. Their optional criteria is compared to the Bird Friendly criteria here.

See also Rice, R. 2010. The ecological benefits of shade-grown coffee: the case for going Bird-Friendly. Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center.

[1] Biodiversity Conservation in Traditional Coffee Systems of Mexico. 1999. Conservation Biology 13:11—21.

Background information / Coffee and the environment / Corporate coffee

The problems with sun coffee

Two species of coffee are grown commercially. Coffea canephora, or robusta coffee, is an often bitter species that is usually considered low quality and is used as a filler in cheap grocery store coffee. The higher quality arabica coffee, Coffea arabica, is an understory tree or shrub which naturally grows in shade. However, mostly with an eye toward profit, there has been a movement to find ways to grow arabica coffee in the sun.

Coffee is grown on nearly 10 million hectares in tropical regions around the world, areas that also harbor high levels of biodiversity. In the 1990s, farmers were encouraged to replace traditional shade grown coffee with sun cultivation in order to increase the yield of their coffee. In sun coffee systems, there is little or no canopy cover, and coffee trees are planted at high densities. In Latin America, 1.1 million of the 2.8 million hectares in coffee (41%) were converted to sun cultivation (Rice and Ward 1996). The impact of deforestation and conversion of shade coffee to sun coffee on biodiversity in these regions is much greater than the absolute levels of destruction would indicate.

While older arabica coffee varieties traditionally grown in the shade did not do well in the sun, they were replaced by hybrids that could withstand the sun and had more resistance to introduced diseases. But sun cultivation also has many other negative environmental impacts:

  • In shade plantations, dead leaves from the overstory trees provide nutrients to the coffee.  In sun plantations, these nutrients are not available, so fertilizers must be used, especially nitrogen (since many traditional overstory trees are nitrogen-fixing legumes). Sun coffee farms leach triple the nitrates into the local watersheds than shade farms.
  • There are fewer weeds in shade plantations, both because of the shade itself and due to the fallen leaves from shade trees acting as a natural mulch.  Herbicides are needed to control weeds in sun plantations.
  • Soils in sun plantations are more exposed to the elements, particularly drenching rains typical of tropical areas.  This leads to erosion of topsoil, and the leaching of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides into local watersheds. Soil erosion and acidification and water pollution are serious consequences of growing coffee on sun plantations.
  • Coffee plants in sun plantations grow faster and age more quickly than those grown in shade, and therefore must be replaced more often. Sun-grown coffee trees are typically productive for less than 15 years, while shade-grown coffee trees may yield for 30 years or more.

You can read more about the benefits of growing coffee in the shade in this post.

Donald, P. F. 2004. Biodiversity impacts of some agricultural commodity production systems. Conservation Biology 18:17-37.

Rice, R. A., and J. F. Ward. 1996. Coffee, conservation, and commerce in the Western Hemisphere. Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center and National Resources Defense Council.

Background information / Birds and other biodiversity / Coffee and the environment

Birds and coffee plantations

Traditional, shade-grown coffee plantations harbor a diversity of many taxa — orchids, insects, and mammals, for example.  But it is the research that showed the importance of shade coffee plantations to birds that caught the attention of the public, and really kick-started the shade-grown coffee movement.

Over the last few decades, scientists noticed long-term declines in many species of Neotropical migrants — about 200 species of birds that breed in North America but winter south of the Tropic of Cancer. Researchers were prompted to examine the entire life cycle  of these species.  The ecology of the migrants on their nesting grounds here in North America was fairly well-studied, but more information was needed about the needs of these birds which spend most of their year in-transit or in the tropics. Searching for answers, researchers looked to the wintering areas of “our” breeding birds.

With so much habitat in the New World tropics being cleared for agriculture the importance of coffee plantations to wintering North American migrants (as well as resident species) soon became evident. The multi-layered vegetation of traditional or rustic shade-grown coffee plantations provides food and cover for birds which is in some cases very similar to native forest. In areas where farming has replaced natural habitat with stark pastureland and row crops, coffee farms are sometimes the only quality habitat available.

The Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center’s fact sheet, “Why Migratory Birds are Crazy for Coffee,” notes:

In the regions most heavily used by migratory birds — Mesoamerica, the Caribbean islands, and Colombia– coffee plantation “forests” cover 2.7 million hectares, or almost half of the permanent cropland.

In southern Mexico, coffee plantations cover an area over half the size of all of the major moist tropical forest reserves, providing critical woodland habitat in mid-elevation areas where virtually no large reserves are found.

Under the category “Research on coffee growing,” you can find summaries of some of the research on bird diversity on coffee plantations.  Some facts gleaned from this research include:

  • The majority of bird species in shade coffee plantations are feeding in the shaded overstory, not in the coffee.  The coffee shrubs themselves offer few resources.  This is why sun coffee monocultures do not support a diversity of birds.
  • The value of coffee farms is dependent largely upon the diversity of  their canopy: both the number of different species and the structural complexity of the canopy.
  • Invertebrates, fruit, and nectar are the most important food sources for birds in coffee plantations, so coffee farms are especially important to bird species that feed on these resources.
  • Migratory birds are more flexible in their habitat requirements, and do better in coffee plantations than many resident species, which are more sensitive to habitat changes.
  • Use of coffee plantations by migrant birds is highly seasonal.  Of course, North American migrants are only present in the tropics during spring and fall migration and in winter.  However, even during winter some migrants, in particular those that feed on nectar or fruit, tend to increase in number from early to late winter in plantations where these resources are available.  Three North American migrants are strongly associated with the flowering of Inga trees (which are commonly planted in shade coffee canopy):  Baltimore Oriole (above), Orchard Oriole, and Tennessee Warbler.

Bird diversity in rustic or heavy shade plantations sometimes rivals that of natural forests.  These plantations always have a significantly higher bird diversity (as well as a diversity of other species) than do sun coffee plantations. Shade coffee plantations offer important refuges for species in areas where natural habitats are quickly being converted to agriculture.

It is essential to understand the different degrees of shade under which coffee is grown, because some growing methods even if technically “shade grown,” are not beneficial to birds.

A summary of the eco/bird-friendly, sustainable coffee movement and its associated certifications is within the paper “In pursuit of sustainability: lessons from the coffee sector” by Robert Rice of the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center.  Annotated PDF here.

Baltimore Oriole photo by Cindy Mead of Woodsong Nature Photography; used with permission.