Coffee regions

Coffee regions / Corporate coffee / Nestlé/Nespresso

Deforestation from commodity coffee drags on

The New York Times Magazine published a well-written account about the ongoing illegal coffee growing in Sumatra’s Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park. The article focuses on the Wildlife Conservation Society’s investigations into continued forest clearing in the park by small farmers who sell their coffee at rock-bottom prices to middlemen, who then sell to large coffee companies. The article notes this probe began around 2015. However, the World Wildlife Fund put out a detailed report on this issue in 2007, and a paper in a well-respected peer-reviewed journal in 2009 outlined that this problem had already existed for 30 years. Below I list all the posts in which I summarized or wrote about the illegal coffee growing (and purchasing) in this region.

The Times piece nicely laid out the complexities of the situation and the plight of the exploited farmers. The Wildlife Conservation Society concluded the certifications and traceability were not working because the supply chain was so complicated that the auditing was “too expensive for exporters specializing in cheap, bad coffee.” Nor was expelling or punishing farmers the solution, so WCS launched a program to help farmers improve their yields and livelihoods, even at the borders or within the park with the goal of reducing additional deforestation and eventually reforesting plots.

I’m not going to delve into the pros and cons of this approach, other than to say that I don’t think conservation organizations need to be in the business of agricultural extension services when the giant corporations raking in billions of dollars of profits at the expense of farmers and the environment could and should easily be funding and executing these efforts in totality*. Once again, the responsibility for ensuring environmental ethics and sustainability is fobbed off on a third party. There is no mention in the article on the importance of the “demand” side of the equation, although the author provides this brilliant and not-so-subtle hint:

The reality is that such beans are sold into the anonymity of a commodity market designed to make uniform products for placeless destinations. The point of this coffee was to forget that it had ever come from anywhere at all.

A company can decide to sacrifice profit for ethical responsibility, but only to the degree that shareholders allow them to. And it is the people who buy the products that influence the bottom line which pushes the shareholders to make a company change policies. The article, while illuminating, leaves the average reader feeling rather helpless, or at least with the impression that some organization out there is working to solve the problem.

The average reader is you, and there is something you can do to move the needle in this complex situation. It’s simple and elegant: Remember that your coffee does come from somewhere, and make the choice not to buy and support cheap, anonymized, corporate coffee.

My posts — tons of background:

*And indeed some of them are partnering with WCS to tackle this problem, such as Olam International and JDE. If you believe that corporate giants are sincere or effective in their efforts, consider Nestlé’s “zero deforestation” claim. Despite the fact that Nestlé purchases more coffee than three of the five raw products included in the plan (soy, meat, or palm oil), it was not a commodity Nestlé chose to include in this plan.

Coffee regions

Update on coffee growing in China

In early 2010, I wrote a post outlining coffee production in China. In it, I provided the following figures:

  • China produced about 3600 tons of coffee in 1997.
  • This increased to an estimated 28,000 tons (perhaps up to 40,000 tons) in 2009.

A recent article in the trade journal Global Coffee Review reports that the 2012-13 crop year could be upwards of 60,000 tons, and that the projection for 2019-20 is as much as 200,000 tons. Another estimate gives the 2012 output of Yunnan province (where 98% of arabica coffee is grown) as 82,000 tons. It’s likely that the coffee tonnage and perhaps acreage would have been much higher between 2008 and today had it not been for a severe drought in 2009-2011.  The reservoir of the new Nuozhadu hydroelectric dam in Yunnan, however, can provide irrigation water to local farmers. (Ironically, people displaced by the flooding of their land by the reservoir are being encouraged by the government to become coffee farmers.)

china-coffe-mapAll of this increased production takes lots of land, of course. Experts quoted in the Global Coffee Review piece expressed concern about the environmental impacts of all this planting, as well as a flooding of the market with so much coffee when the plantings being to yield fruit. I’d like to give an update country’s coffee production which fuels both China’s increasing domestic consumption as well as exports.

Coffee farms and deforestation

Although accurate figures out of China are hard to come by, let’s take a look at published reports on land devoted to coffee.  In my previous post, I noted that China planned to increase the land devoted to coffee to 16,000 ha in the next 15 years.  A report* released only a few months after I found that data indicated that as of April 2010, there were already 29,000 ha of coffee planted in Yunnan province alone. As of August 2012, the Coffee Association of Yunnan calculated the area to have grown to nearly 67,000 ha, ahead of even its 2015 goals. We can safely say there is between 40,000 and 70,000 ha of coffee being grown in Yunnan, China now, and that this figure has been and will be growing rapidly.

Nearly all of the coffee grown in China is sun coffee, monocultures of coffee grown without the protection of shade trees and utilizing high levels of chemical fertilizers and pest control. In China, sun coffee plantations are often created from clearing forest or other habitat, even in areas with logging bans. A great piece on the SCAA web site notes that in Pu’er, organic fertilizer is not readily available, the soil is poor, and requires 2 or 3 applications of fertilizer annually.

China is already suffering from severe deforestation, and it is a serious problem in Yunnan province.

Enter Starbucks

Nestlé has been the big player in China, where the majority of coffee consumed is still instant coffee, of which Nestlé has a dominant market share. Due to relatively low altitudes and the threat of coffee leaf rust, Nestlé has distributed a lot of rust-resistant coffee (of the robusta-derived Catimor variety) and has encouraged farmers to plant some shade trees, conserve water, and helped with other ecological endeavors, according to the SCAA piece. They also plan to construct a Nescafé Coffee Center that will include an education center in addition to warehouses and other infrastructure to support their instant coffee empire. Apparently, many of Nestlé coffee sustainability activities in China are being done largely under the framework of the ecologically-anemic 4-C standards.  And we know that third-party certifications have been rejected by Nestlé. So while their efforts may be better than nothing, it doesn’t make me optimistic about environmental stewardship in China’s coffeelands.

Meanwhile, in late 2012, Starbucks established a farmer support center in the Pu’er region of Yunnan (others are located in Costa Rica and Rwanda). These centers allow Starbucks to work directly with farmers to improve yield, quality, environmental sustainability, and to help them meet the company’s CAFE Practices.  The company press release specifically mentions a goal of “help[ing] reduce the environmental impact of the region’s coffee-growing activities.” This is perhaps the most promising news out of China regarding coffee production, as assessments of CAFE Practices have shown good compliance with the eco-criteria included in the program.

BOLO

I’ll just repeat here my wrap-up of my previous post:

One need only look next door to Vietnam to see what a no-holds-barred coffee production policy can do to world coffee prices and farmer livelihoods worldwide and the environment. Unfortunately, nearly all the same elements that precipitated the catastrophic coffee crisis of the late 1990s are once again in place: world development agencies and a national government encouraging and subsidizing the planting of huge amounts of coffee which could lead to a glut in supply, large multinational roasters eager to have a source of cheap mediocre coffee, and poor rural minority farmers hoping to get rich. As we have learned, a drop in world coffee prices due to oversupply from Asia means people and habitats suffer all over the world.

*International Trade Center. 2010. The Coffee Sector in China: An Overview of Production, Trade, and Consumption. Technical Paper. Doc. No. SC-10-188.E. 23 pp.

Coffee news and miscellany / Coffee regions

Sips: Vietnam edition

Some news out of Vietnam.

  • Nearly all the coffee Vietnam grows is robusta. They are planning to expand arabica production to 40,000 ha by 2020.  The country is already expanding robusta production, which covers more than a half million hectares.
  • It seems inevitable this may lead to loss of more forests. Which will exacerbate adaptations to climate change — and Vietnam is on a list vulnerable countries. While the composition of compilations like this vary depending on the criteria, what struck me about this list was that at least half are coffee-producing nations, with three (India, Vietnam, Philippines) being major robusta growers. The latter two are big suppliers to companies like Nestle. Wonder how that will go.
  • Speaking of problems with adaptation, several of Vietnam’s major coffee exporters are heavily in debt due to a lack of adaptation to market conditions.
  • But there is a Vietnamese coffee mogul that is doing well.

Coffee regions / Coffee reviews / Indo-Pacific

Review: Caffe Vita YUS (PNG)

When you think of endangered species, I’ll bet you don’t think about Matschie’s Tree Kangaroos. Tree kangaroos and coffee also make an unlikely pairing. But I’m here to tell you that Seattle-based Caffe Vita has brought them together. We’ll start with the ‘roo.

A kangaroo…

Matschie’s Tree Kangaroo (Dendrolagus matschiei) is one of about 10 species of tree kangaroo, most of which are found in Papua New Guinea. The Matschie’s Tree Kangaroo is only found on PNG’s Huon Peninsula, located in Morobe Province in the northeastern part of the island. Matschie’s Tree Kangaroos live in cloud forests, and look nothing like the upright, savannah-bounding Australian animals with which they share a name. These arboreal animals more resemble red pandas, although like more conventional kangaroos they do raise young in pouches and have impressive leaping abilities. They weigh about 10 kg and eat mostly leaves.

A conservation area…

In 1996, Seattle’s Woodland Park Zoo started a tree kangaroo conservation program focusing on the Matschie’s Tree Kangaroo. From the start, they took a community-based approach to the preservation of the tree kangaroo habitat. A major accomplishment was the establishment of the 76,000 ha YUS Conservation Area — named for the three primary rivers in the Huon Peninsula: the Yopno, Uruwa and Som. In addition to Matschie’s Tree Kangaroos, this area, of course, preserves many other species including several incredible endemic birds-of-paradise: the Huon Astrapia (Astrapia rothschildi), Wahnes’s Parotia (Parotia wahnesi), and the Emperor Bird-of-paradise (Paradisaea guilielmi) — some of the most truly spectacular birds in the entire world.

In an arrangement similar to that of biosphere reserves, the  conservation area has a core protected area and buffer zones that allow for mixed, environmentally-friendly uses. One of these sustainable management strategies for local communities (there are nearly three dozen villages in the area) was coffee growing. Only about 6% of PNG’s coffee comes from Morobe Province. The YUS area is remote and very rugged, with no road access, and getting coffee to market is an enormous challenge. And it’s not like these farmers are in a place where the some equivalent of a local county extension agent can drop by and give some agricultural assistance. Thus, in 2010, the Zoo’s conservation program worked to provide technical training for over 300 YUS coffee farmers.

A coffee roaster…

Zoo program personnel knew a direct relationship with a stateside roaster would be a strong step in the right direction, so they approached Caffe Vita, a roaster with six locations in the Seattle area. In early 2011, Caffe Vita introduced a Zoo Special Reserve coffee to support the Woodland Park Zoo. Although currently sourced from Guatemala, it is organic and Rainforest Alliance certified, and $1 a bag goes to Zoo conservation efforts.

Green coffee samples from YUS farmers were brought to Caffe Vita to roast and evaluate. Green coffee buyer Daniel Shewmaker could tell there was potential. In the summer of 2011, encouraged by improvements to new samples he tasted, Shewmaker visited YUS. Abandoned coffee plots have been renewed and tended. He worked with farmers on improving drying methods and separating lots by elevation. He agreed to buy 22 bags. The coffee arrived in the U.S. in December, 2011, and in February, the coffee was made available to the public.

And the coffee

The YUS farmers are growing bourbon, typica, Mundo Novo, and Arusha varietals at 1200 to 1500 m.  While not certified organic, no chemicals are used; as you might imagine, if coffee is so difficult to get out of the area, any synthetic or commercially-produced inputs are just as hard to get in. The photo taken during a Caffe Vita visit shows the shade trees over the coffee shrubs.

Caffe Vita describes this coffee as “mellow and honey-like, with flavors of toasted hazelnut, orange zest, guava, and sugarcane.” We found the coffee to start out with a very slightly wild flavor, reminiscent of a Sumatran; one person described it as a spicy note. Brown sugar and caramel was mentioned several times from our panel, and nutty also came up more than once. One taster remarked upon enjoying a savory undertone as the coffee cooled. Nearly unanimous was the opinion that the YUS was very clean and smooth.  The panel gave it an average of 3.5 motmots, with many giving it 3.75.

PNG is one of my favorite origins, in part because I never know exactly what to expect. Those of us that drink PNG coffees fairly regularly were very impressed with this coffee, especially given its history. We didn’t find it extremely unique or mind-blowing, but it absolutely was as good as any other specialty PNG we had tasted in the past, and better than a hell of a lot of them. These farmers, in the short time they have had to work with Caffe Vita on upgrading and improving their growing and processing methods, came up with a perfectly clean coffee. We detected no baggy notes, a concern Shewmaker had given elevated moisture levels in earlier samples. A coffee this good so early in the game has no place to go but up, and I’m really looking forward to future crops. It’s available at Caffe Vita locations and online.

This coffee and conservation story is remarkable in many ways. In my line of work I see plenty of preservation efforts and cross-disciplinary partnerships. Many aren’t very long-lived or successful, and few are as encouraging, inclusive, and transparent as the work undertaken by the Woodland Park Zoo. Please take a look at the conservation program’s web site; in particular I encourage you to download some of their excellent, informative annual reports. Caffe Vita’s commitment to helping these efforts in so many meaningful ways is a model for what other coffee roasters can achieve by taking sustainability to heart. The only thing missing is you.

More info:

  • Short video about the coffee and project from the Woodland Park Zoo – 2.5 minutes and very cool.
  • Journey to a Papuan Paradise – great article from National Wildlife magazine about the Huon Peninsula, the tree kangaroo projects, and stunning photos of birds-of-paradise.
  • Capacity Building, Coffee, & Conservation Through the Woodland Park Zoo – National Geographic News Watch.

Matschie’s Tree Kangaroo photo by Tim Laman and map from the Woodland Park Zoo Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program media kit. Shade coffee photo by Caffe Vita on Flickr under a Creative Commons license.

Coffee regions / Research on coffee growing

Research: Puerto Rican shade coffee and biodiversity

Shade-grown coffee in Puerto Rico: Opportunities to preserve biodiversity while reinvigorating a struggling agricultural commodity. Borkhataria, Collazo, Groom, and Jordan-Garcia. 2012. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment.

Even though coffee was first planted in Puerto Rico in 1736, we don’t hear much about it. In part, this is because much of the coffee grown there is consumed there. Still, coffee was PR’s major crop in the early 1800s, but hurricanes, high labor costs, low yields and other problems diminished its importance. Government support has been largely responsible for its persistence, and this included recommendations to increase yield by converting to sun coffee in the late 1980s, with any “shade” farms directed to use widely spaced trees and total shade not exceeding 30%. According to agricultural statistics summarized in the first paper noted above, there were 15,144 ha of coffee in PR in 2007 on over 5,600 farms which averaged 20 ha.  Over 69% of this land was characterized as sun coffee.

Authors also surveyed a random sample of 100 coffee farmers (nearly all of which answered the questions regarding shade). A third of the farmers considered their coffee shade coffee, and another 21% said they had both shade and sun coffee. However, when evaluated by the surveyors, the actual number of farms that could be considered traditional or polyculture shade was only 8%. This points out the clear problem of a lack of an agreed-upon definition of “shade”!

Most PR coffee farmers receive some sort of governmental assistance, often in the form of fertilizers. One farmer interviewed said he preferred to grow under shade, but grew a few hectares of coffee in sun in order to have access to incentives. About 70% of the farmers said they’d be willing to plant shade trees if they were encouraged by the government and if shade trees were provided to them.

The authors recommended government practices which would help promote production that protected biodiversity, took advantage of markets that favored sustainable agriculture, and made incentives were more available to farmers wishing to grow shade coffee.

Borkhataria, R., Collazo, J., Groom, M., & Jordan-Garcia, A. (2012). Shade-grown coffee in Puerto Rico: Opportunities to preserve biodiversity while reinvigorating a struggling agricultural commodity Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 149, 164-170 DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2010.12.023

Coffee regions / Research on coffee growing

The curse of the spud

“Potato taint” in African coffees

Some East African coffees, especially those from Rwanda, but also Burundi, Tanzania, Zambia, and Kenya, are afflicted by the strong flavor of potato peels, not a desirable taste in coffee.  This defect is said to be ultimately caused by one of the pyrazine chemical compounds. How do coffee beans end up with this chemical? The prevailing theory is that coffee cherries are damaged by insects, most notably several species of stink bugs. The damage facilitates contamination of the cherry, which leads to formation of the potato taint compounds.

The connection between the bugs and the taint are not completely understood. Let’s take a super-geeky look at what we know about the bugs — which, whether they cause the potato defect or not, do a lot of damage to coffee cherries — and how they might be responsible for the potato taint.

Bugs that make a stink

The insects that cause damage to coffee cherries in East Africa that are usually associated with potato taint are in the order Hemiptera, the true bugs.  This order includes various bugs that suck plant juices, including cicadas, leafhoppers, aphids, scale insects, shield or stink bugs, and many others.  The stink bugs that are coffee pests are collectively called “Antestia bugs,” after their former generic name (many species in the genus Antestia have been reclassified under another genus, Antestiopsis). Two primary culprits are Antestiopsis orbitalis (formerly Antestia lineaticollis) and Antestiopsis intricata.

A. orbitalis (above right) is a colorful bug about 7 mm long. Various subspecies have slightly different patterns.  This and related species that also attack coffee have similar life histories; for the sake of simplicity I’ll refer to them collectively as variegated coffee bugs. Some species are found in India and southeast Asia. We’ll focus on the ones usually found in Africa.

Three variegated coffee bugs on coffee in Burundi. Photo by Tim Hill of Counter Culture Coffee.

Variegated coffee bugs can complete four generations a year, and reproduce best at temperatures between 19 and 24 degrees C (66-75 F) and humidity between 35-50%.  Eggs are laid on the undersides of leaves. The young are called nymphs, and are similar, but smaller, than the adults. Average life span is three to four months. Like all Hemipterans, variegated coffee bugs have piercing mouthparts adapted to sucking plant juices. Arabica coffee (rarely robusta) is the preferred host, but other plants in the coffee family (Rubiaceae) are also used. Variegated coffee bugs feed on shoots and leaves (causing damage and bud drop) but primarily on unripe coffee cherries.

Not only does this type of feeding itself cause physical damage to the cherry, but fungi (yeast) in the genus Nematospora (N. [=Eremothecium] coryli and N. [=Ashbya] gossypii) can secondarily infect the cherry. Nematospora fungi are not specific to coffee, but when these two species infect coffee, it’s usually called coffee bean rot. The fungi only cause rot in unripe (green) cherries.

It’s believed that the bugs are vectors of the fungi;  that is,the bugs carry the spores and the fungi are dependent on the bugs (though not variegated coffee bugs exclusively) for dispersal. There is some dispute over whether the spores are present internally in the bugs and thus inoculated into plants, or if they are present on the surface of the bugs. Not all cherries pierced by the bugs become infected. It could be that the fungal spores are not present in/on all bugs, or that if they are present internally, they may be too large to pass through the mouthparts of younger (smaller) individuals.

Physical damage to the coffee cherry and the associated rot cause significant losses (up to 45%) on coffee farms infested with variegated coffee bugs. Do these bugs also cause potato taint?

Chemicals that make a stink

A number of chemical compounds produce potato-like odors. The most notable is a methoxypyrazine: 2-methoxy 3-isopropylpyrazine (or “MIPP”*). The odor threshold of MIPP is very low, so it’s easily detected in very small quantities. MIPP has been found in nature in some plants and higher organisms. Various pyrazines can be synthesized chemically and biologically, and MIPP has been produced by cultures of at least one bacteria, Pseudomonas perolens.

Other Pseudomonas cultures also have potato odors. This group of bacteria are free-living, and widely found in soil and water (at least one strain infects the leaves of coffee trees). Several other bacteria, such as some strains of Serratia and Cedecea, produce potato-like odors that are the result of a combination of pyrazine compounds.

Despite my access to vast quantities of scientific literature, I was surprised to find virtually no published research on the chemical processes of coffee bean rot. Does it produce MIPP or a similar compound with a potato odor? If other bacteria are involved in the potato defect, are they connected in some way to the fungal infection that is typically introduced by variegated coffee bugs? Where to the bacteria come from?

One very interesting clue comes from Tim Hill, of Counter Culture Coffee, who provided the photo above left. He said that the potato odor was apparent in the air during a rainstorm in Burundi. This is suggestive that a/the taint-producing bacteria may be present in the soil. While I have been unable to pin down the range of Pseudomonas perolens, there are nearly 200 species of this bacteria worldwide. I have to wonder why the potato defect is largely (exclusively?) considered an East African problem and why it has been historically linked to variegated potato bugs, but not, for instance, coffee berry borers which also penetrate the green cherry. The borers and Pseudomonas are fairly ubiquitous in  coffee-growing nations. It seems to me that there must be a link between the variegated coffee bugs and a bacteria that facilitate the production of stinky pyrazine compounds.

Bringing us to this compelling clue: MIPP (usually going by its synonym IPMP*), is found in some grapes and contributes to pleasant flavors in wines in small amounts, but at higher levels is associated with the off-flavor known as “ladybug taint.”  The ladybugs (Asian multicolored lady beetles, Harmonia axyridis, the non-native species that can be a household pest) do not actually attack or harm the grapes. IPMP is part of the chemical make-up of the ladybugs, and when the insects get mixed in and processed with the grapes, the taint occurs in the wine.

IPMP is present in lots of ladybug species, and many other insects that are “aposematic” — those possessing some kind of warning signal to potential predators. Usually, this is some sort of bright coloration, very often red and black. I have not seen any variegated coffee bugs or close relatives on lists of insects that have been confirmed to have any pyrazines, but their colorful patterns are consistent with other aposematic insects, and some other Hemiptera are classified as aposematic. Recall this group of bugs is known as “stink bugs.”  This is precisely because most have the ability to release a nasty chemical when molested. So further exploration of the chemical make-up of variegated stink bugs surely seems a promising avenue of research.

However these compounds end up in the coffee cherry, they end up altering the bean, which itself does not show damage. (This fact — that the damaged cherries must be identified and discarded prior to processing, after which they cannot be detected until the coffee is roasted or ground — is what makes this defect so frustrating.)

Recent news out of the University of California, Riverside announced that one of their entomologists was going to Rwanda to help solve the mystery of the potato defect. That item said, “there is no definitive link between potato taste and antestia bug, only hypotheses.” While the research I’ve cited (see below) is not very current, the dots seem to be connected right up to the end point of why and how MIPP or a similar compound is produced.

The battle of the bug

Given the fact that one way or another, variegated coffee bugs are pests of coffee, control methods for them will continue to be important. Fungicides do not control the type of infection caused by Nematospora, given that the fungi are introduced within the coffee cherry. Small infestations of the bugs can been battled with hand-picking. Since the bugs like dense foliage, pruning is often recommended. In the long run, both natural and synthetic pyrethrum insecticides have proven ineffective in many cases. The bugs have typically been controlled with multiple applications of pesticides, usually fenitrothion, chlorpyrifos, malathion, trichlorfon, and diflubenzuron. All but the last are organophosphate pesticides that are especially dangerous (to humans and the environment) when not applied according to instructions with full protection, which is often not the case in less-developed nations.

Fortunately, because they are native to East Africa, variegated coffee bugs do have many natural enemies which may be exploited for biocontrol; they are especially vulnerable to a number of native parasitic wasps that attack the eggs. With persistence and luck, reliable biological and cultural control of variegated coffee bugs will hopefully be developed.

As the Rwandan and Burundian specialty coffee sectors grow, the urgency to defeat the potato taint will grow. I’ll be following any progress and research on the exact mechanisms of potato taint and any methods of control and detection that emerge.

Photo of Antestiopsis orbitalis by Lambert Smith, used with permission.

*This compound has several synonyms: 2-Isopropyl-3-methoxypyrazine, 3-Isopropyl-2-methoxypyrazine, or IPMP. The CAS Registry number is 25773-40-4.

Further reading:

    • Cheng, T.-B., G. A. Reineccius, J. A. Bjorklund, and E. Leete. 1991. Biosynthesis of 2-methoxy-3-isopropylpyrazine in Pseudomonas perolens. J. Agric. Food Chem. 39:1009-1012.
    • Cilas, C., B. Bouyjou, and B. Decazy. 1998. Frequency and distribution of Antestiopsis orbitalis Westwood (Hem., Pentatomidae) in coffee plantations in Burundi: implications for sampling techniques. Journal of Applied Entomology. 122:601-606.
    • Crowe, T.J., G.D.G. Jones, and R. Williamson. 1961. The use of pyrethrum formulations to control Antestiopsis on coffee in East Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 52:31-41.
    • Greathead, D.J. 1966. A taxonomic study of the species of Antestiopsis (Hemipteea, Pentatomidae) associated with Coffea arabica in Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 56:515-554.
    • Kirkpatrick, T. W. 1937. Studies on the ecology of coffee plantations in East Africa. II. the autecology of Antestia Spp. (pentatomidae) with a particular account of a Strepsipterous parasite. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 86:247-343.
    • Le Pelley, R.H. 1932. On the control of Antestia Lineaticollis, Stal (Hem., Pentatom.) on Coffee in Kenya Colony. 1932. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 23:217-228.
    • Le Pelley, R.H. 1942. The food and feeding habits of Antestia in Kenya. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 33:71-89.
    • McNutt, D.N. 1979. Control of Antestiopsis spp. on coffee in Uganda. Tropical Pest Management. 25:5-15.
    • Mehrotra, R. S., and Aggarwhal, A. 2003. Plant Pathology, 2nd Ed. Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
    • van der Meulen, H.J., and A.S. Schoeman. 1990. Aspects of the phenology and ecology of the antestia stink bug, Antestiopsis orbitalis orbitalis (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae), a pest of coffee. Phytophylactica. 22:423-426.
    • Mitchell, P.L. 2004. Heteroptera as vectors of plant pathogens. Neotropical Entomology. 33:519-545.
    • Nixon, G.E.J. 1941. New Braconid parasites of Antestia Lineaticollis, Stal, and of Sylepta Derogata, F. Bulletin of Entomological Research. 32:93-101.
    • Pickering, G. J, M. Spink, Y. Kotseridis, D. Inglis, I. D. Brindle, M. Sears, and A. Beh. 2008. Yeast strain affects 3-isopropyl-2-methoxypyrazine concentration and sensory profile in Cabernet Sauvignon wine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research. 14:230-237.

 

Coffee regions

Coffee growing in India

Legend has it that coffee was smuggled into India around 1600, spread around the region by Dutch traders, but not commercially grown until the early 1800s when the British began establishing coffee plantations. Today, India produces approximately 300,000 metric tons of coffee annually; around 30% is arabica, while the rest is mostly robusta. Kents and S795 are two popular arabica varieties grown in India.

Southern India; Western Ghats in pink. Click to enlarge.

Nearly a quarter of the coffee that is exported from India goes to Italy (no doubt largely robusta that is a component in espresso blends). The United States receives only about 1% of India’s coffee exports. Frequently what ones sees offered in the U.S. is “monsooned” coffee — green coffee stored in open warehouses and subjected to wet monsoon wind, simulating ocean-going ship conditions of yore. This hardly represents the many interesting and varied coffees grown in India — and we’ll be reviewing several in a follow-up post. First, let’s take a look at how coffee is grown in India, with an eye towards biodiversity.

Indian coffee growing regions

Nearly 390,000 ha are planted in coffee in India, 70% of which are small farms of less than 10 ha. The vast majority of coffee is grown in the three southern states of Karnataka (71%), Kerala (22%), and Tamil Nadu (5%). Eighty percent of India’s arabica coffee is grown in Karnataka. In this region, arabica coffee is grown at elevations of 1000 to 1500 m, with some production up to 2000 m. Robusta, of course, is grown at lower elevations. Some familiar regional designations are Chikmagalur, Coorg, and Mysore (all in Karnataka), and Madras (Tamil Nadu).

These southern coffee growing regions are in the Western Ghats mountain range, a biodiversity hotspot that runs some 1450 km along India’s southwest coast. Over a third of the region’s 5000 plant species are found no place else on earth. BirdLife International has also designated a Western Ghats Endemic Bird Area, as it has 16 restricted-range species confined to this region. Among them is the engaging little Black-and-rufous Flycatcher (Ficedula nigrorufa), right. This species lives only in the Western Ghats, and can be found in coffee plantations, but only if there is dense undergrowth. Another near-threatened flycatcher endemic to the Western Ghats is the Nilgiri Flycatcher (Eumyias albicaudatus), below right. This bird is declining due to habitat destruction, but it can be found on shaded coffee plantations, and this is important to its conservation.

And I usually don’t mention insect diversity here because it is so under-studied in general in these areas. However, in addition to birds I do a fair amount of insect work, especially with dragonflies and damselflies. The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) just released a report, The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in the Western Ghats, India which notes that this area has 174 species of dragonflies and damselflies, 69 of which are endemic. Ten species are of conservation concern,and they, like many other aquatic organisms discussed in the report, are threatened by agricultural pesticides present in the waterways; coffee farms are specifically mentioned. These insects make excellent environmental indicators because of their aquatic and upland life stages that are often tied to specific types of habitat and their sensitivity to water conditions.

Most Indian coffee is shade coffee

Most in coffee in India is grown under shade; pepper and cardamom are frequently planted with coffee as supplemental crops. Not all shade is the same quality. Up to 50 species are used as shade trees, and while they may be comprised of native tree species (various Ficus spp., Syzigium spp., and Artocarpus integrifolia),  increasingly farmers look to supplement their income with fast growing timber species, especially silky oak/silver oak, Grevillea robusta, a tree native to Australia. Various studies

have shown that silver oak is not preferred by birds, and an increase in its use corresponds to a decrease in bird diversity. Some estates severely prune their shade trees, destroying much of the canopy, and it is often timed to coincide with post -harvest — and bird nesting.

Typical arrangement: coffee in the understory, peppercorn vines growing up the trunks of shade trees.

Relatively little coffee grown in India is certified organic. According to the Coffee Board of India, only about 2600 ha of coffee are organic, occurring mostly in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. A number of pests and diseases of coffee in India are fought with chemicals, although integrated pest management is also increasingly used. For example, one prominent pest, mostly of arabica, is the white stem borer (Xylotrechus quadripes), a fairly large beetle. Pesticides once popular for control are now banned, but since the beetle likes to lay its eggs in sunny positions, shade trees are a control option, as are pheromone traps in development.

As in Latin America, various studies have indicated that many bird species can be found in shaded coffee farms in India, although the number of species was slightly lower than in forests and the diversity in farms leaned towards towards those species that were more adaptable, favored more open or disturbed areas, and that did not depend exclusively on a diet of insects.

Coffee plantations in India are often surrounded by native forests or preserves, and insects, birds, and other wildlife can move between and among the forests and coffee farms. This is extremely valuable for conservation, particularly if the farms are using few chemicals and growing coffee under high quality, native shade.

The C&C tasting crew will be dipping in to some Indian coffees in the coming weeks. Look for a post or two with short reviews of a number of coffees representing the variety that India has to offer. I hope doing a series of mini-reviews will inspire American consumers in particular to expand their coffee horizons and seek out some offerings from this interesting origin.

Links to more information:

  • The articles on the I Need Coffee web site written by coffee farmers Dr. Anand Titus and his wife Geeta Pereira include many profusely illustrated posts on all aspects of coffee growing, biodiversity, climate change, and related topics. You can, and perhaps should, spend hours reading through their detailed information.
  • Ecoagriculture is a relatively new site promoting sustainable agriculture, focusing on coffee and tea, in India. Rainforest Alliance and the Sustainable Agriculture Network are part of the initiative, so it includes resources on RA certification. There is also an associated blog.
  • India, through a birder’s eyes (New York Times)
  • Nature Conservation Foundation

My posts on research studying coffee and biodiversity in India:

Rufous-and-black Flycatcher image from Wikimedia Commons; Nilgiri Flycatcher photo by Sandeep Somasekharan; coffee plantation from INeedCoffee/Michael Allen Smith; all under Creative Commons licenses.

Climate change / Coffee regions / Research on coffee growing

Climate change threatens east African coffee via borers

Some like it hot: The influence and implications of climate change on coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) and coffee production in east Africa. Jaramillo et al. 2011. PLoS One.

An important new paper published this week outlines the threat posed by the expansion of coffee berry borers in east Africa due to climate change.

This paper follows up research by the authors that was published in 2009. That paper looked at life history characteristics of the coffee berry borer (CBB), one of the worst pests of coffee, and how they might react to various climate change scenarios. This paper built on that data, looked at current distribution of CBB in east Africa, and modeled the change in distribution by 2050 based on two climate change scenarios.

The models indicated that CBB infestation will be worse in the arabica coffee producing regions of Ethiopia; the Ugandan part of the Lake Victoria and Mt. Elgon regions; Mt. Kenya, particularly in the coffee-producing areas of Embu and Meru, and the western part of Kenya, around Kitale and the Kenyan aide of Mt. Elgon; and most of Rwanda and Burundi. Further, it appears that increasing temperatures will likely double the number of generations of CBB per year in all current arabica-producing areas. Both models (using slightly different projections of climate change) are very similar, one figure is reproduced below.

Suitability of climate for CBB, year 2050. EI values indicate suitability, where 0 is unsuitable, and 100 is perfect. Click to enlarge. From Jaramillo et al. 2011.

Lest you view climate modeling (or climate change) with skepticism, the authors note that as recently as ten years ago, CBB were not reported above 1500 m. Now, due to increasing temperatures in coffee growing regions around the world, CBB can be found at higher altitudes, where arabica coffee is typically grown. CBB have been documented 300 m higher in Tanzania than they were ten years ago. The authors note that some of the changes predicted in their earlier paper, such as increased number of generations and broader distribution, seem to already be occurring.

The damage an increase in CBB to now-untouched coffee growing areas is serious and sobering. These impacts do not even incorporate other changes that are likely to take place with increasing temperatures: a change in the distribution of biological enemies of CBB, and the impact of changes in rainfall patterns, disrupted seasonality, and thermal stress to coffee plants.

The authors state,

We suggest that the best way to adapt to a rise of temperatures in coffee plantations could be via the introduction of shade trees in sun grown plantations.

They note adding shade trees can lead to a decrease in the temperature around coffee berries by up to 4°C, which in turn may reduce the rate of increase in CBB by 34%.  They go on to say shade coffee agroecosystems can serve as a refuge for beneficial arthropods, leading to higher levels of biological control of CBB, and they create a diversified and therefore more resilient system that will perform better under climate change. They conclude that while it is only one of many adaptation strategies, the use of shade trees is “… rational, affordable, and relatively easy for coffee farmers and other stakeholders to implement.”

The paper is open access, and you can read it the whole thing and view all the maps here. A link to an abstract in Spanish is available near the end.

Jaramillo, J., Muchugu, E., Vega, F., Davis, A., Borgemeister, C., & Chabi-Olaye, A. (2011). Some Like It Hot: The Influence and Implications of Climate Change on Coffee Berry Borer (Hypothenemus hampei) and Coffee Production in East Africa PLoS ONE, 6 (9) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024528

Coffee news and miscellany / Coffee regions

New Kenyan coffee varietal

Last year the Coffee Research Foundation (CRF) in Ruiru, Kenya released a new disease-resistant arabica varietal that has been in development for more than an decade. Named after the highest peak on Mt. Kenya, Batian is resistant to coffee berry disease and coffee leaf rust, the two common fungal diseases affecting coffee in Kenya and much of Africa.

The parentage of Batian is predominantly arabica, and it is closer genetically to the well-regarded SL28 and SL34 varieties than Ruiru 11, the rust-resistant varietal introduced in 1985. Varieties used in the development of Batian include SL4, N39, N30, Hibrido de Timor, Rume Sudan, and K7. They were repeatedly backcrossed with SL28 and SL34. The Hibrido de Timor is the naturally-occurring hybrid of arabica and robusta, and is often used in disease-resistant breeding due to its robusta heritage.

Of course, it is the robusta lurking in the background that tends to lower cup quality. According to the CRF, however, Batian cups far better than Ruiru 11 and even the parental SL varietals. Here’s a slide from a presentation by Dr.  Joseph Kimemia of the CRF (click to enlarge):Should we take that with a grain of salt (so to speak)? A tasting of these four varietals by the guys from Tim Wendelboe at the CRF did find Bastian rising to the top, but the cupping was a little suspect (e.g., poor examples of the SL28, for instance).

Why a new varietal?

Kenyan coffee production has been declining since at least 2001. There are a number of reasons for this, but in recent years part of the problem has been instability in the weather. Drought and heavy rain disrupt flowering and fruiting, and wet conditions also cause an increase in fungal diseases. Thus, a varietal that has more resistance to these diseases is welcomed by farmers.

In the case of Batian, it also matures faster than other varieties — in two years versus three. It is high yield, but Batian’s ability to boost production is in large part due to the fact it can be planted at twice the density of other typical varietals in Kenya, up to 2500 trees per ha. The end result is a yield of up to 5 tons per ha under optimal management, versus an average of 2 tons/ha. Batian also has a large bean size, which must also contribute to yield estimates.

What does this mean for the environment?

On the plus side, if Batian does show good resistance to fungal diseases (one news piece implies Batian has complete resistance), it may reduce the use of copper fungicides. While often considered allowable under many organic standards, their extensive and prolonged use on coffee in Kenya has resulted in soil contamination. Copper fungicides are already applied many times a year on Kenyan coffee. If rain is frequent, it must be reapplied more often because it is washed off (and fungal diseases are worse in wet conditions). If dependence on fungicides can be reduced or eliminated, this would be a huge accomplishment, and very positive for the environment.

There is a growing movement in Kenya, where most coffee is grown in the sun, to plant shade trees and also reforest many areas. I am not sure it is possible to grow many shade trees and also grow Batian at the recommended density, which is essentially a coffee tree every 2 m. But, (as pointed out in the comment section below and amended here) if farmers don’t have to worry about fungal diseases they may be more apt to plant shade trees.  (I will do a post on coffee berry disease and shade similar to the one on coffee leaf rust some time this fall.)

The CRF and government is also encouraging the planting of Batian in areas where it is currently not being grown, particularly in western Kenya.  Bungoma, Kasii, and Nyanza are current western coffee regions and I have not found details on whether these are the areas being targeted, or some other districts. It’s my understanding that west Kenya gets more rain than the central region where most coffee is grown, and that may be why Batian is being pushed there — coffee planted at high densities usually requires more moisture. Unfortunately, densely planted coffee often also requires heavy fertilization and the trees need to be replaced more often.

Combating diseases, declining yield, and climate change while maintaining quality in a sustainable manner is a challenge to coffee growers worldwide. One can hardly fault farmers for wanting to sustain or improve their livelihoods, or governmental agencies for working to stabilize or increase the production of a primary export crop.  Is another potentially sun-grown, high-input varietal the answer, or environmentally sustainable? We will have to wait and see.

Update: Download a PDF of a detailed 2012 presentation from the Coffee Research Institute seminar series.

Birds and other biodiversity / Coffee regions

Cloud forest coffee at Finca El Jaguar

Because of the elevation of the farm and transpiration of the surrounding cloud forest, El Jaguar is covered with these misty clouds for at least a portion of nearly every day. Light levels and humidity, therefore, do not allow the coffee itself to be grown under multiple layers of shade, such as would be required by Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certification. Yields would decline and fungal diseases would increase. Rather, 80% of the property has been set aside in cloud forest reserve, and multiple bird research projects take place here since the owners are dedicated to conservation. El Jaguar is Rainforest Alliance certified.

Finca El Jaguar is located in northern Jinotega, Nicaragua, about 188 km north of the capital Managua. The property was acquired in 1991 by Georges Duriaux and Liliana Chavarria from Lili’s brother.  At about 100 ha (247 ac), it is both a private reserve registered with the  Nicaraguan ministry of natural resources, and a coffee farm. Eighty ha of the farm is preserved forest, and 20 ha are in coffee.

Coffee in shadows of foreground, a portion of the large forest reserve in the background.

The coffee consists of caturra and some catuai grown at 1300 to 1350 meters. El Jaguar has been certified by Rainforest Alliance since 2006, and Allegro Coffee (owned by Whole Foods) is the exclusive buyer. The farm employs 15 to 20 people year-round, and 30 to 40 additional people during coffee harvest. Of particular pride to Georges and Lili is the fact that several of the workers’ children are involved in bird research activities.

Over 270 bird species have been recorded at El Jaguar. More than 50 are Neotropical migrants (those that primarily breed in the U.S. and Canada and winter in the tropics), including an amazing 27 species of “our” warblers — Golden-winged Warbler, the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler, and the Cerulean Warbler among them. Due to this rich bird life, El Jaguar was designated as an Important Bird Area by BirdLife International in 2006.

In addition to preserving habitat and providing eco-lodging for birders, Georges and Lili have worked tirelessly on bird conservation projects. Since 2002, they have operated two of the eleven wintering bird banding stations in Nicaragua that are part of the important MoSI project (Monitoreo de Sobrevivencia Invernal — Monitoring Overwintering Survival).  One is in the forest, and one in the coffee production area. This project is an essential tool that enables researchers to gain insight into what bird species winter in an area, the habitats they use, and their overwinter survival. A sister project monitors resident birds from April to October.

This is the coffee, planted with bananas and other trees, next to the bird banding station in the coffee area.

Georges and Lili Duriaux—Chavarria record bird data.

Additionally, Georges and Lili are involved in special projects including the Golden-winged Warbler Working Group and similar project to benefit the Wood Thrush.

The colorful Rufous-winged Tanager (Tangara lavinia) was just one of the birds banded in the forest reserve during our visit.

Jean-Yves Duriaux, a recent graduate of EARTH University, has a wealth of knowledge about sustainable agronomy he is applying to the farm.

Until recently, El Jaguar’s coffee was also certified organic. Due to burdensome new (?) rules that we heard about in multiple places, their ability to adequately fertilize their coffee by organic means meant that they had to make the difficult decision to drop organic certification. This is being repeated at other farms in Nicaragua, and will be the topic of another post. Georges and Lili, and their son Jean-Yves who is managing the farm, are still just committed to conserving biodiversity. This year’s increased yield (over triple last year’s, due in large part to using conventional fertilizers) provided the income needed to continue preserving the current forest acreage and stay afloat.

During our visit, we talked a lot about Rainforest Alliance certification.  The Duriaux—Chavarria’s were enthusiastic supporters, and it gave us much-needed perspective on the impact of RA certification on the ground. Although El Jaguar has had long-term contracts with Allegro for years, they explained that RA certification strengthens their position and helps them negotiate a better price. The certification process improves quality and sustainability, and RA provides guidance and assistance. In fact, RA has held workshops at El Jaguar for neighboring farmers, and the next step is working with them to get them certified. This dovetails with training Georges and Lili have already provided to neighbors on biological resources and sustainable production, as well as a grant they received to help provide native trees to reforest nearby properties and encourage other farmers to pursue certification.

Coffee was already flowering last week at El Jaguar.

There are challenges ahead for El Jaguar and other coffee producers. Of note was the fact that the weather, influenced by La Nina conditions, caused early flowering and fruiting. Harvest was early this season, and complete by the time we arrived. Meanwhile, the coffee was again beginning to flower while we were there, which means the next harvest will be around two months earlier than “usual.” Café loco.

As we did two years ago, we also stayed at Finca Esperanza Verde. At a few hundred meters lower in elevation, the coffee all over that area was greatly defoliated by fungal disease, also exacerbated by wet weather. They are usually treated with copper-based fungicides. Some of these have typically been permitted under organic certification, but, again, we heard that now farmers were told they were not allowed to use them. If that’s really the case, it’s hard to see how producers will be able to afford to keep organic certification.

Read more about El Jaguar, birds, shade coffee, and Georges and Lili in this wonderful Audubon Magazine article.

Birds and other biodiversity / Coffee regions

How “wild” is Ethiopian forest coffee?

Ethiopia is the birthplace of coffee.  Coffea arabica originates in and still grows wild in Ethiopia in areas which are included in the Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity hotspot.  This hotspot — which also covers areas in the coffee-growing regions of Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi — has been reduced to 10% of its original extent. In Ethiopia, only about 2000 sq km of high-quality forest with wild arabica coffee remains.

As coffee consumers, we often hear about this “wild” coffee, or the generally rustic way in which coffee is typically grown in Ethiopia, and so we generally feel good about enjoying Ethiopian coffee from an ecological point of view. Technically, coffee is wild if it grows and reproduces or regenerates on its own within natural habitats.

How much Ethiopian coffee is grown in forests? Is it really coming from a pristine environment? Is this method of coffee production really preserving biodiversity?

A number of publications over the past few years help shed some light on this topic, and the results are a bit surprising.  The diagram at right is one I constructed using data from several sources (list at end of post). It indicates the different methods of coffee cultivation in Ethiopia, with rough approximations of the frequency of occurrence of each. Below are the characteristics of each method. This is all necessarily simplified, but most sources are in general agreement.

Plantation coffee (10%). This is the most intense method of coffee cultivation, where land is cleared and planted with coffee and managed for yield, which ranges from 450 to 1200 kg per ha annually (around 750 seems “average”). This includes larger estates, but may also involve small holders.

Garden coffee (or “semi-forest plantation”) (50%). Here coffee plants are transplanted to gardens around farmers’ homes. These plants might come from nearby forest, or farmers may exchange seedlings best adapted to an area or microhabitat; some may originate from a different region. Coffee is typically interplanted with other crops and fruit trees. Garden coffee is found most frequently in southern Ethiopia, including Sidamo, and well as Harerge/Harrar. Yields range from 200 to 700 kg/ha/yr.

Forest coffee (5%).  I think this is what most people probably envision when they hear about “wild” coffee. Here, coffee is harvested from trees growing in the forest, with virtually no management of the surrounding forest or vegetation, except perhaps some removal of undergrowth to facilitate access to the coffee trees. However, it should be noted that several authors have stated that coffee is managed in some way virtually wherever it occurs. Even among locals, “forest coffee” is broadly and variously defined. It may mean old overgrown plantations, or a single coffee tree in a pasture that was once forest. In any event, yields are well below 200 kg per ha, often between a mere 7 to 30 kg.

The Abyssinian Ground-thrush (Zoothera piaggiae) is a very secretive montane forest bird of the Bonga forest, thought to be declining due to habitat loss. Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Semi-forest coffee (35%). Most “forest coffee” is probably really in this category, termed semi-forest coffee. Here, the forest is altered and managed, often quite substantially.  The canopy is thinned once to several times a year to allow more light to reach the coffee and increase yields (which vary greatly depending on the extent of management, but are under 400 kg per ha per year). Trees with open, wide-spreading canopies are favored since fewer trees are needed to provide the preferred amount of shade. Undergrowth, competing shrubs, and emerging seedlings of other plants are removed to make harvesting easier and to make room for more coffee. The coffee grows wild, but is also supplemented by shrubs transplanted from elsewhere. Usually this means from a nearby forest, but occasionally even government-supplied cultivars are utilized.

While semi-forest coffee is better than a coffee monoculture with no canopy cover, several studies have shown that the managing of these forests does have serious consequences. Schmitt et al. (2010) found that in the Bonga region, 30% of canopy trees and most undergrowth was removed in these systems, severely disturbing forest structure.  Although the overall number of plant species increased by 26% in comparison with intact forest, it was due to secondary and pioneer species, mostly herbaceous species and vines. Forest species declined. Of special concern is the reduction in the number of tree ferns, an ancient family of plants which require shady, moist conditions that are becoming rare in some locations. In Jimma, Aerts et al. (2011) found a near-absence of a true upper canopy >15 m tall, and many climax forest species have nearly disappeared, as they are removed and seedlings are not allowed to regenerate.

Increasingly, forest coffee is being managed as semi-forest coffee, and semi-forest coffee is being managed and harvested with increasing intensity as coffee prices rise. The increasing management intensity has profound impacts on the forest and biodiversity. This diversity includes the genetic resources of wild races of Coffea arabica, as the practice of swapping and transplanting coffee, and any interbreeding, erodes the integrity of wild genotypes.

Volkmann (2008) did an analysis of the areas used by two dozen cooperatives that are part of the Kafa Forest Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union, and concluded that the designation “forest coffee” was probably inappropriate for the output of almost half of them, as they are highly degraded forests, or mostly garden coffee. However, in 2010, this area was designated as UNESCO biosphere reserve. Like other biosphere reserves, the goal is to have a core area that is protected, and buffer zones in which sustainable practices are allowed. Planned projects include reforestation.

Coffee is a main source of income in for people who live in regions where it grows wild. The solution isn’t prohibition, but probably some sort of incentive or compensation to manage the coffee in such a way that forest integrity and species are conserved. One idea being explored is some sort of certification that includes a production ceiling (so that managing for higher yields is not encouraged). The International Standards for Sustainable Wild Collection of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants might be a starting point.

There is much more on the coffee forests of Ethiopia at the web site of the Conservation and use of wild populations of Coffee arabica in the montane rainforests of Ethiopia project web site.

Papers cited and additional resources:

Aerts, R., Hundera, K., Berecha, G., Gijbels, P., Baeten, M., Van Mechelen, M., Hermy, M., Muys, B., and Honnay, O. 2011, in press. Semi-forest coffee cultivation and the conservation of Ethiopian Afromontane rainforest fragments Forest Ecology and Management DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2010.12.025

Gole, T.W., T. Borsch, M. Denich, and D. Teketay. 2008. Floristic composition and environmental factors characterizing coffee forests in southwest Ethiopia. Forest Ecology and Management. 255: 2138-2150.

Gove, A.D., K. Hylander, S. Nemomisa, A. Shimelis. 2008. Ethiopian coffee cultivation — Implications for bird conservation and environmental certification. Conservation Letters 1:208-216.

Hylander, K., and S. Nemomissa. 2008. Home garden coffee as a repository of epiphyte biodiversity in Ethiopia. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 6: 524-528.

Labouisse, J., Bellachew, B., Kotecha, S., and Bertrand, B. 2008. Current status of coffee (Coffea arabica L.) genetic resources in Ethiopia: implications for conservation Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 55:1079-1093. DOI: 10.1007/s10722-008-9361-7

Schmitt, C., Senbeta, F., Denich, M., Preisinger, H., H. Boehmer. 2010. Wild coffee management and plant diversity in the montane rainforest of southwestern Ethiopia African Journal of Ecology 48: 78-86.  DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2028.2009.01084.x

Volkmann, J. 2008. How wild is Ethiopian forest coffee? The disenchantment of a myth. Conservation and use of wild populations of Coffee arabica in the montane rainforests of Ethiopia (CoCE) Project Report, Subproject 5.4. Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Germany.

Wiersum, K.F., T.W. Gole, F. Gatzweiler, J. Volkmann, E. Bognetteau, and O. Wirtu. 2008. Certification of wild coffee in Ethiopia: experiences and challenges. Forests, Trees, and Livelihoods. 18: 9-22.

Coffee and the environment / Coffee regions

Uganda’s wild coffee

The Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog beat me to summarizing a recent peer-reviewed paper, Kibale Forest Wild Coffee: Challenges to market-based conservation in Africa (abstract). The paper outlined the (unsuccessful) attempt at creating a market for products based on wild robusta coffee growing in western Uganda’s Kibale National Park.

This nearly 800-sq-km park in the Rift Valley on the border with Congo protects lowland and mid-elevation evergreen and semi-deciduous rainforest. Areas surrounding the park have high human populations, many who rely on subsistence agriculture of mostly plantain, sweet potatoes, and sugar cane. The regional deforestation, save for the park, is evident in the satellite image.

Kibale is very biodiverse, with 11 species of primates, 325 species of birds, and at least 140 species of butterflies. This forested area was highly exploited in the 1970s. Agricultural encroachment destroyed roughly 17% of the area. When Kibale National Park was officially created in 1993, use of the park’s resources by local people were restricted, causing conflicts.

Two species of coffee grow wild in many parts of the park. Coffea eugenioides and C. canephora [1]. The former is widespread but not abundant, while the latter (known as robusta coffee and used commercially in many inexpensive grocery store coffee blends) is less ubiquitous but very abundant where it grows, covering 7800 ha in the park.

The goal of the project was to manage sustainable harvesting of the coffee and provide income for local communities. Ultimately, the harvested robusta would be blended with Ugandan certified organic arabica coffee and, through private sector partnerships, be marketed as Uganda or Kibale Wild Forest Coffee. Appealing enough. The proposed ratio was 10% Kibale robusta to 90% Ugandan organic arabica. This seems a bit low, in my opinion, to really capture the “authenticity” of the product, but was the best deemed feasible.

Things fell apart when the quality of the arabica was not up to snuff, and the harvest yield of the Kibale beans would have resulted in a blend that contained less than 2% wild robusta. That seemed less viable, so other coffee-derived products were considered, but funding ran out and without sales revenue to keep it going, the project withered. You can read more about other factors in the failure in the summary at the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog.

The idea was a good one, and the concept of providing local communities with opportunities for sustainable use of the land, including agriculture, in the buffer zones of protected areas is not novel. It’s a typical management strategy in the biosphere reserves of Mexico. An example is the organic, shade-grown coffee produced in the buffer zone of the El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, which by and large been a great success. While it was not without problems or detractors, a lot of this success can be attributed to the commitment in the region by Starbucks, which uses the coffee for its organic shade-grown Mexico variety. I wrote about the project and coffee in this post.

Thus, big buy-in from major players might be needed to truly get a project like this off the ground, and I think the investment is worth it for local people and the environment.

[1] Kasenene, J. 2002. Forest association and phenology of wild coffee in Kibale National Park, Uganda. African Jrl. Ecology 36:241-250.

 

Certifications / Coffee regions / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance certifies coffee in Vietnam

An oversupply of coffee was one of the catalysts of the world coffee crisis in the 1990s, and most of it came from Vietnam. Vietnam increased production 1100% that decade, assisted by development agencies and large multinational coffee roasters. Nearly all the coffee grown in this country is robusta (Coffea canephora), generally low quality beans historically used as filler in blends or in cheap coffee.

The planting of hundreds of thousands of hectares of robusta coffee in the 1990s alone, with its associated destruction of forest, caused significant environmental problems. The Buon Ma Thuot region Vietnam’s Central Highlands was at the center of the coffee boom, and it is also the focus of Rainforest Alliance’s (RA) efforts in promoting sustainable coffee production in the country.

RA began holding workshops in Vietnam several years ago, and two large coffee export companies (Dakman Vietnam, part of Volcafe; and ECOM Group) were especially responsive. These companies buy coffee from farmers who typically grow coffee on small farms less than 2 ha (5 ac) in size. By the end of 2008, over 600 farms (1000 ha) were RA certified. Now over 1000 farms are certified, covering 1600 ha (nearly 4000 ac). This is still a very small percentage of the area in coffee production, but encouraging as this is generally commodity coffee used by multinational roasters (I believe Kraft is a major purchaser).

Robusta coffee is typically grown in the sun, so the RA certification does not mean the coffee is shade grown. Instead, the certification emphasizes reduced agrochemical use, better waste management, and water conservation. Environmental and wildlife education efforts are also increasing.

Update: In 2019, the chapter, PGI Buon Ma Thuot Coffee in Vietnam, was published in the book Sustainability of European Food Quality Schemes, and is open access.

Robusta coffee farm in Vietnam’s Central Highlands by amasc under a Creative Commons license.

 

Coffee regions / Corporate coffee

Coffee growing in China

When you hear “China” and “coffee” mentioned in the same sentence, it is usually regarding the booming coffee market in the traditionally tea-drinking country. Less well-known is the fact that coffee is actually grown in China. It is predominantly low-quality arabica used in instant coffee, grown in full sun using high chemical inputs, and the Chinese government is aggressively promoting the expansion of thousands of hectares of coffee production.

Background
While some robusta coffee is grown in China, in Fujian province and on Hainan Island, this post will focus on arabica coffee grown in Yunnan province.

Coffee has been grown in Yunnan since the late 1800s, but on a relatively small scale. There was a resurgence in the late 1960s, but today’s Chinese coffee revival was orchestrated in the 1980s by the Chinese government, the United Nations, and at least one large multinational roaster. Very high import tariffs combined with millions of potential new coffee consuming customers has prompted roasters to source coffee from within the country.

How coffee is grown in China
Coffee is grown in Yunnan in several regions: Dehong, BaoShan, Simao, and Ruili, mostly in western Yunnan along the border with Myanmar. Elevation ranges from 900 to 1600 meters, generally around 1100 to 1200 m. Coffee farms range from small producers and large state-run or privately-owned plantations of over 2000 ha.

All the photographs I have seen of coffee growing in China has been sun coffee. Here is a photo of the 1200 ha ManLao River Plantation in the Simao region.

Organic coffee production in China is virtually unknown. China seriously over-uses fertilizers, with coffee being one recipient. A recent paper looking at different fertilization regimes for coffee in Yunnan province [1] concluded that “higher than routinely applied levels of fertilization are required to optimize coffee plants photosynthetic acclimation and growth” — and photosynthetic acclimation, the paper explains, means the ability to withstand full sun.

High fertilizer inputs are not the only problem. While I was able to find no data relating  specifically to coffee, China is the world’s largest user and producer (and exporter) of pesticides, used once again to increase yield, at a huge cost to the environment and human health.

Expansion, deforestation, and biodiversity
Whereas China only produced about 3600 tons of coffee in 1997, in 2009 this figure breached 28,000 tons on 2000 ha. In China’s usual grand form, the plan is to increase the coffee production area to 16,000 ha in the next 15 years. China is already suffering from severe deforestation, and it is a serious problem in Yunnan province. A paper discussing conservation there noted, “The most immediate source of wealth in Yunnan is the rapid liquidation of existing natural resources, particularly forests” [2].

The Yunnan Hogood (or Hogu) Coffee Company, for instance, planted nearly 4500 ha as of 2007, and this company alone plans to have over 13,000 ha in production by 2012. They are to begin exporting coffee to the U.S. this year. They have contracted with 30,000 farmers, and while a government web site (now defunct) stated that Yunnan Hogood is making these farmers rich, their per capita annual income is $454. This may very well be an improvement over previous incomes (Yunnan is one of China’s poorest areas), but it is still under the poverty level for China. Nestlé also touts that their investment in technical assistance to farmers and their purchases provide steady income to local farmers. This is probably true, but if farmers were being helped to produce high-quality specialty coffee, their incomes would be much greater. These two corporations, by the way, have also been tangled in a trademark dispute.

All this land conversion is taking place in one of the most biodiverse regions in China. Yunnan comprises only 4% of China’s total area, but has more than 18,000 plant species and 1836 vertebrates (over 800 are birds); 112 of China’s bird species only occur in Yunnan [3]. The Yunnan mountains are designated as an important endemic bird area by BirdLife International, where they state that “loss of forest land here appears to be by far the worst in China.” One of the restricted range birds found here is the near-threatened Yunnan Nuthatch, shown on the stamp, another is the endemic White-spectacled Laughingthrush. More fabulous birds of Yunnan can be seen on the great photoblog of John and Jemi Holmes.

Specialty coffee

China’s arabica coffee is nearly all the catimor variety, which has some resistance to coffee rust due to the robusta genes in its background; it is generally considered low-quality and not specialty grade. Some older varieties do exist but are often plagued by rust and not being promoted.

A few specialty coffee roasters have a presence in China, despite the challenge of finding high-quality coffee and faced with consumers who overwhelmingly drink instant coffee (see below). Starbucks (who has committed $5 million to support education efforts in China) has over 700 stores in the country, and sources its coffee from producers in Baoshan. The South of the Clouds blend includes Chinese-grown coffee and has been offered in cafes in China. That debut came with a remark from a Starbucks spokesman that the company would “ultimately” like to export Chinese coffee worldwide. However, supply currently isn’t high (or good?) enough to even put together a Chinese single origin offering (the South of the Clouds blend contains beans from other countries), and export is dependent on developing a source of “superpremium” arabica beans.

Other North American roasters with cafes in China include Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf and Canada’s Blenz Coffee. Roasters from other countries are there as well, all working to steer a tea-drinking culture towards fresh ground coffee.

The role of instant coffee and Nestlé

Nestlé is the big player in China, sourcing all of its Chinese-marketed Arabica coffee from within the country since 1997 and controlling nearly half the entire market share in the country. The coffee Nestlé produces and sells in China is instant coffee, which is typically the most palatable to consumers in tea-drinking nations and dominates Chinese consumption. Add in Kraft’s instant coffee, and these two companies represent 70% of the Chinese coffee market.

Nestlé has invested over $5 million in technical assistance to farmers in Yunnan province. They have sourced all their arabica beans from inside China since 1997 (probably blending with robusta), and in 2006 introduced 100% Yunnan coffee in their in-country NESCAFÉ instant coffee. Given Starbucks’ inability to source a single origin Chinese coffee, this could mean Nestlé has tied up a lot of producers, leases or owns their own plantations, or the beans they source are only suitable for instant. Many of the Chinese NESCAFÉ products aren’t just coffee, but pre-packaged coffee, sugar, and creamer, which are very popular in China. You don’t need good quality coffee for these beverages!  For more on the lack of sustainability and quality in instant coffee, see my previous post.

Coffee crisis, round 2?
One need only look next door to Vietnam to see what a no-holds-barred coffee production policy can do to world coffee prices and farmer livelihoods worldwide and the environment. Unfortunately, nearly all the same elements that precipitated the catastrophic coffee crisis of the late 1990s are once again in place: world development agencies and a national government encouraging and subsidizing the planting of huge amounts of coffee which could lead to a glut in supply, large multinational roasters eager to have a source of cheap mediocre coffee, and poor rural minority farmers hoping to get rich. As we have learned, a drop in world coffee prices due to oversupply from Asia means people and habitats suffer all over the world.

Let’s hope history doesn’t repeat itself.

[1] Cai, C.-T., Z.-Q. Cai, T.-Q. Yao, and X. Qi. 2007. Vegetative growth and photosynthesis in coffee plants under different watering and fertilization managements in Yunnan, SW China. Photosynthetica 45:455-461.

[2] Lan, D. and R. Dunbar. 2000. Bird and mammal conservation in Gaoligongshan Region and Jingdong County, Yunnan, China: patterns of species richness and nature reserves. Oryx 34:275-286.

[3] Yang, Y., K. Tian, J. Hao, S. Pei, and Y. Yank. 2004. Biodiversity and biodiversity conservation in Yunnan, China. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:813-826.

Birds and other biodiversity / Coffee regions

Nicaraguan shade coffee: Finca Esperanza Verde

Last winter, I spent some time in Chiriqui, Panama, and visited some coffee farms. I summarized what I found in my post “What shade coffee looks like.”

I’ve just returned from Nicaragua, where I spent a week at Finca Esperanza Verde doing bird and insect surveys, and especially bird banding. FEV is located near San Ramon in the central highlands of Nicaragua’s Matagalpa department. It consists of about 106 ha, of which 10 are in active coffee production; a handful cover the organic garden, small coffee washing facility, and eco-lodge; and the rest are in native forest, forest restoration, and fallow shade coffee.

We were participating in the fifth year of a banding project initiated by the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, and the research was done entirely in the coffee production area, shown above.

In the shade continuum from rustic to shaded monoculture described in my introductory post “What is shade-grown coffee,” the production areas I saw fell into the highly desirable traditional polyculture category. Recall that one reason certifying shade coffee can be so complex is that coffee is often grown in a matrix of different crops and land uses and varying levels of shade management depending on location within a farm.  Yet every area I visited at FEV had the same lush growth and diverse shade.

FEV is certified organic, and is being actively courted by Rainforest Alliance for certification and use as a model farm. I believe FEV also qualifies for Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certification, and that is being looked into as well. More on that in a future post.

Leaves from the shade trees provide a thick, natural mulch for the coffee, and help curtail soil erosion and moisture loss while offering nutrients.

Even more so than the areas we visited in Panama, Finca Esperanza Verde and other shade coffee farms are critical to birds and other wildlife in Nicaragua. We were stunned at the deforestation. It’s not due to human development, but to agriculture (mostly non-commercial) and (especially) cattle grazing. Shade coffee farms appeared to be one of the only land uses that preserved a lot of native trees.

During our brief stay, we counted well over 100 bird species, including nearly two dozen species of migratory songbirds that breed in North America. Over 30 species of migrant songbirds have been recorded at the finca, and the overall bird list is approaching 300 species. We observed or banded several species new to the finca ourselves.

You can read more about the migratory bird species we encountered at the Rouge River Bird Observatory’s blog Net Results. I thought I would cover some of the resident species here, focusing on a few of the species that we banded. Bird banding is an excellent complement to bird surveys — some of the most common bird species we saw were rarely captured, and we rarely observed many of the species we captured.

Crimson-collared Tanagers (Ramphocelus sanguinolentus) favor areas of dense shrubs in second growth, but will also come to trays of fruit placed at feeding stations.

White-breasted Wood-wren (Henicorhina leucosticta) is a forest species that favors dense tangles, especially around fallen trees.

Cocoa Woodcreeper (Xiphorhynchus susurrans) prefers gallery forest and older second growth, and forages on large trees by probing the bark, epiphytes, mossy clumps, and vines — which wouldn’t be left on trees in intensively managed coffee farms.

I was happy to band several Black-headed Nightingale-Thrushes (Catharus mexicanus), since they are closely related to the species that I research at home. These shy, elusive birds prefer thick cover and forage mostly near the ground or in the leaf litter, conditions they would not find on a sun coffee farm.

Not only is this farm great for biodiversity, it produces fantastic coffee. It placed 10th in the 2007 Nicaraguan Cup of Excellence. Coffee from Finca Esperanza Verde is sold exclusively to Counter Culture Coffee, where it is the main component of their Cafe San Ramon.