78 Search results

For the term "rust".

Research on coffee growing

Coffee berry borer update

The coffee berry borer (CBB, Hypothenemus hampei) is one of the most serious pests of coffee. The larvae of this beetle, which is native to Africa, live and feed exclusively on coffee beans. It has spread to coffee farms across the world and despite strict monitoring and prevention measures, showed up in Hawaii a decade ago. It has since island-hopped, most recently being found on Kauai. (Coffee rust, another serious threat to coffee, has also just been found in Hawaii.)

Because it lives inside the coffee cherry and bean, detection and particularly control can be challenging. Due to intense interest in the effects of shade/sun management, biological control (including by birds), and climate change impacts on this insect, I have published a number of posts about it. Although for many years I added CBB research to my coffee bibliography, but it became rather overwhelming and it goes only into early 2016. In 2015, the Journal of Insect Science published a more comprehensive literature review on CBB, which is open access. Google Scholar can provide links to peer-reviewed papers published since that time.

Here are my other previous posts on CBB:

Coffee news and miscellany

Sips

I’ve been keeping up with many important developments in the world of sustainable coffee. Here are the ones you should be reading:

Regarding coffee certifications:

Regarding shade-grown coffee in particular:

Regarding the dangers of cheap coffee and the current frightening drop in the price of commodity coffee:

We’ve been here before and the results are catastrophic for farmers and have a ripple effect throughout economies. Read my piece about corporate coffee for an overview.

And also:

Certifications / Rainforest Alliance

The new Rainforest Alliance shade requirements

[Update: Newest 2020 standard discussed here.]

[This post also appears at Daily Coffee News]

After many months, the latest revision to Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN) standard, which provides the requirements for Rainforest Alliance certification, have been approved. The 2017 standard will be used for audits beginning in July 2017.

The 2017 standard covers a lot of ground. In addition to various environmental topics, it also addresses management, social, and livelihood aspects (wages, worker rights, etc.). As the standard has gone through periodic updates, it has refined not only individual criterion, but also tweaked the overarching structure and scoring protocols.

My focus here is on the ”shade criteria.” These requirements are what many people have in mind when they are looking for ”shade coffee” that is eco-friendly and provides habitat for birds and other biodiversity.

Background

The SAN criteria regarding shade for coffee farms has slowly changed in the past decade. A full explanation of these changes is provided in the post The (De)evolution of Rainforest Alliance shade criteria. That post provides a timeline and interpretation of the modifications to the shade criteria. It also introduces and explains the changes proposed for the 2017 standard. A follow-up post (Rainforest Alliance drastically revises shade requirement) describes a revised interim draft of the standard, and a final update briefly outlined the public comments and SAN’s response.

For the most concise before-and-after comparison of the changes in the shade requirements for Rainforest Alliance certification, I provide below the criterion for coffee from the 2005 SAN standard. Note that while this was not a critical (required) criterion, it was worded so that certain conditions were mandatory for initial certification; my emphasis highlights these provisions.

Farms located in areas where the original natural vegetative cover is forest must establish and maintain, as part of the conservation program, permanent shade distributed homogenously throughout the plantations; the shade must meet the following requirements:

a. A minimum of 70 individual trees per hectare that must include at least 12 native species per hectare.

b. A shade density of at least 40% at all times.

c. The tree crowns must comprise at least two strata or stories.

A farm without shade can be certified once it has a shade establishment or expansion plan and shade established in at least 25% of the production area. Shade must be established in the remaining 75% of the production area within five years. Farms in areas where the original natural vegetation is not forest must dedicate at least 30% of the farm area for conservation or recovery of the area’s typical ecosystems. These farms can be certified once they have a plan to establishment or recover natural vegetation within ten years. Vegetation must be re-established or recovered in an equivalent of 10% of the total farm area (one-third of the 30%) during the first three years of the plan.

The 2017 standard

The standard lists dozens of critera, broken into four tiers. “Critical” criteria are mandatory. The others are labeled Level C (“good”), B (“better”), or A (“best”) representing increasing levels of sustainablity performance. Farms can be initially certified by meeting all critical criteria plus  50% of the Level C/good criteria. To remain certified, farms have to comply with increasingly higher criteria. By the sixth year of certification, farms must meet all critical criteria, plus 90% of Level C criteria, 90% of Level B criteria, and 50% of Level A criteria.

The standard also has a section of Terms and Definitions. It includes the term “SAN canopy cover and species diversity parameters.” For coffee farms, the definition states there must be 40% minimum canopy cover and a minimum 12 native tree species per hectare. The definition also states that canopy cover is measured when foliage is most dense.

The 2017 “shade” criterion

The criterion covering shade in the 2017 SAN standard is in the topic area “Native Vegetation.”  There are no critical criteria (required for initial certification) in this topic area.

The specific criterion comparable to the 2005 shade criterion is a Level A criterion. It reads as follows (emphasis on section that applies to coffee):

Farms with shade-tolerant crops have at least 15% total native vegetation coverage across the farm or groups of farms or a shade canopy fulfilling the SAN canopy cover and species diversity parameters. Farms or groups of farms with non shade-tolerant crops have at least 10% total native vegetation coverage across the farm or groups of farms.

What this means

Specifically for habitat

As noted, this new criterion is Level A — the highest performance level. However, it is less stringent and not as encompassing of ecological requirements in previous standards.

This new criterion does not address shade density/canopy density. It targets 15% native vegetation cover. Ecologically speaking, these terms represent vegetation structure with very different ramifications for habitat quality. Read why this is important here.

Although there is mention of the minimum 40% canopy cover and 12 native tree species per hectare in the criterion, it states that farms can meet those parameters OR have 15% native vegetation cover.

There is no requirement for vegetation to be contiguous (e.g., not in small fragments that have less value to biodiversity), to be part of the coffee production area, or even to be on each individual farm in a group such as a cooperative.

There are no strata requirements. These strata are the various ”layers” of trees, seen in the shade diagram here. This type of structure is critical to biodiversity in ecosystems; the more the better.

In practical terms

In general, a product certified under this system represents a product somewhere along the path to sustainability, not a product that has necessarily acheived some specific benchmark. Specifically, as a Level A criterion, the 15% native vegetation cover criterion is not required until the sixth year after initial certification, perhaps longer if other Level A criteria make up the 50% that are needed by that time. Contrast with Smithsonian Bird-Friendly standards, which not only encompass shade canopy density, strata, and organic certification criteria — but all of must be met to certify.

In other words, a coffee farm with less than 15% native vegetation cover could be Rainforest Alliance certified and remain so for years as long as they had a management plan to progressively increase this amount. Levels greater than 15% are not required at any point.

Many Rainforest Alliance certified farms may, in fact, have ecologically-significant shade/canopy density and meet many other biodiversity-enhancing measures. And rarms that have existing agroforestry shade cover are required to retain this shade cover. The problem is that there is no way for the public to differentiate between these types of farms and those that have yet to achieve even the far less valuable 15% vegetation cover benchmark.

Broader ramifications

This lack of transparency to a consumer seeking out ”shade coffee” or coffee that is grown using field-tested approaches to maximizing the value of agroforestry to biodiversity is, in my opinion, an enormous problem. It has great potential to erode consumer trust. This seems like an especially treacherous road for an organization such as Rainforest Alliance whose stated mission is conserving biodiversity. It may also be a disservice to other certifications. If Rainforest Alliance certification — with a high public profile and reputation for ”saving the rainforest”– does not deliver what consumers thought it did, it may foster distrust in other certifications as well.

The SAN standard overall has committed to encouraging continuous improvement. However, by lowering the bar (again, focusing on ”shade”), it can have the effect of removing some incentives to truly improve habitat. The main drivers for farmers to obtain certification is access to buyers/markets, forming long-term supplier relationships, and thus added income. Low barriers to certification means farmers may reap benefits without having fully met the requirements implied to the consumer by the certification. These low barriers can be especially appealing because the benefits can be realized before full investment in upgrading production have taken place.

Lower entry barriers to the ”shade coffee” market means coffee quality will span a broader spectrum. The lower sunlight levels of a shade canopy result in physiological changes in the coffee cherry, which can translate into higher cup quality. Since taste is probably the ultimate catalyst for a coffee purchase, diluting the ”shade coffee” market with potentially lower quality beans not actually grown under shade may potentially lower market demand for shade coffee.

Finally and perhaps most troubling to me is that this considerable weakening of the shade requirements devalues science-based shade and biodiversity criteria. If low requirements for shade production become mainstreamed and legitimized, and are seen as the true benchmarks for eco-friendly coffee production, habitat quality and biodiversity will suffer.

The Sustainable Agriculture Network and Rainforest Alliance have made, and continue to make, great contributions to the environmental and economic sustainability of many agricultural products and producers. Therefore it is with regret that I report that I feel the changes in the new standard regarding shade criteria have negative effects and, due to lack of transparency, I can no longer recommend Rainforest Alliance certified coffee to consumers specifically seeking “shade grown” coffee.

 

Background information / Research on coffee growing

Coffee growing bibliography update

journalsI have made another periodic update to my coffee bibliography, peer-reviewed papers that deal with various ecological and economic aspects of coffee growing.  Now that the list is over 400 papers, I thought it might be useful to publish a list of the most recent additions when I update the larger list.

Here are the most recent ones. Note that not all are new publications, because when I read new literature, I often find references to older papers I missed. I’ve included the abstracts of papers I found particularly interesting, revealing, or relevant. Warning: long and nerdy!

Barham, B.L., M. Callenes, S. Gitter, J. Lewis and J. Weber. 2011. Fair Trade/Organic coffee, rural livelihoods, and the ”agrarian question”: southern Mexican coffee families in transition. World Development 39: 134—145.

Barham, B.L. and J.G. Weber. 2012. The economic sustainability of certified coffee: recent evidence from Mexico and Peru. World Development 40: 1269—1279.

Consumers increasingly act on preferences for a more just and sustainable world by purchasing certified agricultural products. Using survey data from coffee growers in Mexico and Peru, we explore the economic sustainability of certified coffee, looking at conventional, Fair Trade/organic, and Rainforest Alliance certified growers. The analysis reveals that yields rather than price premiums are most important for increasing net cash returns for coffee growing households. Given the link between net returns and producer participation in certified coffee schemes, the findings suggest that certification norms that permit improving yields are essential for improving grower welfare and attracting and maintaining growers.

De Beenhouwer, M., L. Geeraert, J. Mertens, M. Van Geel, R. AcuÁ±a Castillo, K. Vanderhaegen and O. Honnay. 2016. Biodiversity and carbon storage co-benefits of coffee agroforestry across a gradient of increasing management intensity in the SW Ethiopian highlands. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 222: 193—199.

Bravo-Monroy, L., S.G. Potts and J. Tzanopoulos. 2016. Drivers influencing farmer decisions for adopting organic or conventional coffee management practices. Food Policy 58: 49—61.

Colombia is one of the world’s most important producers of Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica), whose coffee-growing zone coincides with a biogeographic hotspot of biodiversity. Given that coffee agroecosystems are grown by both organic and conventional schemes of management in Santander, a region which produces coffees with specialist distinctive flavours, this study aims to better understand the factors that influence the adoption of these different schemes of management. A combination of ethnographic techniques and quantitative methods were used to examine the predominant drivers of adoption and revealed farmer perceptions associated with coffee farming, and the complexity of interacting factors, that surround their decision making. The results of qualitative analysis suggests that social identity of coffee growers, the existence of farming spaces (lived, perceived, rationalised), the influence of coffee institutions, attitudes about management practices, and social relations of production, all play an important role in the process of decision making. In quantitative terms, we identified 18 socioeconomic drivers, some with interacting effects that had significant influence on the decision to adopt either organic or conventional practices. In particular, at local scale, important factors were technology availability, the type of landowner, formal education of farmers, the role of institutions, membership of community organisations, farm size, coffee productivity and the number of coffee plots per farm. Likewise, economic drivers, such as crop profitability, determined how farmers are involved in trade and market networks at broad regional, national, and international spatial scales. By adopting a more integrated approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methodologies, we characterised the complexity of factors that influencing adoption of coffee management schemes and show that not only financial factors but also a variety of other social factors drive farmer decision making. Identifying the most influential behavioural drivers provides policy with opportunities to better support farmer livelihoods.

Chaves, B. and J. Riley. 2001. Determination of factors influencing integrated pest management adoption in coffee berry borer in Colombian farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 87: 159—177.

Faure, G., J.-F. Le Coq, I. Vagneron, H. HocdÁ©, G.S. MuÁ±oz and M. Kessari. 2012. Strategies of coffee producers’ organizations in Costa Rica toward environmental and social certification processes. Cahiers Agricultures 21: 162—168.

GuzmÁ¡n, A., A. Link, J.A. Castillo and J.E. Botero. 2016. Agroecosystems and primate conservation: Shade coffee as potential habitat for the conservation of Andean night monkeys in the northern Andes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 215: 57—67.

Haggar, J., M. Barrios, M. BolaÁ±os, M. Merlo, P. Moraga, R. Munguia, et al. 2011. Coffee agroecosystem performance under full sun, shade, conventional and organic management regimes in Central America. Agroforestry Systems 82: 285—301.

Changes in coffee economics are leading producers to reduce agrochemical use and increase the use of shade. Research is needed on how to balance the competition from shade trees with the provision of ecological services to the coffee. In 2000, long-term coffee experiments were established in Costa Rica and Nicaragua to compare coffee agroecosystem performance under full sun, legume and non-legume shade types, and intensive and moderate conventional and organic inputs. Coffee yield from intensive organic production was not significantly different from intensive conventional in Nicaragua, but in Costa Rica it was lower during three of the six harvests. Full sun coffee production over 6 years was greater than shaded coffee in Costa Rica (61.8 vs. 44.7 t ha−1, P = 0.0002). In Nicaragua, full sun coffee production over 5 years (32.1 t ha−1) was equal to coffee with shade that included Tabebuia rosea (Bertol.) DC., (27—30 t ha−1) and both were more productive (P = 0.03) than coffee shaded with Inga laurina (Sw.) Willd. (21.6 t ha−1). Moderate input organic production was significantly lower than other managements under all shade types, except in the presence of Erythrina poepiggina (Walp.) O.F. Cook. Inga and Erythrina had greater basal area and nutrient recycling from prunings than other shade species. Intensive organic production increased soil pH and P, and had higher K compared to moderate conventional. Although legume shade trees potentially provide ecological services to associated coffee, this depends on management of the competition from those same trees.

Hardt, E., E. Borgomeo, R.F. dos Santos, L.F.G. Pinto, J.P.P. Metzger and G. Sparovek. 2015. Does certification improve biodiversity conservation in Brazilian coffee farms? Forest Ecology and Management 357: 181 — 194.

Socio-environmental certification uses evaluation criteria to promote the conservation of the natural environment and landscape connectivity, with the aim of constructing agricultural landscapes more suitable for biodiversity conservation. To test this, we examine whether socio-environmental certification of Brazilian coffee farms contributes to local conservation, particularly in terms of deforestation control, habitat protection and regeneration, and connectivity. The analysis compared changes in landscape structure and connectivity in certified farms before (1995—2002) and after nine years from the beginning of the certification process (2002—2011), using as a reference the surrounding landscape and a control group of non-certified farms. To quantify changes in landscape connectivity we used probabilistic indices of functional connectivity based on graph theory, and two species of terrestrial mammals with contrasting dispersal capacities and habitat requirements: Priodontes maximus (giant armadillo) and Marmosops incanus (gray slender mouse opossum). Our results show that changes in the last decade have been subtle, but that certified farms differ from surrounding areas for the greater deforestation control and habitat availability for both land cover types, and for the greater connectivity for P. maximus. The difference between certified and non-certified farms is not clear-cut, however, we have evidence that the certified farms contributed more than the surrounding areas to the conservation of the studied species when the balance of gains and losses of connectivity is considered. The subtle differences in temporal changes and groups might be partially explained by the fact that certified farms already had a different conservation profile at the beginning of the certification process. Despite the limitations in the sampling size (small number) and time scale (only nine years after certification) which may hinders the detection of certification effects, our findings indicate that certification was important in controlling deforestation and the conversion of new natural areas to agricultural lands.

de JesÁºs-Crespo, R., D. Newsom, E.G. King and C. Pringle. 2016. Shade tree cover criteria for non-point source pollution control in the Rainforest Alliance coffee certification program: A snapshot assessment of Costa Rica’s TarrazÁº coffee region. Ecological Indicators 66: 47—54.

Management of non-point source pollution is of great importance in the context of coffee agriculture, as this land use often coincides with headwater streams that influence water quality at the basin scale. Sustainability certification programs, such as the Rainforest Alliance (RA), provide management guidelines that promote non-point source pollution control in coffee. One of these practices is the maintenance of shade trees within farms, required by RA at a minimum of 40% shade tree cover. Here we assess the effectiveness of this practice in TarrazÁº, a high elevation coffee growing region in Costa Rica. We monitored indicators of non-point source pollution in streams with both high and low shade tree cover. Streams with High Shade Tree Cover (HSTC, N = 5 subwatersheds) had 35—55% cover, approximating or exceeding the RA recommendation of at least 40%; and streams with Low Shade Tree Cover (LSTC, N = 5 subwatersheds), had 18—31% cover. We monitored the ten study streams during the dry (April & December), transition (July), and peak (October) rainfall seasons of 2013, and compared responses using t-tests. We found support for the effectiveness of shade tree cover in controlling non-point source pollution: HSTC streams had significantly (p = 0.042) lower mean annual turbidity and significantly (p = 0.004) lower turbidity during the transition season. HSTC streams also had significantly (p = 0.05) lower conductivity values during the transition period, although this trend was weaker through the year. Subwatersheds with HSTC streams were characterized by a higher percentage of RA-certified coffee than LSTC streams. Our study provides evidence of the benefits of RA shade tree cover criteria for managing water quality within high elevation tropical agro-ecosystems, especially if implemented at the watershed scale. These results contribute to our understanding of the role of agroforestry certification on tropical ecosystem conservation, and are the first account of the effectiveness of a specific coffee certification guideline on non-point source pollution control.

Mansingh, G., H. Reichgelt and K.-M. Bryson. 2007. CPEST: An expert system for the management of pests and diseases in the Jamaican coffee industry. Expert Systems with Applications 32: 184—192.

MarÁ­n, L., S.M. Philpott, A. De la Mora, G. Ibarra NÁºÁ±ez, S. Tryban and I. Perfecto. 2016. Response of ground spiders to local and landscape factors in a Mexican coffee landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 222: 80—92.

MariÁ±o, Y.A., M.-E. PÁ©rez, F. Gallardo, M. Trifilio, M. Cruz and P. Bayman. 2016. Sun vs. shade affects infestation, total population and sex ratio of the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) in Puerto Rico. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 222: 258—266.

McCook, S. and J. Vandermeer. 2015. The big rust and the Red Queen: long-term perspectives on coffee rust research. Phytopathology: PHYTO—04—15—0085—RVW.

Milligan, M.C., M.D. Johnson, M. Garfinkel, C.J. Smith and P. Njoroge. 2016. Quantifying pest control services by birds and ants in Kenyan coffee farms. Biological Conservation 194: 58—65.

Ecosystem services, such as pest control and pollination, are critical benefits of biodiversity important for agricultural production. Predators, including insectivorous birds and ants, can provide important biological controls in agroecosystems, boosting crop yield and offsetting the need for expensive inputs such as pesticides. Local habitat and landscape characteristics can affect the delivery of ecosystem services, thereby influencing optimal land allocation for crop production and biodiversity. In order to better understand the relationship between ecosystem services and the surrounding habitat, we conducted a sentinel pest experiment to investigate predation levels in response to a novel pest on coffee farms in central Kenya. The frequency of predation decreased significantly with increasing distance from adjacent forest fragments and was correlated with bird species richness. Predation was also significantly higher on shade compared to sun coffee farms. We conclude that a land sharing approach, via both the integration of shade trees and the conservation of small forest fragments within or adjacent to a farm, can support increased levels of pest control services provided by birds and ants in Kenyan coffee farms.

Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer and S.M. Philpott. 2014. Complex ecological interactions in the coffee agroecosystem. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 45: 137—158.

Rueda, X. and E.F. Lambin [online]. 2013. Responding to globalization: impacts of certification on Colombian small-scale coffee growers. Ecology and Society 18.

Rueda, X., N.E. Thomas and E.F. Lambin. 2014. Eco-certification and coffee cultivation enhance tree cover and forest connectivity in the Colombian coffee landscapes. Regional Environmental Change 15: 25—33.

Segura, H.R., J.F. Barrera, H. Morales and A. Nazar. 2004. Farmers’ perceptions, knowledge, and management of coffee pests and diseases and their natural enemies in Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Economic Entomology 97: 1491—1499.

Soto-Pinto, L., Y. Romero-Alvarado, J. Caballero-Nieto and G. Segura Warnholtz. 2001. Woody plant diversity and structure of shade-grown-coffee plantations in Northern Chiapas, Mexico. Revista de BiologÁ­a Tropical 49: 977—987.

Valencia, V., S. Naeem, L. GarcÁ­a-Barrios, P. West and E.J. Sterling. 2016. Conservation of tree species of late succession and conservation concern in coffee agroforestry systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 219: 32—41.

Valencia, V., P. West, E.J. Sterling, L. GarcÁ­a-Barrios and S. Naeem. 2015. The use of farmers’ knowledge in coffee agroforestry management: implications for the conservation of tree biodiversity. Ecosphere 6: 1—17.

Weber, J.G. 2011. How much more do growers receive for Fair Trade-organic coffee? Food Policy 36: 678—685.

Wollni, M. and B. BrÁ¼mmer. 2012. Productive efficiency of specialty and conventional coffee farmers in Costa Rica: Accounting for technological heterogeneity and self-selection. Food Policy 37: 67—76.