Tag: best1 Page 3 of 4

Who evaluates non-certified shade coffee? Part 2

By

On March 26, 2006

In Background information, Certifications

In Part 1 of “Who evaluates non-certified shade coffee?” I pointed out that roasters, importers, and retailers of non-certified shade coffee have assorted means of “verifying” that coffee is shade-grown.  These are usually described as farm visits by roasters, importers, brokers, or independent evaluators.  I pointed out that there isn’t much evidence that these evaluators have experience in actually assessing biodiversity, from a scientific viewpoint.

Why is this important? Can people without a biology background make sound assessments of coffee plantations?

The point of encouraging shade management on farms is not just shade, but functioning ecosystems that are as close as is practical to intact forest.  Looking at a farm and seeing lots of birds and trees does not address ecosystem functioning or biodiversity, the real goals of the shade coffee movement.

Agricultural areas share some of the same biological characteristics of urban areas. They are simplified, homogenized “ecosystems” populated with suites of similar, adaptable organisms.  One might find the same number of species of birds (or trees, or ants, or mammals) in a suburban park and an intact forest, and numerically these two plots would have the same species richness or “biodiversity.”

But there is a huge difference in a park in which the bird species are Rock Pigeon, House Sparrow, European Starling, American Robin, and Northern Cardinal and one which has Scarlet Tanager, Acadian Flycatcher, Red-eyed Vireo, Ovenbird, and Black-and-white Warbler.  The latter group is a suite of forest specialists, which would occur at low abundance. In the first group, we have a suite of common generalists. An inexperienced observer might conclude since each plot has 5 species, they are “equal.” In fact, the  person might conclude that the first plot is “better” because of the large number of starlings and House Sparrows!

Biologists take into consideration more than numbers when defining biodiversity, including relative abundance (which takes rareness into account), genetic diversity, the diversity of habitat types within the landscape, and ecosystem health and functioning.

In order to accurately assess the value of a coffee plantation to biodiversity, if that is truly our goal, an evaluator, at a minimum, must be able to be able to identify many of the major tree and bird species of a region, as well as understand their roles in the local ecosystem (is this bird common or rare? does it represent a forest specialist or a generalist? does this tree provide fruit, pollen, or nesting sites?).

So, it’s not enough to recognize trees and birds.  One has to have some sort of idea of what to look for. It would be great if there were a group of independent biologists who were experienced with the differences in regional biodiversity who could go around to farms and assess the growing practices for their value to biodiversity.

Until that happens, consumers must rely on some background information to try to decide which coffees, advertised as shade grown but not certified, might be best for biodiversity.  This information can include:

  • Knowledge of regional growing practices.  Certain countries and regions grow mostly shade coffee.  I’ll be posting information on growing practices in various regions in the future.
  • Knowledge of which farms and cooperatives have been certified.  If these beans are used in blends with beans from non-certified sources, they cannot be labeled certified, as far as I know.  I’ll be posting lists of certified farms and coops, which may be listed as sources by roasters.
  • Knowledge of botanical varieties.  There are two main coffee species, known commonly as arabica and robusta, and robusta is usually grown in the sun.  But even among arabicas, there are varieties that are less sun-tolerant.  I’ll be posting about the characteristics of the botanical types, which are sometimes mentioned by growers.

Needless to say, I’d always recommend buying from roasters that have close relationships with growers; who favor small farms; whose selections are mainly organic (which are usually shade grown, at least to some degree); and who have made an effort to support sustainability via their business practices and associations.

Photo of a coffee farmer in Colombia by Ashley Aull, under a Creative Commons license.

Who evaluates non-certified shade coffee? Part 1

By

On March 22, 2006

In Background information, Certifications

There are pros and cons to the shade certification process, including costs to farmers, and problems with applying one-size-fits-all biodiversity criteria to different regions.

Therefore, some farms may meet or exceed certification criteria — and be excellent sanctuaries for biodiversity — yet not be shade certified.

Coffees from these sources may be labeled by roasters as “shade grown.”  Unfortunately, so are some coffees that are grown under conditions that might not be best for biodiversity, such as shaded monoculture, or conceivably even in full sun, if a retailer or distributor were particularly, um, “shady.”

Who decides whether a coffee can be labeled “shade grown”?  According to an article at Virtual Coffee,

Many importers, roasters and retailers add to the confusion by selling “verified shade” coffee, which comes from plantations that have not been certified by [Rainforest Alliance] or [Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center] but have been visited by someone—often an importer—who, without scientific guidelines, checks to make sure shade trees are present on the farms.

A white paper on sustainable coffee [1] noted:

Most shade coffee sales are coming from uncertified shade coffee introduced by roasters moving..to capture market opportunity…(e.g., Trader Joe’s, Millstone). … Many of these roasters claim to have visited the farms themselves and thereby justify “self-certifying” their shade coffees. …[T]he rapid proliferation of uncertified shade coffee brands is fueling concerns across the industry regarding free-riding and even fraud.

I’ve seen various explanations on who determines whether a coffee is “shade grown.” The Thanksgiving Coffee web site contains this note:

“Thanksgiving Coffee uses verified shade grown coffee. This means that its CEO, Paul Katzeff, or the importer has personally inspected the farm to insure that the plants are properly grown in the shade.”

Several roasters told me that they determine conditions primarily through farm visitation, consulting another roaster, or relying on the word of an importer. Others say they use independent auditors, but I have not yet found out who these auditors are, their training, or their criteria.

Many roasters sport the label of the Northwest Shade Coffee Campaign, but it is a consumer-education organization, not a certifier.  NSCC goes so far as to say on its web site, regarding shade certification, that

“Brokers who actually visit the farms and are trusted in the coffee industry are more reliable than any form of certification.”

Really? I don’t know how many, if any, of these evaluators have experience in actually assessing biodiversity, from a scientific viewpoint. Is this really important? Can people without a biology background make sound assessments of coffee plantations?  I’ll address these questions in Part 2.

[1] Rice, P. and J. McLean. 1999. Sustainable Coffee at the Crossroads. Consumer’s Choice Council.

What is shade-grown coffee?

By

On February 6, 2006

In Background information, Coffee and the environment

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

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

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

Categorizing types and levels of shade

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

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

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

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

Benefits of growing coffee in the shade

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

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

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

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

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

The problems with sun coffee

By

On February 5, 2006

In Background information, Coffee and the environment, Corporate coffee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3 of 4

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén