Is your morning brew friendly to birds? Growing coffee, one of
the world's most popular beverages, isn't always easy on wildlife
and the environment. How the coffee plants are grown—whether
under a bird-friendly canopy of trees or in modern monocultures
stripped of large trees—makes all the difference.
As coffee producers have adopted modern tree-sparse coffee cultivation
methods in the last few decades, songbirds have suffered, particularly
in Latin America, where many songbirds migrate seasonally and depend
on coffee plantations for habitat. But a surge in the popularity
of organic and shade-grown coffee could help preserve some of the
benefits of traditional bird-friendly coffee cultivation and highlight
the role of consumers in driving—or reversing—environmental damage.
In effect, coffee drinkers can have their beans and biodiversity,
too.
A trend toward bird-friendly coffee could also benefit small farmers,
who may get higher prices for their beans and healthier working
conditions by continuing their traditional low-impact growing methods.
Coffee Context: The Ubiquitous Bean
After oil, coffee is the highest-valued (legal) commodity traded
from the developing world, with world coffee exports valued at $11.2
billion in 1999 (FAO 2001). In many developing countries, coffee
beans are the primary export and a significant source of employment.
Worldwide, 20-25 million people—most of them small farmers—depend
on income from coffee crops (IIED 1997:36).
Nowhere is coffee more important than in Latin America, where farmers
raise more than half of the world's coffee—some 4.2 billion
kg out of the total 7.3 billion kg harvest in 2001 (FAO 2001) (see
figure 1). For well over a century, coffee has been a major export
from Latin America, shaping both the economy and the natural landscape
of the region. In the past, coffee has represented as much as one-third
of export earnings in several Latin American countries, and it remains
a vital element of the agricultural economy today (Rice and Ward
1996:41). Coffee is also an important crop in a variety of Asian
and African nations, such as Viet Nam, Indonesia, Côte d'Ivoire,
and India (FAO 2001).
Although developing nations produce most of the world's coffee,
it is coffee drinkers in developed nations that generally consume
it. The United States and Western Europe together import three out
of every four bags of coffee produced in the world (FAO 2001). The
United States alone imports an average of 20 percent of the world's
crop, making it the biggest national coffee consumer (FAO 2001).
Overall coffee production has increased almost fourfold since 1950
(FAO in Rice and Ward 1996; FAO 2001). However, growth in demand
for specialty coffees such as gourmet blends, flavored coffees,
and organically grown coffee is even more impressive, particularly
in the last few years. In the United States specialty coffees accounted
for $5.6 billion of the nation's $17.9 billion coffee market in
1998 (Bachman 2001).
Shade vs. Sun Coffee
New consumer trends in coffee drinking are not the only change in
the global coffee business. In a bid to modernize, the coffee industry
in Latin America has shifted from its traditional reliance on small
coffee producers growing their coffee plants in fairly low-density,
diversified plots to industrial cultivation on larger plantations.
Much of this shift has been promoted and subsidized by government
and international aid organizations as a way of raising the coffee
sector's productivity and promoting rural development. However,
as with other agricultural modernization efforts, the changes in
coffee production have broad environmental and social repercussions.
Traditionally, coffee has been grown within a mixed shade cover
of fruit trees and other hardwood species, which together form a
forest-like agroecosystem. Such "shade" coffee plantations—which
are, more often than not, small farms—aid in soil protection
and provide a rich habitat particularly valuable to migratory birds,
many of them songbirds (SMBC 2001:slide 24). Researchers in Mexico
and other Latin American countries have found that traditionally
managed coffee farms support at least 180 species of birds, a number
exceeded only in undisturbed tropical forests (Greenberg 1994:24).
Besides coffee, these typical mixed plantations also provide fruit,
firewood, timber, and other products that can be used directly or
sold for cash. Studies in Guatemala and Peru suggest that these
non-coffee products can provide as much as 25 percent of the total
value of products from a shade coffee farm (Rice 2001b). Such diverse
crops and alternative sources of income can be especially important
to the many small coffee farmers living at or below the poverty
level (Greenberg 1994:24).
In the past 30 years, coffee farmers have increasingly converted
to more intensive systems, involving high-yielding coffee varieties
grown with no shade and high applications of chemical fertilizers
and pesticides. Some 30-40 percent of the coffee planted in Colombia,
Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean has been converted to
this so-called "sun coffee" (Rice 2001a; Rice and Ward 1996:12).
While planting sun coffee has increased short-term production, it
has involved some significant environmental trade-offs. For one,
these more intensive plantings are associated with higher rates
of soil erosion and greater water pollution from chemical runoff.
More significantly, the conversion to industrial coffee production
systems may have devastating consequences for migratory bird populations
and other species. Globally, the world's 11 million hectares of
coffee plantations play an important ecological role (SMBC 2001:slide
2). This is especially true in Central America, Colombia, and Peru,
where many migratory routes converge and natural forests have shrunk
to small islands, making coffee plantations all the more crucial
as habitat. Indeed, in many parts of Central America, shade coffee
plantations account for the bulk of the remaining forest. In El
Salvador, for instance, they make up 60 percent of the nation's
total forest area and serve as sanctuaries for the more than 520
bird species that migrate through the area (Itzalco Premium 2001;
Rice and Ward 1996:1). In effect, conversion to sun coffee represents
a form of deforestation, with consequent effects on species diversity.
Bird surveys comparing sun coffee plantations to traditional shade
coffee plantations tell us those effects are already significant.
Studies in Colombia and Mexico show that sun coffee plantations
support 90 percent fewer bird species than traditional shaded coffee
plantations (Rice and Ward 1994:17 citing SMBC 1994). The danger
this represents to migratory birds is reflected in the fate of the
Baltimore Oriole, a songbird that favors shade coffee plantations
in Mexico and Central America. The oriole's population has declined
significantly as the shade coffee plantations along the oriole's
route have been progressively converted to sun coffee (SMBC 2001:slide
25).
There are also human costs to sun coffee conversion. Although some
farmers and large producers may benefit, especially when coffee
prices are high, many small farmers may suffer with the conversion
to sun coffee, because conversion involves considerable use of harmful
pesticides under conditions that can lead to unhealthy exposures
for farm workers. Pesticide levels in the blood of many coffee plantation
workers have been shown to be high (Agudelo 2001). Loss of the non-coffee
products that shade plantations produce can also represent economic
setbacks, as farmers become more dependent on the notoriously volatile
coffee market as their sole income source.
Friendly Beans, Fair Beans
Countering this trend toward sun coffee are small but encouraging
signs of growing consumer interest in sustainably grown coffee,
produced under conditions that are better both for the environment
and for small farmers. Sales of certified organic coffee beans,
which generally come from coffee plants grown under more traditional
shaded conditions, are currently growing faster than any other type
of specialty coffee. In the United States, they now represent sales
of almost 2 percent of the more than $5 billion specialty coffee
market (Raynolds 2000:304; Bachman 1999). In fact, organic coffee
is the world's most well-established organic export crop, with yearly
shipments of over 100 thousand metric tons (Raynolds 2000:302).
Mexico is the largest supplier of organic coffee, with Peru, Indonesia,
and Ecuador following as pioneers in the field (Raynolds 2000:302).
Certified organic coffee beans can sell for as much as 60 percent
more than standard gourmet beans, and so can translate into higher
returns for growers (Lafaye 2001; Rice 2001 (A OR B?)). In addition,
some coffee producers are finding that organic practices can extend
the productive life of their land relative to conventional chemical-intensive
cultivation (Lafaye 2001).
However, the cost associated with the certification process itself
is high-several hundred dollars or more—taking it out of the
reach of many small producers (Rice 2001b; Raynolds 2000:302). Also,
the transition from conventional to organic coffee takes 3 to 4
years, demands more hand labor, and requires investments in new
cultivation techniques and fertilization methods. Although these
investments may pay off in the long run, the transition to certified
organic production can lead to economic hardship in the short term.
Together, these factors form a significant obstacle to the quick
adoption of organic methods and call into question how fast and
how far the transition to organic coffee-growing methods will proceed.
Beyond growth in the sales of organic and shade-grown coffee beans,
another trend influencing the impacts of coffee production is the
development of the "fair trade" movement over the last decade. The
fair trade movement's goal is to achieve a fair price paid to small
growers for their coffee, which is distributed through small, democratically
run cooperatives that bypass the middlemen and speculators who dominate
the coffee market. The difference in earnings is small but significant:
fair trade coffee growers are usually guaranteed $0.10 per kilogram
above the world price (Raynolds 2000:301, 304). The movement's explicit
social goals of supporting small farmers and sharing profits equitably
are used as the main commercial selling point for fair trade coffee.
Fair trade cooperatives do not explicitly require their members
to raise shade coffee, but they encourage sustainable production
methods and organic methods as well. For example, Coocafé,
a fair trade cooperative in Costa Rica that currently produces about
3 percent of the country's coffee crop, offers its members financial
and technical assistance to ease the transition into organic production
(Lafaye 2001). Coocafe's emphasis on the benefits of sustainable
production is part of a long-term economic and marketing strategy
based on the financial, environmental, and health and safety considerations
of its members.
Fair trade coffee has been most successful in Europe where it was
introduced over a decade ago and now holds more than 3 percent of
the coffee market. Penetration into large supermarkets has brought
fair trade coffee into mainstream distribution, particularly in
Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (EFTA
2001:16, 71-73) (see figure 2). For example, fair trade coffee is
available in 90 percent of supermarkets in the United Kingdom (IIED
1997:36). The fair trade movement has also started to take root
in the United States in the last few years.
Farmers producing for both fair trade and the organic coffee markets
receive not only higher prices for their coffee, but also benefit
from a more secure—and growing—market. Meanwhile, sip by
sip, consumers make small investments in preserving biodiversity and
maintaining the environmental integrity of coffee plantations. Coocafe's
bet, and the bet of organic and shade coffee producers throughout
Latin America, is that today's growth in sales of organic and fair
trade coffee signals a growing belief by consumers that coffee, birds,
and better treatment for farmers can all fit nicely in a single cup. |