Post on 21-Jan-2015
description
Shade coffee in East Africa:What’s in it for farmers and biodiversity?
Jean-Marc Boffa
Background: Global coffee sector
• Decline of world prices (25% of 1960 prices in real terms)
• Oversupply and stagnant consumption
• Market deregulation (breakdown of quality control, input systems on credit, coffee quality)
• Trading and roasting segments more concentrated and capture higher proportion of profits
• Farmers get a declining share of coffee market value
• Quality, a secure investment for restoring value
• Growing specialty coffee segment, 17% of volume and 40% of valueof US coffee market
Coffee in East Africa
• Rapid development from 1930s to 1980s (new cultivars, state intervention, abundant land). 24% of African exports in mid 1980s
• Global coffee crisis, liberalization of coffee sector, age and productivity decline of coffee plantations. 11% of African exports in late 1990s
• Coffee >50% of current export earnings in Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Uganda. 30%, 3rd
export crop in Kenya.
• East and Central Africa is 4th largest growing area; estimated 1.2 million farmers and 4 million ha of land
• Growing interest in and development potential of East African coffee renowned for its natural quality
Why an interest in shade coffee?
• Small landholdings, declining soil fertility, labor scarcity, unaffordable inputs. Intensive production models unfit for smallholder systems.
• Need for higher profitability, income stability, lower risk through diversification, environmental friendliness, and enhanced quality for the market.
• Renewed interest on shade systems and their contributions to coffee quality and profitability, environmental sustainability, and diversification.
Outline of presentation
1. Impact of tree shade on coffee production2. Relations between shade and coffee quality3. Potential benefits of shade coffee for smallholders in
East Africa 4. Shade coffee and biodiversity conservation
Not covered are issues of carbon sequestration and water
Coffee’s native habitat
• Naturally found as under/midstorey forest plant• Coffea arabica, understory shrub in
Ethiopian tropical montane forests• 1600-2800m; mean 20ºC; 1600-2000mm
rainfall; • 3-4 month dry cool season• Does not tolerate high temperatures and
humidity
• Coffea canephora, midstorey tree,lowland Congo river basin,
• 0-1200 m altitude, mean 25ºC, rainfall up to over 2000 mm over 9-10 months and high constant air humidity
• Does not well in low temperatures
• Recommended conditions (DaMatta, 2004)
Coffea arabica• 18-21ºC• 1200-1800mm rainfall
Coffea canephora• 22-30ºC• 1200-1800 mm rainfall, > 2000 mm
• >1000 m altitude, deep soils, >2000 mm rainfall, 4-mo. dry season, wind protection (Vaast and Harmand, 2002)
• Divergence on lower range between authors/countries• Frequently grown outside these recommended intervals
Controversy on shade• The use of shade has been questioned and researched since the
beginning of its cultivation.• Initially grown under or close to forest cover. Originally thought
indispensable to coffee growing in mid altitudes in the tropics • Successful fun sun experiments with intensive management followed by
massive promotion programs• Breeding of modern cultivars adapted to sun. 40% of Middle America,
Caribbean and Columbia coffee is in full sun
Optimal conditions• Removal of shade increases coffee yields (several authors)
• 45% artificial shade reduces 3-year cumulative production of fertilized coffee by 18% (Vaast et al, 2006)
• Often decline in coffee quality
Suboptimal conditions (low altitudes, higher temperatures)• 3-year cumulated fertilized coffee yielded 16% and 49% less in full sun
than under Terminalia ivoriensis (dense shade) and Eucalyptus deglupta(light shade) respectively in suboptimal conditions (Vaast et al, 2006)
shade
• Small or no response to fertilizers-> Reduces photosynthesis and
metabolism
• Reduced flower induction• Longer internodes• Lower number of fruiting nodes
• Higher vegetative growth – lower no. of leaves per branch
but – larger leaf area
• Higher leaf to fruit ratio• Longer life span of leaves
High response to fertilizers-> Light is limiting factor
Higher no. of flower buds per nodeHigher no. of coffee nodes per branchReduced branch length
Heat stress of plant and faster leaf senescence and fall
shade
Increased flowering and fruitingSink effectResources going to seeds•Increased fruit drop•Reduced maturation period•Smaller bean size
Reduced shoot elongation and branch weightReduced production potential the following year. Weakened plant and dieback. Biennial /alternate bearing
Lower fruit loadsFewer nodes but higher final berry load per node bec. lower berry dropLonger maturation periodLarger bean size
Balanced of fruit and vegetative outputsReduced variations in alternate bearing
Low optimum high
elevation
yield
Productive soils
unshadedshaded
Low optimum high
elevation
yield
Poor soils
unshaded
shaded
Source: Beer et al., 1998
Fertilized yields 1800-3000 kg/ha Fertilized yields 300-1800 kg/ha
Shade reduces photosynthesis, transpiration, metabolism and growth and therefore, the demand on soil nutrients and so enables crop to be obtained on soils of lower fertility. (Purseglove 1968)
Influence of tree density on yields through underground competition. Optimal densities varies according to site and species.
Impact on pests, diseases and weeds• Varies according to individual organisms and their response to
increased humidity and reduced light under shade
• Lowers diffusion of coffee berry disease by reducing splashing and free water
• More pronounced attacks by coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix). Major reason for the early promotion of tree shade removal
• Reduces defoliation by brown-eye-spot (Cercospora coffeicola)• Higher incidence of the dry season coffee berry borer
(Hypothenemus hampei)
• Stabilize coffee nematodes or increase coffee tolerance to nematode infestation if shade trees are not hosts
• Pest regulation by a range of arthropods as natural enemies of insect coffee pests
• Reduces weed biomass considerably. Aggressive grasses -> broadleaf types. Savings in costs of weeding>tree management costs.
Coffee quality under shade
• Reduction in light exposure and temperature
• Slower and longer berry maturation period
• Better bean filling and higher sucrose accumulation
• Larger bean size. Price determinant at farm gate
Effect of shade on coffee quality chemical and organoleptic characteristics
Authors Avelinoet al 03
Vaast et al 06a
Vaast et al 06b
Muschler 01 Guyot et al 96
Conditions
+
Optimal Suboptimal Suboptimal Optimal
Years 1999 2000 2001 2002 Catimor Caturra
Total acidity +
Caffeine + + + + +
Fat + + + + same
Sucrose - - +
Chlorogenicacids
- - - - +
Trigonelline - - - - -
Body - - - - + + same
Bitterness - - - - -
Astringency - - - - same
Acidity + + + + + same same
Aroma - same same
Preference + + + +
By reducing flowering intensity and productivity, shade consistently leads to enhanced beverage quality in both favorable and unfavorable ecological conditions
Potential benefits for East African smallholder farmers
Coffee• Potential increase in coffee yields, generally in
suboptimal conditions• Better quality coffee• Reduced damage by hail and rain storms• Reduced occurrence of some pests and diseases • Longevity of coffee plants reduces need to replant
Soils• Provision of soil mulch (moisture and fertility, weed
suppression)• Aeration and drainage of soil for intercrops• Reduced soil erosion on slopes• Enhanced soil fertility (recycling of deep nutrients
and nitrogen fixation)
Potential benefits for East African smallholder farmers
Management• Reduced weeding costs • If compared to full sun systems, can it reduce labor costs?• More efficient use of labor and machinery with more
constant interannual production for harvesting and processing.
• More constant volume and quality of coffee supplies to buyers
Diversification in farm production• Alternate income and security from diversity of marketable
products (timber, fruits, fodder, fiber, etc). – Fruit and timber=60% and 3% of farm income in
Venezuela (Escalante et al., 87)– Shade tree products=28% and 19% of coffee income in
Peru and Guatemala (Somarriba et al., 04)– 42% farmers market timber and fuelwood products in E.
Mt Kenya; $35 per year (Holding et al, 06)• Service wood and other non necessarily marketed products
+ food crops
Some disadvantages of shade coffee
• Damage by fallen branches to the coffee crop• Additional labor for tree pruning• Mechanization hampered by trees• Implementation of soil erosion measures rendered
difficult by trees• Poor shade adaptation of newly bred cultivars• Coffee-tree competition• Increased occurrence of specific pests and diseases with
increased humidity• Allelopathy• Trees providing alternate hosts for coffee pests and
diseases• Erosion, crop damage and reduced water absorption in
soil by leaf drip damage
Central Province of Kenya
Implications for East Africa
• Most studies originate from C. and S. America. Limited data on condition of coffee system
• Characterization and mapping of shade coffee systems in East Africa.
• Comparative coffee shade versus sun studies to better define the potential of shade in East Africa
• What areas have optimal and sub-optimal conditions in East Africa?
• Where and how significant is impact of shade on production and quality?
• How much shade? Is it sufficient to make a difference?
• Large contribution of smallholder farming, that includes a diverse tree cover by default. Document, validate, refine recommendation domains
• Varies by country
Estimates
• Kenya: 50% large full sun industrial plantations-50% smallholder farms
• Rwanda: Heavy traditional promotion of coffee growing in full sun (ACDI-VOCA)
• Tanzania: 20% industrial plantations-80% smallholders
• Uganda: 99% smallholder systems
Shade coffee and biodiversity conservation• Agricultural system with great potential to conserve
biodiversity. Structural diversity and vegetation complexity of original forest vegetation it is derived from.
• 2nd largest traded natural commodity after oil, has a major economic importance for livelihoods and national export revenues.
• Quantitative vs. location: 15/34 hotspots located in coffee regions
• Areas of intense deforestation where shade coffee may be only remnant vegetation
• Major opportunity for combining conservation and economic improvement
Conservation potential of shade coffee
• Largely emphasized in Central and N. Latin America as habitat for migratory birds through Mesoamerican Biological Corridor
• Varies according to management types, complexity providing food, shelter and reproduction
• Species dependent on trees for their life cycle vs. species that rely on fragmented forest habitat in wider landscape
• Most often lower bird species richness than primary forest and different composition
• Rustic systems may host similar or higher bird diversity, especially for winter migrants with flexible habitat needs
Shade coffee and biodiversity conservation in East Africa
• Not a similar regional corridor function
• Contribution to conservation of European migrants not emphasized
• Relatively limited information in East Africa
• Naidoo 04, bird richness correlated to tree density and distance to intact forest in Mabira, Southern Uganda. Limited contribution of coffee-banana systems to conservation of forest-dependent songbird species
• Soini 06, tree cover reduction and fragmentation, highland homegardenswith coffee-banana and large trees more bird-diverse than lowland and midland systems. European-style highland richest due to high niche diversity and lower human disturbance of shrub layer
Mabira Forest banana-coffee landscape, Southern UgandaOrdination of the 96 stations obtained from a Detrended Correspondence Analysis of
the species composition of bird communities.
020406080
100120140160
0 100 200 300 400
primary
secondary
agro
Distance between
stations
indicates degree of
similarity in bird
community
composition
Number of species primary=secondary>agro
Factors enhancing conservation valueCoffee plantation characteristics
• Structural complexity (habitat) and floristic composition (food sources)
• Plantation management intensity (thinning, pollarding, fertilizers)
• Vertical canopy thickness, coffee height and presence of epiphytes for butterfly diversity
Landscape factors
• Overall landscape degradation• Landscape characteristics
– Number and size of forest fragments– Distance and connectivity to forest
patches (mobile vs less mobile spp)• Forest management policy. Hard edges
in East Africa for segregating land uses, reducing h-w conflicts, easier enforcement of restrictions
Source: Turyomurugyendo
Eastern Arc Mountains &
Coastal Forests hotspot
Maiko NP
Kahuzi-Biega NP
Itombwe Massif
Tayna
Mukura FR
Nyungwe NP
Kibira NP
The Albertine Rift
Wild forest coffee in Ethiopia
• Focus on conserving the Arabica center of endemism
• Wild coffee forests, transformation of undisturbed coffee forest to semi-forest coffee– Removal of overstorey trees and
shrubs– Increase of 26% of plant species
(disturbance-adapted)
• 25% of national coffee production
Pressures• Internal and government-planned
resettlement for Northerners• Land conversion for agriculture and
settlement• Demand for forest products
Potential and current forest cover
Shade coffee certification and conservation• Markets of shade-grown coffee appear
important for providing a reward for conservation
• Caution: encouraging primary forest conversion; lowering of standards; blanket endorsement of all shade systems
• Challenge of ensuring that farmers are main recipients of premiums
• Capacity of programs to certify systems according to their conservation efficiency? – SMBC, Rainforest Alliance, SCAA all rule in
rustic coffee systems and rule out shade monocultures. But variable for intermediate shade intensities.
• Need to improve conservation benchmarks (transitory habitat use to breeding viability)
• Consider yield losses; Establishing premiums complicated due to non-linearity of relationship between shade and yield, and sensitivity to shade removal varies between species
Shade coffee certification and conservation
• Lowest market share among fair trade, organic, and shade-grown, 10% of all certified exports from L. America
• Exclusively for L. American coffee• A few certification initiatives in East Africa
(local brands, Fair Trade, Organic, UtzKapeh, Starbuck,….Rainforest Alliance )
• Potential of appellation coffee where shade is a recognized practice?
Conclusions
• Sun coffee adapted for maximizing yields, but optimal conditions and intensive management are required. High environmental costs (soil erosion, water pollution). Little knowledge of long term effects.
• Critical role in smallholder systems with limited management capacity in sub-optimal conditions for moderating microclimate, diversifying production and minimizing risk. Present by default, but needs systematic investment.
• Lots of emphasis on Central American shade coffee systems. Characterization, management intensity, importance for biodiversity conservation, commercial promotion.
Conclusions
• Great need to better characterize and invest in EA coffee systems if potential of shade is to be explicitly utilized.
• Compared to Mesoamerican regional corridor function, conservation potential of EA shade coffee systems is more diffused. Needs greater documentation.
• Due to high renowned quality, much potential for developing coffee certification programs in EA
• Nascent market mechanisms to reward shade management and coffee quality. Shade coffee best integrated in other certification approaches
• Research on constraints in integrating trees and commercializing products (technical, grading, prices, knowledge)
Second International Symposium on Multi-Strata Agroforestry Systems with Perennial Crops, 17-21 September 2007, Turrialba, Costa Rica, CATIE
• Biophysical interactions of shade at plant and plot level• Quantification and valuation of environmental services
of perennial crop AFS at landscape level• Science of certification schemes for eco-labeling of
perennial crop products from AFS• Social and economical importance of products derived
from perennial AFS
Thank you!