Shade-grown coffee could offset emissions along thevalue chain

The main way to estimate this effectis by calculating the carbon foot-print. The few studies that have

been published of the coffee carbonfootprint indicate that around 55 per centof the emissions (FUNCAFE 2006, PCF2008) come from the agronomic prac-tices on the farms where the coffee isproduced.

At the same time, at least on shadedcoffee farms, there are considerablestocks of carbon in the biomass of theshade trees and the conservation of soilorganic matter. Other sustainable man-agement practices – much promoted incoffee production – may reduce emis-sions or even sequester more carbon.

The question in many minds is ‘do thecarbon stored in shaded coffee systemsand emissions reduced by sustainablepractices compensate for emissions onthe farm, and could it do so across thewhole value chain?’

The ideal situation would be if sustain-able production practices on-farm couldoffset – or in current terminology "inset" –carbon emissions from the whole supplychain, to achieve the ideal of a ‘carbonneutral’ value chain. Is this a possibility,or wishful thinking?

Carbon storage andshade coffeeThe stocks of carbon stored in coffeesystems vary according to shade type,as can be seen from figure 1. Full suncoffee has less than 10 tonnes of carbonstored; ordinary shaded coffee mayaccumulate 20-30 tonnes of carbon withthe addition of shade trees; but systemswith large forest trees can accumulate70-80 tonnes of carbon per hectare.These systems may even approach the100 tonnes per hectare or more of car-bon stored in natural forest.

Without doubt, conserving thesestocks is extremely important, and theirloss should the coffee system be ‘inten-

sified’ with more regulated shade wouldbe almost the same as bad as deforesta-tion. Carbon stocks such as these have

accumulated over many decades. Whatis more difficult to estimate is which sys-tems are accumulating carbon that maybe used to offset against emissions. Thiswould require measuring carbon stockssay, every 3-5 years, in order to estimatehow much carbon stocks haveincreased, or the annual carbon seques-tration.

Currently, we only have estimates ofthe increase in carbon stocks from siteswhere coffee and shade trees have beenestablished on bare ground, in areas thatwere already deforested. In these caseswe know that carbon stocks can accu-mulate 3-12 tonnes per hectare per yearin above ground biomass or 10-40tonnes of CO2 equivalents – the usualmeasure of carbon trading. These levelsof sequestration are generally above theagronomic carbon footprint of 2-5 tonnesof CO2 equivalents from coffee produc-tion (Noponen 2012).

Shade-grown coffee could have the potential to offset on-farm emissions and those that originate

elsewhere in the value chain

32 • Climate Change • C&CI March 2012

Producing, processing and distributing coffee generates green-house gases that contribute to global warming, but as JeremyHaggar1 and Martin Noponen2 suggest, growing coffee under

shade can help abate on-farm emissions, and could even offset emissions elsewhere in the value chain

Figure 1. Carbon stocks in above ground biomass with no shade (full sun) and different kinds of shadecompared to a natural forest in southern Guatemala (Idol et al 2011)

Although increasing the presence oftrees in coffee systems can offset agro-nomic emissions, what happens to theproductivity and income from these sys-tems? Looking again at the different sys-tems in Guatemala (Table 1) we see thatthe net income from the high carbon sys-tems with forest shade is considerablylower than that from the more simpleshaded systems which have lower car-bon stocks.

However, these coffee systems werealso managed with different levels ofagronomic investment. Evaluation ofexperimental coffee shade systems allmanaged under the same agronomicsystem also indicates that there is atrade-off between income and carbonbalance.

The difference in income between thefull sun system (with a negative carbonfootprint) and the legume shaded system(with a small positive carbon footprint) isrelatively small (Table 2). This same gen-eral effect was also found for coffeeplantations with lower levels of agronom-ic inputs and for organic systems.Nevertheless, where timber shadespecies respond to fertilizer by increasedgrowth, coffee productivity and carbonsequestration can both increase, with theincreased emissions from the fertilizeruse more than offset by the increasedcarbon sequestration (Noponen 2012).

Sustainable practicesThe carbon footprint per kg of coffeeproduced is a balance between thegreenhouse gas emissions from agro-nomic inputs – especially nitrogenwhether in chemical or organic form –and the level of productivity achieved.

Thus, potentially, high use of nitrogenfertilizer - if it stimulates enough produc-tion - can have a lower carbon footprint

per kg of product than less nitrogen use.This has led to much debate about thecarbon footprint of organic production,where greenhouse gas emissions perhectare might be expected to be lower,but if productivity is much lower, the car-bon footprint can be actually higher(Mondelaers et al 2008).

Nevertheless, in two studies that havebeen carried out on organic coffee pro-duction it appears that organic produc-tion, although less productive, has alower carbon footprint (Attarzadeh &Noponen 2010). Furthermore, across asurvey of over 20 farms in each ofNicaragua and Costa Rica, it was foundthat there was a significant negative rela-tionship between the carbon footprint ofcoffee production per kg and the quanti-ties of nitrogen applied. In Nicaragua,organically produced coffee had a lowercarbon footprint than conventional,whereas in Costa Rica they were similar.

A study in Guatemala found an evengreater difference, with agronomic emis-sions of about 2,700g CO2e per kg ofroast and ground conventionally pro-duced coffee but only 450g CO2e per kgof roast and ground organically pro-duced coffee (FUNCAFE 2006).

These studies indicate that in coffeethere is a significant trade-off betweenincreasing productivity (by increasingnitrogen inputs) and reducing the carbonfootprint of the coffee produced. Thisbegs the question: are there ways thatyou can increase productivity while mini-mizing the increase in carbon footprint?

March 2012 C&CI • Climate Change • 33

Income source Legume shade Diversified shade Forest shade

Coffee 1060 384 200

Bananas 0 42 10

Firewood 5 27 38

Timber 0 0 77

Palm fronds 0 104 0

Total income 1065 557 325

Coffee system Carbon footprint Carbon Net Net Sequestered balance income US$/ha

Full sun 5.0 4.4 -0.6 2313Legume shade 6.1 9.2 3.1 2210Timber shade 5.1 45.2 40.1 1499

Coffee farm certification (and size) Carbon footprint breakdown (gCO2e/tonne coffee)

Fertilizer N2O soil Pesticides Fuel Transport Materials

102.9 94.5 2.1 6.3 2.1 4.2 212

94 90 4 10 2 2 202

1.5 44.5 3 0 0.5 1 50

49.4 62.4 3.9 10.4 1.3 3.9 131

Table 1. Net income from different coffee shade systems in southern Guatemala. US$ per ha (Martinez 2005).

Table 2 Carbon dynamics in newly planted experimental coffee systems in Costa Rica over a nine year period(Noponen 2012)

Table 3. Carbon footprint of agronomic production in Nicaragua (Attarzadeh & Noponen 2010)

Rainforest25-100 ha

Conventional 25-100 ha

Organic < 5 ha

Conventional < 5 ha

Total carbonfootprintKgCO2e/ tonne coffee

March 2012 C&CI • Climate Change • 35

Possible means of mitigating theincrease in carbon footprint fromincreased fertilization and productivityinclude:

■ Applications of organic matter, com-post or manure, which contribute to emissions of nitrous oxide but can alsoincrease the carbon content of the top soilameliorating the emissions

■ Application of pruning material fromshade regulation of the trees and coffeecan also contribute to nitrous oxide emissions and the carbon footprint, buthave a lower emission factor and alsocontribute to increasing carbon content ofthe top soil.

■ Both organic inputs and pruning materi-als contribute to N2O emissions from thesoil but they generally do not have emis-sions related to the manufacturing of theproduct – as with chemical fertilizer – thusthe carbon footprint per kg of organic nitro-gen applied is lower. However, they mayalso be less effective in increasing produc-tivity, which may offset the lower GHGemissions from their application in terms ofcarbon footprint per kg of coffee produced.

On-farm and across the value chainWhat, then, is the potential for carbonsequestration on-farm to offset the emis-sions from the whole chain? And what arethe conditions that may enable that tohappen?

If we take the only published full coffeecarbon footprint (PCF 2008) it indicatesthat about 55 per cent of the carbon foot-print of a cup of coffee is from on-farm

emissions. This means thatcarbon sequestration on-farmmust be approximately twice ashigh as emissions on-farm ifthe carbon footprint from therest of the value chain is to beinset. The potential to generatethe carbon to be inset dependson whether the coffee planta-tion, or at least the shadetrees, are already establishedor newly planted.

Newly planted shaded coffeesystems, or coffee in whichshade has been planted wherethe coffee used to be grown infull sun, can fix sufficient car-bon to offset agronomic emis-sions during a period of tenyears at least. After this, atsome point, carbon sequestra-tion from the growth of thetrees will fall off and the situa-tion becomes similar to estab-lished coffee systems.

Full sunIf we take our three experimentalsystems presented earlier intable 2, the full sun productionsystem doesn’t cover its ownemissions and the legume shad-ed system was accruing 50 percent more carbon than it wasemitting over a nine year period.So there is some potential to off-set emissions but not enough forthe whole value chain.

Timber shadeFinally, the timber-shadedvalue chain sequesters fourtimes as much carbon as is emitted,which would indicate that this systemcould offset the carbon emissions of therest of the supply chain (that is, it can‘inset’ the carbon emissions in the valuechain). This final scenario is a very partic-ular one – of planting new timber trees ona deforested site with coffee, but a similarscenario could be expected by plantingfree growing trees in un-shaded coffee.

Shaded coffee systems that alreadyhave large carbon stocks are a differentscenario. Although established shadedcoffee systems can hold substantialstocks of carbon there is no data toenable us to estimate whether these sys-tems can continue to sequester carbon.

The likelihood is that it will depend onthe dynamic of tree shade regulation, har-vesting, mortality, and planting as towhether carbon stocks continue toincrease. In general, it can be said thatallowing trees free growth (as opposed toregulating shade) will increase carbonstocks, but this may also affect productivi-ty. Estimating carbon sequestration inestablished coffee will require measure-ments of changes in stocks every 3-5years to determine whether the systemrepresents a carbon sink overall.

Nevertheless, if it is recognised thatthere is an economic cost in terms of lossof potential productivity from not reducingshade and intensifying production then a

Figure 2 Relationship between carbon footprint and N inputs from fertilizer and prunings in organic and conventional farms in Costa Rica

and Nicaragua (Noponen 2012)

Shaded coffee systems thatalready have large carbonstocks are a different scenario.Although established shadedcoffee systems can hold substantial stocks of carbonthere is no data to enable us to estimate whether these systems can continue tosequester carbon

March 2012 C&CI • Climate Change • 37

scenario of avoided deforestation can beinvoked, such as is used to justify pay-ments for conservation of carbon stocksin forests. This is currently being negoti-ated under the concept of REDD –Reduced Emissions from avoidedDeforestation and forest Degradation –in international climate change negotiations.

What this means for shaded coffee isless clear, although most shaded coffeedoes qualify as "forest" under internationalconventions. Another metric that could beconsidered is to estimate how large thestocks of carbon in these systems are rel-ative to the emissions from coffee produc-tion and the carbon footprint of the wholevalue chain; if the stocks conserved repre-sent a 100 years or more of emissions,then it would seem that their conservationis making a real contribution to avoidingemissions over the coming critical 20-40years during which GHG emissions needto be reduced.

So what can we conclude about thepotential of carbon sequestered in shad-ed coffee systems to offset agronomic emissions and, potentially, tocontribute to insetting emissions acrossthe value chain?

■ If sufficient new free-growing trees areestablished in coffee plantations, or atleast somewhere on the coffee farm, thereis potential to offset the emissions fromthe agronomic management of the farmand even the whole value chain.

■ More detailed evaluation would needto be made of established shaded coffeeplantations in order to estimate the levelsof carbon sequestration that may offsetemissions.

■ An alternative would be to build a justi-fication for recognising systems that con-serve considerable stocks of carbon,equivalent to at least 100 years of emis-sions from the supply chain. Maintainingsystems such as these provides a signifi-cant opportunity so long as production isnot intensified.

The latter scenario would include largeareas of shaded coffee produced acrossCentral America, Mexico, India and theAndean countries of Latin America.REDD could be used as a reference tojustify that systems such as these con-serve carbon stocks in a similar way tonatural forest. ■ C&CI

Jeremy Haggar1 and Martin Noponen2

1 Natural Resources Institute,University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, ME4 4TB, Kent, UK J.p.haggar@gre.ac.uk

2 School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd,LL57 2UW, United Kingdomm.noponen@bangor.ac.uk

Guatemalan farmis verified as ‘climate friendly’El Platanillo in San Marcos, Guatemala, hasbecome the world’s first coffee farm to be veri-fied for compliance with the Climate Module ofthe Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN),the international coalition of conservationorganizations that manages Rainforest Alliance certification.

The announcement was made by the Rainforest Alliance and the local SAN partner in Guatemala,the Inter-American Foundation for Tropical Research (FIIT, its Spanish acronym), in conjunction with coffee trading company EFICO Green Coffee and Cocoa and the National Coffee Alliance of Guatemala(ANACAFE, in Spanish).

Gianluca Gondolini, a Project Manager at the Rainforest Alliance, praised the dedication of El Platanillo’s owner and employees. "By fulfilling the SAN Climate Module, coffee plantations like El Platanillo can demonstrate their commitment to reducing emissions and improving the ability of theirfarms to adapt to climate change. We hope that farmers in Guatemala and elsewhere will follow in El Platanillo’s footsteps," he told C&CI.

Producers that commit to implementing the SAN Climate Module will be able to reduce their emis-sions and better adapt to changing climatic conditions. They will also be able to identify the risks that cli-mate change poses to their farms and communities, and estimate their level of vulnerability in the faceof prolonged droughts and severe floods of the type that are becoming more frequent and intense.

Verified producers will also increase the level of carbon stored on their farms by replacing decom-posed earth, reforesting certain areas on their farms and improving soil conservation, all of which helpsreduce agriculture’s climate impacts and offers farmers a way to do their part to solve this challengingglobal problem.

Finca Platanillo has worked with EFICO and its clients for several years to adopt sustainable farmingpractices. The EFICO Foundation has supported the development of sustainable farming models, andBelgian coffee roasters Mokaturc and Colruyt have invested in certification, education and infrastructuredevelopment.

Finca Platanillo, the Rainforest Alliance, Anacafe and EFICO joined forces to develop and implementthe SAN Climate Module. The Climate Module seeks to raise awareness among farmers about theimpacts of climate change and promote the adoption of new practices that can mitigate these impactsand be integrated into a farm’s sustainable management plan.

Nils Leporowski, Vice President of ANACAFE, said he hoped that more farmers would join the initia-tive. He said El Platanillo’s verification "signalled the beginning of a new era in evaluating and acknowl-edging the positive contributions that coffee producers make to the environment."

Luis Gaitán, FIIT’s executive director, said verification of climate-friendly practices "builds on the jointgoals of the SAN and the Rainforest Alliance, by encouraging people, producers, businesses and indus-tries to share responsibility for mitigating climate change."

The SAN Climate Module also provides benefits beyond the farm. "The concept of sustainability is adynamic process that is continually evolving," said Katrien Delaet, EFICO’s Sustainability ProjectManager. "The module is a practical and accessible tool for the entire coffee chain. It encourages farm-ers to create carbon stocks and reduce their emissions, and it persuades industry to commit to sustain-able supply chains."

So far, three containers of the farm’s coffee have been sold to three European roasters committed tosustainable development: Peeze Coffee in the Netherlands, and Belgium’s Beyers Coffee andRombouts.

El Platanillo is an 857 acre shade coffee plantation; 773 acres are dedicated to growing Bourbon,Caturra, and Catuai beans and the rest are set aside as a protected area. The farm employs 35 menand 20 women year-round, and an average of 500 men and 200 women during harvest season.

El Platanillo coffee farm is the world’s first coffee farm to have complied with the SAN’s Climate Module