Coffee That's Made in the Shade
by Brian Martell
Throughout the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s,
many issues have been raised surrounding the ethical practices of the coffee
industry. These have ranged from the Organic movement to Fair Trade to
government regulations to, now, shade grown coffee.
The Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center had
concluded back in 1991 that the practice of improving coffee yields per acre
by planting coffee trees close together inhibited the natural habitat of
migratory birds. Their claim was that coffee plantations growing “sun coffee”
would reduce the number of indigenous trees needed by migratory birds for
temporary habitat.
Most notably, they singled out Costa Rica
for their study in migratory birds. In the past, certain plantations have used
indigenous trees as shade for their coffee plantations, and indeed, this
practice is still used where it makes good sense for the farmers. Shade was
used to protect the coffee trees from the harsh effects of the noon-day sun
and provide resources beneficial to the farmer.
Where coffee yields per acre became
important to the farmer, new practices were put in place to increase the
output per acre by eliminating the “shade” trees in favour of growing “sun”
coffee. Although there may be no direct correlation, those countries where sun
coffee has been most widely used, usually have produced better quality coffees
(read Costa Rica, Tanzania, Kenya, et al). This method of plantation
husbandry, along with other sound agronomic practices have had a net
beneficial impact on the industry by producing a high quality product, while
keeping the cost of production relatively in check, and improving the economic
welfare of the farmers.
So, what’s up with the birds?
It was noted by the Smithsonian Migratory
Bird Research Center that this change in agricultural practices in coffee has
resulted in a reduction of mezzo tropical bird migration by about 1.5%, more
specifically in Central America. Although the Center could not directly prove
that sun coffee was to blame for the decline, the empirical evidence was used
as gospel to deride the reduction of shade trees in certain coffee growing
nations. It was suggested, by non-Smithsonian types, that picture windows and
domestic cats probably have had more of an effect on reducing migratory bird
populations than the reduction of shade trees in Central American coffee
plantations. None the less, the cause for shade grown coffee was born.
As with all agricultural movements, no one
practice is beneficial throughout the producing world. While shade grown
coffee can be an important factor in the health and prosperity of the farmers
in some coffee growing regions, it could spell economic and ecological
disaster for others.
Consider the coffee plantations of Brazil,
which are largely located in savanna type environments that are naturally
devoid of shade trees. The introduction of shade trees into these growing
regions would reduce output and cause environmental instability in a region
where they don’t usually grow. To maintain the same level of output, coffee
growing nations using “sun” plantations would have to cut into virgin
forest for the propagation of both coffee and shade trees. The economically
challenged farmers who could not afford to purchase more land would be forced
to either sell their small plantations or be faced with the prospect of going
from poor to poorer.
Shade grown coffee does have its place, but
it cannot be ascribed to all coffees presently available. Often, consumerist
movements, while well-intentioned, have the net effect of adding to the misery
of those least capable of rapid change. Coffee growers around the world make
tough decisions each day designed to promote the marketability of their
products.
It is through this process that greater
achievements in coffee quality and value will be attained. It is up to us in
the coffee industry to help in the education of customers who hear such
omnibus statements such as “shade is better than sun.” As responsible
business people, promoting the logical and dismissing the absurd will, in the
long run, benefit all parties concerned.
© 2000 Brian Martell
(appeared in Canadian Vending Magazine August 2000)
