sais review vol. xxiii no. 1 (winter-spring 2003) coffee...

SAIS Review vol. XXIII no. 1 (Winter-Spring 2003)

Coffee Production in a Time of Crisis: Social and Environmental Connections

Robert Rice

The coffee industry rests upon the production of a global commodity that has grown two-fold in volume and 3.5 times in value since the 1960s, generating in the process billions of annual export dollars. This article discusses coffee's history as a global commodity, and its environmental and social implications. Occupying some 10 million hectares globally, millions of small producers and their families depend upon coffee as their major source of income. Their live- lihood is threatened today by a price crisis brought on by overproduction. But, innovative market initiatives linked to social equity and ecological or conservation concerns have the potential to lift producers out of the devastation caused by low prices. Government and private sector actors also have a role to play in solving the crisis.

Few crops provide "windows" into so wide an array of issues as coffee. This shrub of the family Rubiaceae, which also contains

the ornamental plant Gardenia spp., hails from the mid-elevation region of east Africa, what is now Ethiopia and the Sudan. Its introduction into the Americas in the 1700s provided many countries' national governments with the workable ingredients for developing agricultural export economies. The capital generated by coffee exports since the early to late-1800s also allowed already established local economic interests to accumulate huge fortunes and entrepreneurial initiatives to gain footholds in national and international sectors. Coffee today continues to generate significant private and public revenues, with some 5.5 million metric tons worth $8.4 billion exported worldwide in 2000 (see Table 1 for country exports), an increase of 101 percent in volume and 356

Robert A. Rice is a geographer at the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center at the National Zoological Park in Washington, DC. His work centers around land use issues in which agricultural change and environmental issues intersect.

222 SAIS Review WINTER-SPRING 2003

Aug-01 % World Aug-01 % World to Jul-02 Exports to Jul-02 Exports

World Total 87,053,261 100.0 Zambia 100,198 0.1

Colombian 11,864,306 13.6 Zimbabwe 85,998 0.1

Milds Brazilian 27,041,237 31.1 Colombia 10,458,824 12.0 Naturals

Kenya 751,551 0.9 Brazil 25,190,825 28.9

Tanzania 653,931 0.8 Ethiopia 1,839,412 2.1

Other 22,171,935 25.5 Paraguay 11,000 0.0

Milds Robustas 25,975,783 29.8 Bolivia 63,213 0.1

Angola 10,175 0.0 Burundi 275,933 0.3

Congo, Dem. 213,959 0.2 Costa Rica 1,926,864 2.2 Rep. of

Cuba 92,686 0.1 Ghana 31,460 0.0

Dominican 91,919 0.1 Guinea 66,690 0.1 Republic

Indonesia 4,930,780 5.7 Ecuador 653,265 0.8

Nigeria 2,368 0.0 El Salvador 1,466,028 1.7

Cameroon 695,116 0.8 Guatemala 3,162,907 3.6

Cent. African 114,400 0.1 Haiti 78,244 0.1 Rep.

Honduras 2,415,589 2.8 Cote d'lvoire 4,155,020 4.8

India 3,557,506 4.1 Gabon 272 0.0

Jamaica 24,747 0.0 Madagascar 290,000 0.3

Malawi 58,882 0.1 Togo 127,253 0.1

Mexico 2,986,743 3.4 Philippines 6,035 0.0

Nicaragua 978,869 1.1 Sierra Leone 17,465 0.0

Panama 74,298 0.1 Sri Lanka 2,280 0.0

Papua New 1,016,970 1.2 Thailand 470,554 0.5 Guinea Trinidad and 453 0.0 Peru 2,665,138 3.1 Tobago

Rwanda 314,340 0.4 Uganda 3,255,062 3.7

Venezuela 81,598 0.1 Vietnam 11,586,441 13.3

Source: ICO, 2002

COFFEE PRODUCTION IN A TlME OF CRISIS 223

percent in value since 1961.* Such lofty increases fail Co address, however, the social and environmental sides of" this globally traded commodity. The production glut of the last few years, for example, has had devastating social consequences for millions of coffee growers, the downstream businesses dependent upon these producers, and countries whose foreign exchange depends upon the crop. *

As an agrofbrestry crop managed mainly by smallholders, coffee provides insight into a number of provoking themes, includ- ing the emergence and structure of national political-economic power blocks;* uneven development within countries;* government control mechanisms for political ends;* global movements related to social justice;* and the environmental benefits of certain coffee systems/ This paper will trace the crisis in coffee, focusing on the social and environmental aspects of its production—particularly at the farm level—to provide a window onto the natural and human landscapes associated with our morning cup of coffee. The first section discusses coffee's development into an international commodity. The second section considers the wide-ranging effects of the crisis—both social and environmental—stemming from current overproduction. The final section explores some positive de- velopments within the coffee industry that can improve coffee's environmental impact and ease the crisis for growers able to take advantage of new markets.

Production and Organizational History

As with any crop, coffee's major areas of production have shifted over time. Going back to the twelfth or thirteenth centuries—and some contend to the sixth? —the Arabian peninsula was the prin- cipal region of commercial coffee production. What is now Yemen then played a central role in supplying the Arabic world with coffee, along with Abyssinia (now Ethiopia). Holland's colonial front- line explorers and entrepreneurs took coffee to Ceylon, Timor, Sumatra, and other Southeast Asian holdings. The Dutch East Indies quickly became the most important region in the world for coffee/

Other colonial powers also introduced coffee into their tropical territories between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries; coffee arrived in the Americas in the eighteenth century, established by the French on the Caribbean island of Martinique. From this

224 BUSAaW Wbnrn4b*m#@20(B

single source, together with Dutch introduction in South America, sprung much of the New World's coffee industry.9 Aiding the emergence of the Americas—and especially of Brazil—as a center of production was the appearance of coffee leaf rust {Hemileia v&statrix) in the Old World. The ruse is a fungal disease that dev- astated the coffee farms of Ceylon, India, and, subsequently, In- donesia beginning in the late- 1800s, making coffees from these areas scarce and costly. The result was that expensive coffee from the Dutch East Indies, which had determined the global price for years, lost out to the increasing supply of cheaper coffee from Brazil.10

Coffee rapidly displaced other crops in the Americas. El Salvador's coffee boom within the past century and a half illustrates coffee's pervasiveness in driving out other crops. Prior to the expansion of coffee, the slopes of El Salvador's fertile volcanic regions were dotted with subsistence production of corn, beans, fruit trees, and upland rice. With the success of coffee production, large coffee plantations displaced these crops and pushed small holders from their land, creating major food scarcity problems for the rural peasants. An eyewitness account from the late-1920s paints a grim picture of the situation:

The conquest of territory by rhe coffee industry is alarming. It lias already occupied all the high ground and is now descending to the valleys, displacing maize, rice, and beans. It goes in the manner of the conquistador, spreading hunger and misery, reducing che former proprietors to the worst conditions— woe to those who sell oucJJl

Tbga±Mr*m6pgKand««itco8***odMlnp:tnKwkypRKdbudr production from the richest areas of El Salvador's landscape (Fig- ure 1). The natural "capita!" of che land was skewed in favor of export agriculture. While one might argue that such competitive fUncmf inn mid* dm* rational h*kutf* of paymowm In ann# of wodd trade, most Salvadorans did not benefit, and domestic food pro- dwadkm *uflei*dmnb# *%p*nw ofth*$%po*terop."

4d#Y#B^*WOrW;*/0*#pp#wdwd#* Like commoditi** in guwnd, cof&t t*nd* lowmd* uv*p&odw(don, leading, without institutional policies to address this problem, to steep price hikes and nosedives. Historically, attempts to stabilize prices, either by curbing supplies in producing countries or through international trade agreements, have had varying degrees

COPFEE PRODUCTION IN A TlME OP CRISIS 225

&4 / '"' ,'\

11 %r^^ •Jf Lf"f \_ ..7" "V

('i^^3.. gfc^lSp \. -^ iJ f»^*r

^^^gk^C-j/^

*lw rV, r,#eaaas#^## Ak _^——

B5p

^^RBgM; Coffee growing area (cop), where one dor represent: 25 hectare*, and maize growing area (bottom), where one doc represents 10 hectare*. Source: William H. Durham, &arc»y *mf Swrviwd m CemA-^ Amerk^: Eco/op- ca/ OrgHM (^"fk Soaer Wlw (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1979), 37.

of success. N«aHy one hundred year* ago, Brazil's "valorization" scheme stockpiled cofFee to create a market shortage and increase prices; U.S. policymakers responded with sanctions against Brazil- ian imports and the U.S. broker who helped design the scheme." Despite the U.S. reaction, in die Erst quarter of the century, Brazil still managed to manipulate its acock* so as co protect not only its own producers, but also those around the world. The maintenance of prices spurred further cultivation in many producing countries- making it more difficult co keep prices at favorable levels, and shrinking Brazil's global market share in coffee. Brazil responded by burning coffee supplies and ininshng international conferences with other producing countries to diacuss cartel-like solutions."

226 SAJSakMW Wnns&-SpmNG2003

Twendeth-cennuy trade agreement* abo aimed, ostensibly, co address the boom-bust problem. Another core rationale, however, seems to have been geopolitical The 1940 Inter-American Coffee Agreement (IACA), for instance, divided U.S. demand between Brazil and Colombia**) that they could coexist as major producers, helping support cheir resistance to the Axis Power*': program during World War II and binding them co the U.S. strategic political agenda. Twenty years later, the International Coffee Agree- ment (ICA)-aside from establishing quotas and price* chat satis- fied both producing and consuming member countries—sought to stem the spread of communism in the Americas, acting as handmaiden co the Kennedy administration': Alliance for Progress."

Regardless of the motives for such agreements, the quota system imposed by the ICA helped to genera* substantially higher prices in member markets." Moreover, while not controlling the tendency coward overproduction p*r M, che ICA did regulate coffee trade and allow for a number of tropical nations to hang their hopes on & "cofTee-aa-development" scheme." But the ICA fell apart in 1989, resulting in a chaotic &ee-fbr*Il in the global coffee trade. With the ICA's mainstay quotas out of the picture, oy«y production has created a coffee glut that is driving world prices down, hurting farmers, and cutting foreign exchange earnings for producing countries to a fraction of historic level*." In the 1980s, end consumers spent $30 billion on coffee, while producing countries got $10 billion, a ratio of about 33 percent. Today, best esti- mates put chat rmzio at only 15 percent"

Price volatility and overproduction aside, charactenadc* specific to the coffee industry also play sn important role in shaping the market. On the consumer (demand) side, the market is highly pricc-inelastic-that is, higher of lower prices do not seriously a& feet coffee demand." This is understandable when we consider coffee's addictive nature and die more intangible mix of prestige and exoticness currently associated with specialty coffee." On the production (supply) side, coffee displays short-nm price-elasticity and longer term price-inelasticity, hi che short run (roughly one year), producers may be able to increase supply with increased fer- tilizarion, incensive harvesting efforts, and other agricultural practices when prices climb. Yec, because coffee is a perennial, there is a buUt-in lag time averaging chree co five year* from che time of planting co the time of full production, resulting in prolonged periods of overproduction and price-inelasticity.** As witnessed

COFFEE PRODUCnCN W ATlME OPCBISB 227

during the past couple of yean, the price of coffee for the end consumer haa not decreased, even chough world supply has never been so plagued with overproduction and low prices paid to growers"

Bolstering this idea, the International Coffee Organization (ICO) reports that between December 1999 and September 2001, coffee bean prices on the futures mattet (the "C" price tagged to coffee futures that ultimately controls prices paid to growers) fell by 57 percent due to the current glut. By contrast, U.S. retail prices fell by less than 10 percent during that same period." In wending ica way to the customer seated at home or at the cafe counter, coffee parses through an array of handlers and middlemen, all of whom take their piece of the final price. The ICO** data reveal char prices paid to producers in exporting ICO member countries averaged $0.45 per pound in 2001-down significantly from prices paid in the late-1990s. Retail prices in importing member countries, by contnwt, averaged $5.66 per pound-showing little change in that same time period.** The sustained low prices paid to growers beg the question of why consumers have felt no relief in their cappuccinos and double lattes. The answer, according to industry experts, lie* in marketing decisions by coffee oudeta not to upset the customer with constantly fluctuating prices.**

While the growers are suffering, the large international Grma dealing in "industrial" (canned or instant) coffee* are reaping record profits today, taking advantage of low prices and a new manufacturing technology that has allowed the substitution of cheaper "robust*" beans in coffee chat historically used only "arables" beans* While large Grma are reluctant co divulge profit margins, knowledgeable industry personnel are able to calculate Ggures believed co be in line with current levels. A master** "normal* profit margin hovers around 15 percent; estimate* of the "Big FourV current profits tip the balance at 110 percent*

It is worth recognizing that the coffee industry has not developed monolithically. It include* two v«y different sector*: industrial coffee: (mentioned above) and specialty or gourmet coffees. Industrial manufacturer* like Kraft Poods (Maxwell House), Procter & Gamble (Polgert), Sara Lee (Hills Brothers), NestI*, and Tchibo (a German Gnn) dominate the global movement of coHee, accounting for up co one-half of all purchase*.* Specialty coffees, chose now firmly established in most uiban commercial centers and many neighborhoods, represent a much smaller volume accounting for about 10 percent of all coffee exports. Such coffees represent about 15 percent of the umic volume

228 SATS&ewew WnrrER-SpiUNG2003

of all cof&e sold in the United States, 40 percent of grams sales, and about 55 percent of the gross proRc dollar sale*. Retail esti- mates in 2001, which combine codec beverages and coffee bean sales, measure the total U.S. specialty market sit nearly $11 billion."

The Current Crisis

AAodwdxomGW Today, coffee blankets some 10 million hectares of the Earth's tropical landscapes." Main producer* include Brazil, Colombia, Vietnam, Indonesia, and CAte dlvoire, which, combined, exported some 65 percent of the world's coffke in 2001-2002." Hidden within these figures, however, i* a quality question. In terms of production, the last half of the twentieth century saw more than a 150 percent increase in production and a more than 100 percent increase in area devoted to coffee. In northern Latin America alone, where some of the best quality coffees originate, the increase in production and area were 153 percent and 69 percent, respectively.** Table 2 provide* area and production data for key producing countries.

The area, production, and export figures presented in Table* 1 and 2 translate inco heavy dependence upon coffee. Coffee exports weigh in at 79 percent of total exports for Burundi, 54 percent for Ethiopia, 43 percent for Uganda, and 24 percent for Hon- duras.** Even countries with diversified export portfolios have significant populations working in the cof&e sector. Mexico's coffee sector has 280,000 producers living in some of its poorest states, and supports about three million people in various steps of the commodity chain. In Brazil, where cof&e account* for less than 5 percent of the foreign exchange, nearly 5 percent of the population (some 3.5 million people, mostly in rural areas) is involved in coffee in some way." Five million people in Indonesia depend upon coffee as a cash crop, producing seven million bags (60 kg each) from small holdings averaging 1.44 hectares.

The paac three years have seen a deepening crisis due to record production in Asia, the new powerhouse supplier of cheap coffee. Between 1961 and 2000, Asia increased its coffee exports by 657 percent in volume and nearly sixteen times in value." Viet- nam, which produced slmost no cof&e in the earlp!990s, has come out of nowhere in the laat five years co settle in as the third- largest producer in che world with about 12 percent of the world

CORPSE PRODUCTION IN A TIME OF CRBIS 229

Country Area Greater than 196 of World Total

Production Greater than 1% of World Total

Brazil 2302370 1780140

Cameroon 300000 77000

Colombia 850000 560000

Congo 145000

Co* ta Rica' 181000

C6re dlvoire 1000000 280000

Dominican Republic 139372

Ecuador 368911 146457

BI Salvador 162190 112201

Bthi(^)ia 250000 228000

Guatemala 273000 275700

Honduraa 216562 205545

India 310000 301200

Indoneeia 891000 376800

Kenya 165000 75000

Madagascar 19312

Mexico 758430 330000

Nicaragua 78000

Papua New Guinea 84000

Peru 228300 158200

Philippine* 136000 129790

Tanzania 118000

Thailand 90000

Uganda 264000 197410

Venezuela 220000

Viet Nam 450000 800000

Source: PAO Agricultural Production Statiadcm, 2000

230 SATSRewew WMTER-SPRING2O03

market* Asian overproduction has led to a All in quality as well as ssrious price slumps." Lower quality translates quickly into still lower prices, a cycle which, without access to credit, can take farm economies and family budgets in the same direction. The result is bad coffee for everyone.

SocWfg&oG; Ma&imglWfMeef In today"* coffee world, small holders predominate, often supplying the bulk of a producing country": coffee harvest, along with the lion's share of any rural farm labor. Scattered across the rural landscapes of Asia, Latin America, and Africa, more often than not tending plots less than 10 hectares, some 25 million codes producers work the world's 11 million hectares of coffee land. To- gether with pickers, processors, and industry workers, these farmers comprise nearly 100 million people whose livelihoods depend on the crop in some way."

Today's crisis is more extreme than prior ones and has de- pressed prices and farmers' incomes to the point that many are lit- erally facing starvation and the loss of their land. In a market where che international "C price quoted on the futures market is, say, $0.85 per pound, the farmer might receive $0.20 to $0.40 per pound.* When the cost of production is twice the price received, few can remain in business unless they have access co other land to we them through the difficult time. A recent report by the Eco- nomic Council on Latin American and the Caribbean focused on Central America's pUghc related to the global price crisis in coffee. Some 300,000 growers on the isthmus have tried to reduce production costs by cutting back on cultivation practices such as weeding, pruning, and fertilizing normally carried out in the agricultural cycle, a cost-savings strategy that erased $140 million in wages and 170,000 jobs in 2001/' In another response to the low prices, farmers in Central America, are turning former coffee fields into coca Gelds, as has happened in southern Peru's Apurimac Val- ley. The attraction is obvious. Growers can produce only one coffee crop per year, sad currently receive a dismally low price for their efforts. Coffee also requires particular soil conditions, and its cultivation requires focused attention and meticulous care in che tim- ing of specific operations. Harvesters muse make two, three, or four passes through che plot, as che berries ripen unevenly over time. The harvested crop must be processed to the point of parchment coffee, which is chen delivered to a cencral buying station, some- cimes ac quite a distance from che farm. Partial payment is com-

COFPEE PRODUCTION IN ATlMEOPOUSE 231

mon, with the balance paid once the cof&e is rtaold-sometimas weeksormonchaaAardie actual harvest

Coca, by contrast, will grow almost anywhere (certainly on so3a suited for coffee), producing three and sometimes four crops per year. The price paid per unit area far surpasses that of coffee, often by a factor of four. A few peopk can hajveat a single hectare in one day, drying the coca leaves simply by placing them in the sun for a day or two on plastic sheets. Later, someone drives by in a truck co collect the leave*, delivering full payment at the time of pick up. For a peasant producer faced with crisis-kvel income and licde help from a strapped public sector, the decision co grow coca is an eaay choice.

In countries where Mich choice* are not possible, the crisis poses severe dilemmas for grower: and their families, as well as for businesses, banks, and institution*. In Nicaragua, 200,000 temporary and 45,000 permanent worker* have lost job*. Families of 30,000 small producer: currently suffer chronic hunger, and at least seven bank*—potential sources of credit—have gone out of business. The lack of income on the farm has prompted massive rural-to-urban migrations, swelling the poverty belts around Nicaragua's major does. For those trying to cope in the country- side, the collection and sales of native animal life and planes, aa well as firewood, is placing increasing pressure on natural resources.*

The worsening poverty in coffee communities as a result of the price crisis has further aggravated child labor problems, which have been a long-term issue in the coffee industry and agriculture more generally. The International Labor Organization (ILO) esti- mates 250 million children work worldwide, with more of them in agriculture than in any other sector. Payment for the work they do is often a fraction of the legal minimum, as in Kenya, where the "casual" (part-time) worker receives about $12.00 per month. With the recent sweep of neoliberal economic plan* imposed by world lending agencies, the privatization of the educational system in countries like Kenya has only worsened the problem. Par- ents who would otherwise have children in free schools now cannot af&rd co pay for their education, so the youngsters are more apt to go to work.** These condition: hold even when world coffee price* are relatively high and stable, buc the recent cnma has made the problem even more difEcult to address. Countries un- der severe economic stress to mainrain foreign exchange are slow co enforce whatever regulations may be on the books to protect

232 SAMKewew Wnmai-SPRiNG2003

children. On the brighter side, public awareness of co&e Minted with child labor has grown with media report*. Moreover, the ILO created the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labor in 1998, which has been signed by more than 175 countne* worldwide. The U.S. Department of Labor al*o initiated a program for six countries in Latin America designed to remove children Gam the workforce, place them in school, and provide health services."

Coffee's natural, evolutionary habitat is the underatory layer of forests in East Africa, a shady shrub-layer environment Taken from this setting for commercial production, it i* now planted in deep forests; open fields, and every kind of shade condition in between. Coffee experts have long debated the amount of shade and types of trees needed for optimal production/* Such discuwions, however, have been agronomically focused, and only recently has coffee been seen in the broader picture of conservation biology.*

The most obvious environmental consequence of coffee expansion ha* been forest removal In much of Latin America, che early establishment of coffee occurred in areas already used as agricultural land*. But as coffee gained a foothold in the global economy, new lands were opened and forested areas fell to make room.*

More recent changes in coffee production technology, namely the "techniGcadon" of coffee in much of northern Latin America,* has resulted in intensifying production. Shade cover normally de- crease* aa production becomes more intense. A host of mcudies show that significant impacts on local fauna occur along the in- tensification gradient; in particular, arthropod diversity and ant diversity especially tend to decline as intenairlcsrifm increases*

On balance, the current crimim does not bode well for coffee landscapes. Desperate indebted growers commonly respond to prolonged low prices by cutting down shade trees and selling them as lumber or firewood. In Guatemala and Nicaragua, growers haw done exactly char, with mn eye toward converting coffee farmland into pascureland—one of the more environmentally damaging land uses in the tropics."

Hop* for the Future

Socioeconomically, small coffee growers represent some of che poorest of che poor in cheir countries. Yet, the prices chef have re-

COPPEB PRODUCTION IN A TD4B OP CfUSS 233

cehwd historically, mainly as a result of the ICA, combined with the other activide* on the farm, have allowed them to survive. Small farms often have a mix of produce: within a coffee agrofbrest, a system that provides grower* with alternative and additional income streams across the year. As * group, small producer* are well positioned to take advantage of the trend in die specialty coffee industry toward "sustainable" coffee*.

With 13,500 retail outlets servicing 27 million specialty coffee drinkers daily, one of the fastest growing markets within specialty coffee i* "sustainable coffee." These are coffee* chat connect consumer* direcdy to the social and ecological aspects of production. Sustainable coffee includes fair trade, certified organic, and shade-grown coffees" —products shown to have a marketable connection with environmental protection and social and economic equity.

Fd*r <wwf SwffawwMe Cqj^ee In the face of this troubling crisis, some producers-particularly chose who were already organized into associadons or cooperadves prior to the crisis—are finding markets for their coffee at "living- wage" prices. One community in Nicaragua's department of Jinotega spawned che Sociedad de Pequenos Productores Exportadores y Commercializadores de CaA, S.A. (SOPPEXCCA). With politically progressive ideal* at its core, the group seeks to work toward community development via quality coffee producdon and diversification into other crops. One central tenet is gen- der equality, based on economic independence.

Within SOPPEXCCA, which has forged alliances and rela- donships with intemadonal buyers, a group of eighty-five women producers is in ics fifth year of production. Known as "Las Herman*** (The Sisters), they harvest and sell che coffee grown on plots that average just over two hectare*. In Nicaragua's recent "Aucdon of Excellence," in which cof&es from around the country were casce-teaced and auctioned to intemacioaal buyers, SOPPEXCCA producers received three of the twenty-three prizes awarded to quality cof&es. Of these, two came from "Las Hermanas" farms.**

Another survival strategy in the volatile world of coffee prices hsa been the fair trade (FT) movement. Dedicated to social equity, democradc pardcipadon in decision making within communides, and a fair pnee to farmers, it has spread throughout ch* coffee world over the past ten to twenty years. The FT movement began

234 SAfSKawwp WiNTER-SpiUNG2003

in 1959 in the Netherlands evencualiy evolving into the non-char- ity concept of "tradc-not-aid" with a number of goods from the developing world." Coffee waa incorporated into the FT movement in 1988, when Guatemalan coffee entered Europe. Today, fan- trade coffees have made significant inroad* inco the specialty coffee industry.* The cornerstone philosophy of fair trade coffee is fourfold:

* direct relationship with the roaster; * a price minimum of $126 per pound; » prefinancing by the roaster of up co 66 percent of the value of the coffee;

* agricultural sustainabilicy.

Within the U.S. market, FT cof&e currently includes 550,000 producers ia twenty-two countries, involving 150 businesses (roasters and importers), along with 10,000 store outlet*. Its Erst three years of existence, as TransFair USA, generated $10 million, making FT coffee one of the growth leaders within specialty coffee in the United States. Moreover, 85 percent of all FT coffee sold in the United States over the past four years has also ken certified organic, indicating an overlap in social and environmental ties provided by coffee.**

EwwMwmewW Cow ervafio*; Coj^ee «w HlfMaf Coffee production doe* not neceaaarily have a negszive ef&cc on the physical landscape. For example, it can conserve soiL Over an eight-year period in Chinchini, Colombia, the soil lost in a traditional cultivation coffee system "similar to & fbreac" was 240 kilo- grams per hectare," compared with 23 con* of soil per hectare lost in a hayfield and 860 tons per hectare in a basic grain system with two com harvests per year. In the northeastern Ecuadorian Ama- zon, coffee cultivation actually act* s* "brake" on further forest clearing for families of small fanner settle*." Much more needs to be understood about die connections between labor demands, fluctuating international prices, plot size, and forest clearing, but policymakers may need to reinforce what settlers are already do- ing in that area to stem deforestation.

The appearance of shade grown coffee among the products offered by roasters represents a positive development in term* of coBee'a environmental impact, by giving environmental and conservation benefits a market role. Conservation biologists have become intrigued in recent years with the environmental beneGcs of

Coma PRODUCTION iNATbiEOPCwsa 235

cradidonal shade coffee systems.* Most of the science supporting the connection* ham been done in Latin America, the bulk of the field studies in Mexico. A number of chose studies show that traditional shade coffee systems harbor a diverge collection of plants," insects and other arthropods," birds," mammals," and, though little work has addressed them, reptiles and amphibians." Shade systems also appear to facilitate coffee pollinadon by bees,** which can result in yields up to 36 percent greater than normal

Agro forestry systems that produce shade-grown coffee and other product* in an integrated system can also have positive environmental benefits. An agrofbrest is, a* the name implies, a mix of agriculture and forest-like conditions and product*. In the case of coffee, the shade ace* associated with che production plot are often used by grower: for an array of purposes. Non-coffee products from the shade component in small holdings represent 19 percent and 28 percent of che total value derived from holdings in Guatemala and Peru, respectively.*

Trees provide firewood in rural areas chat would undoubt- edly be caken from whatever forests are present. Therefore, in some cases, che coffee agrofbrescry might help to relieve pressure on natural resources. Where defbrestadon has altered landscapes dras- dcally, such agrofbrescry system* can ace a* refuges for a number of eaxa." Even in areas with intact and protected natural forested zones, these shaded systems can ace am complementary sices for conservation purposes. As "managed forests" wich a complex structure and diverse biological profile, such system* may actually dis- play a certain degree of ecological equilibrium. Nacural predator* can keep populations of potentially harmful pests down to levels tolerable for producdon without using cosdy chemical pesticides,"' and the price crisis mighc push more grower: to look into such biological concrol methods In Guatemala, a parasitic wasp controls che coffee bean borer, one of coffee's most damaging pests. By rearing and releasing che wasps from 1996-2000, pesc infesta- don declined from 21 percent to 2 percent, while the use of insec- ticide (the previous method of control) went from 60 liters to zero. Producdon increased nearly three-fold, while che percentage of processed bean damaged by the beede ac che mill stage went from 21 percent to less than 1 percent."

In what can only be characcerized as 'making do with whac you have," a recent encounter in Nicaragua illustrates a positive outcome of the crisis within coffee communides. Growers in re- mote areas share infbrmadon about tradidonal ways to make com-

236 SAT-SKewae Wnma-SPRING2003

post, control disease and peso, and other cukhmdon practices dime do DOC require costly input*. They use mixtures of native plant derivatives to control cemun insect pests, and the general feeling; within the zone is that by sharing such information, producers might be able co survive the current crisis.*

Farm abandonment s* a result of the price crisis may also have environmental benefits, though theme do not outweigh the social costs. A farm left untended for a year or two can be reno- vated back to productive status by eliminating unwanted weeds and "volunteer" trees (chose that appear through natural means), and pruning the coffee piano. On the other hand, a firm left to its own devices for three or more years requires more drascic action, such as completely removing all coffee and shade trees—a less costly practice than attempting to renovate what is chert. But a farm simply abandoned with no plans for future attention poses some interesting environmental possibilities—albeit at high social and economic cost for the grower and his family.

Data related co the environmental consequences of che crisis are sparse to nonexistent, therefore che proposed environmental outcomes of farm abandonmenc are speculacive. Nonetheless, che potential connections warrant exploring. Low prices in the past have usually meanc a halt in opening new areas co coffee and "hunkering down" by growers to wait out the crisis. However, today's prolonged crisis has brought world prices to their lowesc level in real terms in more than fifty years, so thac growers cannoc recover their coses of produccion even in a quality coffee region like Central America," and have abandoned farms as never before. Agronomically, abandoned farms act as reservoirs for insects, pescs, diseases, and weeds, chreacening nearby farms at a time when prices do not allow for costly attention to much problem*.

On the positive side, abandoned farms might well act as relatively healthy habitats for a number of taxa such as arthropods, birds, and small mammals. As long as they are not converted to other land use, the "wild and wooly* nature of the neglected farm acts more and more like a forest as che natural regeneration and succession of the plant community takes place within che coffee holding. Shade trees grow taller. Foliage becomes more dense. Vol- unteer species appear that would otherwise be eliminated by the grower, increasing the overall tree diversity. And, in regions already suffering deforestation (eg., El Salvador and Haiti), a "coffee forest" can supplement the natural forest remnants. All in all, a co& fee farm left abandoned, even if it i* a shaded one to begin with,

CoFFEEPaoDUcnoNiNATiMEOP Ciuss 237

might with time transform itself into a more suitable habitat for a number of organisms. Such an environmental tradeoff however, i* unacceptable considering the cost for the farmer formerly making a living from the holding. A better situation all around, of course, would be one in which farmers reap fiscal gains expressly kawwe of their land stewardship practice*.

T&e Mwitef CwwecfioM An intriguing feature of the fair trade and coffee-as-habitat concepts is the force and rapidity with which the consumer end of the coffee industry—at least the specialty coffee industry—has em- braced them. A 1996 meeting in Washington, DC, organized and hosted by the Smithsonian Migratoiy Bird Center, brought 260 people &om nineteen countries together for three days." Grow- ers, traders, roasters, retailers, development workers, and scientists working with coffee discussed its environmental and social aspects at this First Sustainable Coffee Congress (PSCC). The issue of sustainable coffee—defined by participant* a* a product resting upon the three concepts of long term ecological, sociocultural, and economic viability^-caught the attention of roasters and marketers immediately. They saw unexploited niche markets into which they could launch cof&es purported to support the social and environmental benefits to producers and the environment. The issue of shade came to replace "sustainability" in the marketplace initially, to the extent that today a search on the internet for "shade grown coffee" yields more than 6,500 hits.

A working group at the PSCC defined "sustainable coffee" a* coffee

produced on a farm with high biological divereity and low chemical inputs. It conserves resources, protects the environment, produces efficiently, competes commercially and enhances the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.**

Trade magazines over the past five to ten years have published a number of articles on the environmental and social aspects of co& fee." And a 2001 survey conducted for the World Bank, The Spe- cialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA), The North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, and others revealed that the sustainable coffee segment of the specialty coffee industry is growing fast. Moreover, the industry realizes the importance of these coffees for future sales." Such articles and reports indicate that certain growers can take advantage of the current conjuncture."" 76

238 SAISRaww Wnn%R.-SPMNG2003

Small giowers, chose hisconcally mow marginalized with a production strategy of simply making it through another year, may be the best positioned to benefit from these growing consumer interests in sustainability. As peasant producers, small coffee growers often manage their ciny holdings with an array of diverge trees scattered among the coffee. The varied products from the holding help in avoiding risk; if the coffee fails to generate enough income, other products can be consumed or sold locally to help make it through the year. Though their motivation is not to protect the planet, the .ecological results are the same: a highly diverse agrofbrestry system that serves as habitat for birds and other organisms. Sibcc small producers often belong to cooperatives or grower associations, cheat social arrangements allow them to join the fair trade movement. Moreover, a* they do not use agrochemi- cals, cooperative members can band together to apply for organic certification (provided they adhere CO the basic principles of organic production). As long as the coffee quality is high, the profile of certified organic, fair trade, and shade coffee offer: growers an avenue to better prices.

But the market can only address so much of the current crisis. The problem has not proven temporary ma in times past; :t is a structural crisis based on tremendous oversupply and new tech- nologies in production and manufacturing, requiring che action and dedication of governments and incemationsl lending agencies if any solution is to be found. Every government in General America, as well as that of Colombia, has taken steps to alleviate the problems facing growers." Coffee trade organizations such as the ICO and the SCAA have also weighed in on the crisis, making public statements in support of needed changes." Both houses of che U.S. Congress passed resolutions in November 2002, calling for government action to "adopt a global strategy to respond co the coffee crisis with coordinated activities in Latin America, Africa, and Asia" that can address short-term humanitarian and long-term rural development needs of those areas aSected by the crisis." Also in November, a communique by Belgium's Foreign Minister to che European Union's Council of General Affairs and External Rela- tions officially brought che issue to the attention of Europe's leadr ers." These statements by developed world leaders came a full year after "a special declaration on che worsening world coffee crisis" was made in Lima, Peru ac che 11* Latin American Summit Con- ference by thirteen producing countries."

COPPEEPRODUCTIONMATngEOFClUSIS 239

A key ingredient to die solution lies with the private sector. In particular, the large international roaster Rrm@—Kraft, Nestlt, Procter & Gamble, and Sara Lee—can play a central role in allevi- ating the pain felt throughout the coffee producing world." With the dissolution of the ICA and many developing countries' governments weakened by global trade agreement*, international firms' role may become one of (unwelcomed) responsibility for the future of a healthy coffee market.** The international development and relief organization Oxfam has proposed a "coffee rescue plan" designed to realign supply and demand, r(invigorate farmer livelihoods via a Commodity Management Initiative, and secure fair prices for producers. Recommendation* for action to realize such a plan rely upon the good faith cHbrca of large roasters, retailers, governments (both producing and consuming), investors, and in- gntutions.**

Conclusion

As a commodity, coffee historically has exhibited fewer problems environmentally than socially. With the current sustained crisis in prices being paid to growers, however, the resulting social and economic problems can sometimes translate into environmental chal- lenges. On the other hand, depending upon growers* reaction and decisions in the face of plummeting prices, certain scenarios may enhance environmental health-as when abandoned coffee lands are left alone and natural regeneration of the plant community proceeds unhindered, or when growers and roasters connect to offer environmentally sound coffees to consumers. The social, economic, and cultural costs of the price squeeze, however, cannot be dismissed. The crisis currently confronting growers all over the world is deep and structural Short of a renewed agreement by producing and consuming countries to forge ICA-like price controls at a global level, the biggest hope for producers lie* in niche markets. The initiatives now associated with fair trade, organic, and shade coffees offer hope for those growers positioned to take advantage of theae new markets. Consumers, spurred by marketer educational programs, may be able to link up with growers and "do the right thing" through their morning cup of coffee.

240 SAZSJbwew WbrrER-SPRiNG2003

: C#1nil*r*d &om dan provided by the United Nacioni Pood and Agriculture Organization, <hop^/app&6o.org/> (19 December 2002). * William Roaeberry, Lowell Gudmundaon, and Mario Samper Kutachbach, Cog**, Soa*^, Aid Power <» Lid* America (Baltimore, MD: John* Hopkina Univeraity Prew, 1995); Robert G. William*, Soda* and SoW BpobCmL Co^e wd (6« Rw of Mdimwd GwwnwMMO k CwKr«f Ammoa (Chapel Hill, NO Univeraity of North Carolina Preaa, 1994); JeKery M Paige, Cogee «md Pwwr AewWom and fk Riw of Demw*ey a* Cbund Amerw (Cambridge, MA: Hmnrmrd Unwetaky Preaa,1997). . . _ * Robert M Maxon, "The roots of differential development in western Kenya: the introduction of arabkacoGee, 1930-1960,"jbaeWof7t*d WoHdStweW 19,

no.l(2002):lf3-I71. * Deborah J. Yaahar, DemwdiMg Democrwy: R^bnn <wid RaadioM m CoAa A*w Aid Gwrniwlt J87(k-J950* (Stanford: Stanford Univeraity Frew, 1997). * Paul Rice and Jennifer McLean, am*6wW* Cogea *f (*# OwmwdK X Raperf A; d*(%MK*ar'rCWce(%WMd(Waahington,DCTbeConaumer'^ 1999); Robert A. Rice, "Noble goal: and challenging cerraim organic and fair Made coffee movement* in the global marketplace," Jonrmd o/4piadomd aid awdnmnwMbdEtWa 14 (2000): 39-66. * Ivette Perfecto et al, "Shade co@ee: a disappearing refuge for biodkerauy," BbScamwe 46, no. 8 (1996): 598-60% R. Greenberg, P. Bichier, and J. Sterling, "Bird populationa in made and planted ahade coffee plantadona of eaacem CWapaa, Meako," gio»op6»29, no. 4 (1997): 501-514; R. Greenberg et al, "Bird populationa in shade and aun coRee in central Guatemala," CoamrwAoM BAdqgf 11, no. 2 (1997): 448-459; Patricia Moguel and Victor M. Toledo, "Biodiveraky oonaewadoa in traditional coffee eyetema of Mexico," Cownww* 8w&%y 13, no. 1 (1999): 11-21; J. M. Wunderle Jr. and S. C Latca, "Avian abundance in aun and ahade coffee plantatiooa and remnant pine fbreat in the Cordillera Central, Dominican Republic," Ond*bgwJfeom;pKaJ 7 (1996): 19-34; J. M. Wunderle Jr., "Avian diatribudon m Dominican ahade coffee plantation*: area and habitat rdadonahip*," .fo*nwf of add OnwAdcgy 70 (1999): 58-70; David W. Roubik, "The value of beea to the coffee harvest," Tfaaw 417 (2002): 708. 7W0%amrLUkera,/UlAh#*C^(NwYorkTlMTema*d^

Company, 1922). * Mark Pendergraat, Umcowmom Growwk: To* Hwfory o/CojQt* #nd ffoie a Thw^bniwd Ow Worfd (New York Baaic Book*, 1999), 8. * William H. Ukera, AZZ Akw* Cog**; Pendergraac, UMcommam Gnwwid*. '» Robert H. Bate*, ppen-EcMm^Adificc^PoM^ TY-^de (Princeton, N): Princeton Univeraity Preaa, 1997), 26. " Cited in William H. Durham, ScarrAy Aid SwneMala* Cmm*/Amerw*; Bco/ogW Or^gWe/^S«wrWkr(Stanfbfd: Stanford Unieeiai^ Preaa, 1979), 3t i* Durham, Sgardfy ^*id Swn*W m Cenfr^f America, 36. ** Pendergraat, Mafoawaom Growidf, 83-86. " Pendergraat, [/Mowamim Growidn Benolc Daviron, "The riae and fall of governmental power on the international cogee market," Eammdo qf^ptwAwa! PoWe*fmD«wk^gCb#m*n«,BdidonadehRwuePnm(aiaeD^coaom^

1996,81-100.

COPPEB PRODUCTION IN A TlME OP CRISIS 241

w Gregory Dicam and Nio& Lotting, TkC(0M&)^j4**RM^^**&MW!#/79* Cmp* dk la a* Drop (New York: The New Pre*, 1999), 92;Daviron, "The rue and fall of governmental power oo the international coffee market.* w Dicom and Luttinger, Tee Cc^ee Awe. " Robert H. Bate*, ppm-EnwwMay PofAw, 20. * Dicum end Lutdnger,TteCqg*e Boot, 92. " PavJordan, "Mexican coffee censue could yield eurprieee," Amman Www Senwa, 21 Auguit 2001; Ranter*, "Low Price* Seen Hitting But Africa Specialty Coffee," Reafen New Sevic* 20 June 2001; Anne Boher, "Poverty Weigh* oo flat Ivorien coffee crop," Rewferr New; Sendee, 21 Auguit 2001; Laurie Goering, "Coffee Bean Glut Down* Production in Nicaragua: Price: Plummet; worker: Imid off/ eke*? TWhmw, 23 October 2001; U.S. Houee Committee on International Relation*, Subcommittee on the Weecero Hemisphere, Tk Coj)*# OW* h* ft* Wwtera Hem^kre, 107th Congn 2nd mew^ 24 July 2002. " LLS. Hou«e Committee on International Relation*, Subcommittee on the Weetem Hemisphere. 7** 0%f** CWA fa *6* Wewer* Heeebptere. " Robert H Bate:, qpea-EcoMomy PoWo, 176. *' Robert G. William:, Profeaaor of Economic*, Guilford College, commimitarion with anchor, Greeoaboro, NC, 20 November, 2002. ** Batea, Opea-Ewwamy WAic^ 177. * Goering, "Coffee bean glue down* production in Nicaragua;" Kelly Yamanouchi, "Coffee Price* Routing Grower:: Premium Bean: to be Emphaaized," CWcago TWhme 9 April 2002. w Y&manouchi, "Coffee Pricea Roatting Growera: Premium Beana to be Emphasized." * International Coffee Organization, "ICO Trade Starietice," <http:// www.ico.org/frame*et/traaechtm> (19 December 2002). Rgnrem calculated from data provided on hiatorical price*. ** Yamanonchi, "Coffee Price* Roaating Growera: Premium Bean* to be Bmpbaeized." * Nicholaa Stein, "Crimit in * Co8ee Cnp," JWwie, 9 December 2002; Oafam International, Magged: Poaerfy fa Ybwr Co^te Caf, 2002, <http:// wwwx«Amamerica.or^campaigncoffee/arc3395JKml> (13 December 2002). " Michael Gleniater, President of Amcafe, interview with author, New York, NY, 12 December 2002. " Oafam International, MaggeaV Poverfy fa Yow Co/fet Cap, 2002, <http:// www^)xfamamenca.or^campaigncofree/mrt339SJit%nl> (13 December 2002). " Ted Lingle, Executive Director of the Specialty Coffee Awociation of America, commooicadon with author, 13 November 2002; Stein, "Criai* In a coffee cup." *' United Nation* Pood and Agricultural Production Stacamea, 2002, <http:// appa6o.org/page/colleccions?»ubaet-agncoltnre> (19 December 2002). ** International Coffee Organization, "ICO Trade Stadacica," <hctp:// wwwJconrg/frameaei/tretM hrm> (19 December 2002). ** Robert A. Rice, "A place unbecoming: the coffee farm of northern Latin America," 7%« GeoyapAW Rawm? 89, no. 4 (1999): 334-579. ** Oxfam Intemarionel, Mwgad. fwerfy m Year Ci^at Cey. "Ibid. * Calculated from data provided by the United Nation* Pood and Agriculture Organization, <httpy/appaJaonrg/> (19 December 2002).

242 SAfSaAMGW WMTER-SPBJMG2003

*Kary McLau^lin,"Why Doe* Coffee Taste So Bad?" W*U Sfreefjoamiat 19 November 2002, <http://www.m«nbc.com/newa/B37091^«p> (19 December 2002). * Oxfam Internanonml, MageJ: Powrfy m y««r Coge* Cef. "Jorge Ramirez-Vmllejo, "A Break for Coffee" fbr*lpi Pofrg', no. 132 (Sept/Oct. 2002): 26-27. ** Rice and McLean, "Suatainabk CofA* at tha Crowroadm." *'Mafg«ntaMoiaaetaL,CknmM«W(^,BZAiipackd«!aCe^d«WpMaorAf^^ BCLAC, Eatodioa y Peeapacdaaa Strict, no. 9 (Mexico City, 2002). * Unldn NicaragOenaa da Cafetalaroe, (UNICAFE), data presented at the Cdnferencia d« Caft Somcenibk, Managua, 7-9 November 2002; Sociedad de PequeBoe Prqductore* Exportadore: y Comarcializadorem da CafB (SOPPEXCCA), information and data prwanted at tha Coaferenda de CaA Soetenible, MeAegue, 7-9 November 2002. * Tw dr Cogw lyaJejoanW, "Staff Reporc The plight of coffee': children," Tw dr Q?g« T^a^e jwnW 176, no. 1 (2002): 20-28. *" Tt* ^"Cqgee 7raJ# JoamaZ, "Staff Raporc Working to help coffee": children," 7%a (f Cogw T^^de JbanW 176, no. 2 (2002): 27-34. ^* Robert Armstrong Rice, Tnwu/bnidMgAgrWa**: 7t« Caw (f Cogw l*«f.Ra# and Cogee Rewafwa fa Soat&em Nkaragwa. Doctoral Dimmartation in Geography, Univarmty of California, Berkeley, 1990; Rica, "A place unbecoming"; Of. Cook, &We fa COjgee Ca/wre, U.S. Department of Agricultura, Divieion of Botany, Bulletin No. 25. (Waehington, DC: Government Printing OfEce, 1901); Juan Antonio Alvarado, TYawdo de CafWon* JWcika Minietario de Agriculture (Guatemala City, Guatemala, 1935), 47-75. * Robert A. Rica and Juado Ward, Cog** QwuenWMMi aad CbawaeMe fa dw WkArm ^waifpWe (Waahington, DC: SMBC-NRDC, 1996); Mogoal and Toledo, "Biodivaraity conmatvation in traditional coffe* mymtam* of Mexico"; Ivette Perfecto, «c ai, "Shade cof&a: a dieappaaring refuge for biodivareicy.'' * Rica, "A place unbecoming." * Rice end Ward, Cq#e% CwuenwOon and Cimawrw; Rice, "A place unbecoming." * Ivetta Perfecto and Inge Armbrecht, "Tha coffee agroecoeyetam in tha neotropici: combining ecological and economic goal*," in John H. Vandemeer, *&, lhwa«f Agrwcwydeaw (Boca Raton, PL: CRC Pren, 2002), 159-194. " Felipe Guzmin, coffea farmer and owner of Finca Buenas Airee in Guatemala, peraooal communication with author, 10 April 2001; Specialty Coffet Aaeocianon of America webeite, <httpy/wwwjcma.com/etoriea^fm?*t2-atona8/ 102102afm> (19 December 2002). " Danila Giovannucci, SmtafaaWe Cogee Sarpey of f&e Norft Aawrkan SpecWfy Cogee Ad**?. A report conducted for The Summit Foundation, The Nature Conatrvancy, Tha North Amarican Commieeion for Environmental Coopaeanon, The Specimlty Coffee Aeeociation of America, and the World Bank. May 2001. » Patima Iimael Bipinoza, Director of SOPPBXCCA, a coffee producer group in Nicaragua, pareonal communication with anther, 8 November 2002. * Robert A. Rice, "Noble goal* end challanging terrain: organic end fair trede coffee movement: in the global markatplaco," Jaanwf of AgrWfwa/ and aadnwimmWaWo 14 (2000): 39-66. * Oxfam International, Maged, foverty <n yow Cqgee Cap.

COFFEE PRODUCTION IN A "DUE OF CMOS 243

" Paul Rice, Executive Director of TranmPair USA, penonal communication with author, 7 November 2002. * Nicolo Gligo, Agrkaiaww ji Ma&o Amtwrnte em Am6-k# Le&w (San Joaf, Coata Rica:BDUCA,1986). ^ Catherine Marquecte, "Land uae pattenu among amall farmer settlerm in cha northeaatem Ecuadorian Amazon," Hwmwi Ecof%y 26, no. 4 (1998): 573-597. " R. Greenberg, P. Bichier, and J. Sterling, "Bird populacionm in ruadc and planted ihade coffee plantaciona of eaatem Chiapaa, Mexico"; R. Greenberg et aL, "Bird Population: in ahade mod man cof&a in oentrml Guatemala"; Joaeph M. Wnnderle and Steven C Lactm, "Wintar aita fidelity of Naaretic migranta in ihade coffee plantadon* of difTefent aizea in the Domincan Republic," 7t* A*& 117, noJ (2000): 596-614; Patricia Mogud mod Victor M. Toledo, "Biodiveeaity conaeMmnoo in traditional coffee ^mtema of Mexico," CowwnWKM Biology 13, no. 1 (1999): 11-21; David Neatei, "Cbffe* in Mexico: international market, agricultural landacape and ecology," JWqpod Ecowowaa IS (1993): 165-179; fvette Perfecto et al, "Shade coAa: a diaappeanng refuge for biodiversity^ David W. Roubik, "The value of bee* to the coffee harvest," Naww 417 (2002): 70& " A. RendAn and B. Turrubiarte, BZ addvo dd c^t aw<K*erWznadm j«f mwrnep) j «anwami4&aMm)6«r*ai**d«fWo *«f Qwrwô," Mimiripio de Atoyac de Alvarez, Guerrero. Teaia da Lie En Biologia, UNAM, Mexico City, 1985; LF. Molino, "Agrofbreta Cafeierea du municipio <k Coaautlan (Btat de Veracruz, Mexiqua)," Programme LIDBR, Institute Agronomique Mediterranten, Montpellier, Prance, 1986—cited in Patricia Moguel and Victor M. Toledo, "Biodivenity corwervanon in traditional coffee lyatema of Mexico." " Guillermo Ibarra-NuAez, *Loa aitrdpodo: aaocimdo* a fafetoa en un cafktal mixto del Soconuaco, Chiapaa, Mexico," fblk Ewomold'giM Ma%j«#x<* 79 (1990)207-231; David Neacel and F. Dickacben, "Th* foraging kinadca of ground ant commnnitiea in difrerent Mexican coffee agroecoayatema," Oacofoy 84 (1990): 58-63; David Neatel, P. Dickachen, and M^. Alcieri, "Diveraity pattern* of moil macro-coleoptera in Mexican ahaded and unahaded coffee agroecoayatem*: an indication of habitat perturbation," BJoJAwdfy **d ComwnwAoM 2 (1993): 70-7& " G J. Andrade and H. Rubio, "Soacainable uaa of the tropical rain forest: evidence from the avifauna in a ahifting cultivation habitat moaaic in the Colombian Amazon," CoawnwdomBWogy 8 (1994): 546-554; JAL Thiollay, "The role of traditional agrofbreata in the conservation of rain fbreat bird diveraity in Sumatra," Cowenwww Bbfogy 9 (1995): 333-363; Bdnardo Mxrdna* and Walter Peters, "La cafeticnltura biolîca: la Pinca If land* como eatudio de caao de un diaeBo agroecoWgko,'' In P. Trujillo de Le6n-Gonzalex, R. Calder6n and P. Torrea-Lima (ed^) EcokgA Af&cad* ^ Lt AgnoJfwx: Jkmw SebcA* aa MWco (Mexico City: Univeraidad AutAnoma Metropolitana, 1996), 159-183; R. Greenberg, "Phenomena, comment and notes," SwdftfonAwi Mayxaw 11 (1994): 24-26; R. Greenbarg, P. Bichier, and J. Starling, "Bird populationa in ruatic and planted ihade coffee plantation* of eaatem Chiapwa, Mexico"; R. Greenberg cc ai, "Bird Populationa in ahada and aun coffee in central Guatemala." ** S. Gallina, S. Mandujano, and A. Gonâa-Romaro, "Conacn*uon of mammalian biodiversity in coffee plantaciona of central Veracruz, Madco,"

244 SATSJ&WHW WmTBR-SpiUNG2003

j%po/b«arf SyAewu 33 (1996): 13-27. ** M G. Renddn-Rojas, aWio «k k Wp*A)/!w«w w k %o#w (a/W*ra d* S#mfiago /«W«4 O^x**, Tern: de I* Licmnmmrm, Bscuela Nacional de Ciencias Bioldgicam, Inmdtuto Politkoico Nacional, Mexico City, 1994. ^ David W. Roubik, "The value of bee: to the coffee hanreat" * Author"; unpubliihed data from Geld reward: in Guatemala mnd Peru. " Patricia Mognel and Victor M Toledo, "Biodiveraity conaarwtioa In traditional coffee eyitemi of Mexico* *Ibid. * Felipe Guzman, peraonal communication. " Sr. Gonzalo CaatiUo, Regional Manager for Econcrading": Bxportadora Atlantic section in Nicaragua, personal communication with author, 8 November 2002. , "MargantaFlorwetaL.C^mwm^tA^JmfÂa^kCaâ^WfMf^wcayt

" Larry Luxner, "Zoo host: 'Sumtainabla CofRa Coogrwa," 7m* *»" C^gw 3y«6 jb*nwf 168,no. 11 (1996): 84-46. » Smitheonian Migratory Bird Center (SMBC), CrfWrw (k^M^"' °"d "^ Robert A. Rice, AJU. Harrie, and). McLean, edt, Pnxea&igc JdSMdawwWe Coê C«ya% J6-;g S^wmkr J996 (Waehington, DC: SMBC, 1997), 403-407. njcSrey Parriah, "Coffee production and th« global eovironmenc conmaMaOOO with coffee bean,?" Coê TWk M^wAw 4, no. 4 (1997): 36-39; JeFrey Parriah, "Coffet and the global environment: recognizing a world beyond our coffee cupa," Cogw TW& Mfgeow 4, no. 5 (1997): 26-29; Jef&ey Parrieh, "Coffee and the global environment: dnnking rwponaibly," Cq#w TWt M«g«in« 4, no. 6 (1997): 26-30; Dana Carey-Twight, "Shade coffee, Pare 1: The bird: and the beane," C*/% OW M«g«aw 3, no. 8 (1994): 30-32; Robert Rice, "Coffee modeniizationandecoJogical€imngMlniKXthamLalioAm«nca,"7k0^C^

TWe/menwf 168, no. 9 (1996): 104-1 IS. « Giovannucci, SwfaWWe Cogee Safcgt »MargahtaFlor«etal,CkimwWrM%El7mffc*Ak(Wa^6WpM^

"Ibid. _. " "The Coffee Criau in the Weitem Hemwphere," Specialty Coffee Aaaooanon of America, 24 July 2002, amilabk at <httpY/**w^ca*-°rg/P«M-rdeam@#_ Gk&cfm?pr2-preM_raleaae_filw/072402.cfm> and at <http://www jcaa^rg/ Mxm«&cnD?»t2-atone#/10O40Zcfm>; International Coffee Organization Preat Relaawa "Malabo Peeler:lion," 7 November 2002, and "Special Declaration by Head* of State and Government of Ibero-American producing and exporting coontriea on the world coff** criaia," 18 Novembar 2002, available ac <http(// www.ico.org/event/prMm.htm> (19 December 2002) and the "Quebec Declaration," April 2001, <httpy/www.ico.org/cnaia/quebecpdf> (19 December 2002). . " U.S. Senate 2002 Senate Re*olution 368, 197th Cong^ 2nd Seaion, found at <bctp://www.#enaca.gov>; U.5. Houw of Repreaencadve: 2002 Home Reaolution 604,107th Cong., 2nd Seadoc " ICO prew releaaea, "Malabo Declaration" and "Special Declaration by Haadm of State and Government of Ibtro-Amencao pmducing and exporting countrie: on the world coffet coaia." "Ibid.

COFFEE PRODUCTION IN ATn*EOpC*BB 243

" Senate Rwoludon 368; Hou**Rf#oWtion6(M;Ox&mI%a«nwdonal,M*p6

"BenokDmviron.'^eriMMidMofgovemmmcalpower on thtmcemanonal

coHeemark**.* ** Gregory Dicum and Ninm Lumnger, 7t« Cojgw Book " Oxfwn Inwmationml, Mwgmi PowMy m Hwr Cbgw C«f, 200Z

sais review vol. xxiii no. 1 (winter-spring 2003) coffee...

Documents