The main way to estimate this effect

Transcription

1 32 Climate Change C&CI March 2012 Shade-grown coffee could offset emissions along the value chain The main way to estimate this effect is by calculating the carbon footprint. The few studies that have been published of the coffee carbon footprint indicate that around 55 per cent of the emissions (FUNCAFE 2006, PCF 2008) come from the agronomic practices on the farms where the coffee is produced. At the same time, at least on shaded coffee farms, there are considerable stocks of carbon in the biomass of the shade trees and the conservation of soil organic matter. Other sustainable management practices much promoted in coffee production may reduce emissions or even sequester more carbon. The question in many minds is do the carbon stored in shaded coffee systems and emissions reduced by sustainable practices compensate for emissions on the farm, and could it do so across the whole value chain? The ideal situation would be if sustainable production practices on-farm could offset or in current terminology "inset" carbon emissions from the whole supply chain, to achieve the ideal of a carbon neutral value chain. Is this a possibility, or wishful thinking? Carbon storage and shade coffee Producing, processing and distributing coffee generates greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, but as Jeremy Haggar 1 and Martin Noponen 2 suggest, growing coffee under shade can help abate on-farm emissions, and could even offset emissions elsewhere in the value chain Shade-grown coffee could have the potential to offset on-farm emissions and those that originate elsewhere in the value chain The stocks of carbon stored in coffee systems vary according to shade type, as can be seen from figure 1. Full sun coffee has less than 10 tonnes of carbon stored; ordinary shaded coffee may accumulate tonnes of carbon with the addition of shade trees; but systems with large forest trees can accumulate tonnes of carbon per hectare. These systems may even approach the 100 tonnes per hectare or more of carbon stored in natural forest. Without doubt, conserving these stocks is extremely important, and their loss should the coffee system be intensified with more regulated shade would be almost the same as bad as deforestation. Carbon stocks such as these have accumulated over many decades. What is more difficult to estimate is which systems are accumulating carbon that may be used to offset against emissions. This would require measuring carbon stocks say, every 3-5 years, in order to estimate how much carbon stocks have increased, or the annual carbon sequestration. Currently, we only have estimates of the increase in carbon stocks from sites where coffee and shade trees have been established on bare ground, in areas that were already deforested. In these cases we know that carbon stocks can accumulate 3-12 tonnes per hectare per year in above ground biomass or tonnes of CO 2 equivalents the usual measure of carbon trading. These levels of sequestration are generally above the agronomic carbon footprint of 2-5 tonnes of CO 2 equivalents from coffee production (Noponen 2012). Figure 1. Carbon stocks in above ground biomass with no shade (full sun) and different kinds of shade compared to a natural forest in southern Guatemala (Idol et al 2011)

2 March 2012 C&CI Climate Change 33 Income source Legume shade Diversified shade Forest shade Coffee Bananas Firewood Timber Palm fronds Total income Table 1. Net income from different coffee shade systems in southern Guatemala. US$ per ha (Martinez 2005). Coffee system Carbon footprint Carbon Net Net Sequestered balance income US$/ha Full sun Legume shade Timber shade Table 2 Carbon dynamics in newly planted experimental coffee systems in Costa Rica over a nine year period (Noponen 2012) Although increasing the presence of trees in coffee systems can offset agronomic emissions, what happens to the productivity and income from these systems? Looking again at the different systems in Guatemala (Table 1) we see that the net income from the high carbon systems with forest shade is considerably lower than that from the more simple shaded systems which have lower carbon stocks. However, these coffee systems were also managed with different levels of agronomic investment. Evaluation of experimental coffee shade systems all managed under the same agronomic system also indicates that there is a trade-off between income and carbon balance. The difference in income between the full sun system (with a negative carbon footprint) and the legume shaded system (with a small positive carbon footprint) is relatively small (Table 2). This same general effect was also found for coffee plantations with lower levels of agronomic inputs and for organic systems. Nevertheless, where timber shade species respond to fertilizer by increased growth, coffee productivity and carbon sequestration can both increase, with the increased emissions from the fertilizer use more than offset by the increased carbon sequestration (Noponen 2012). Sustainable practices The carbon footprint per kg of coffee produced is a balance between the greenhouse gas emissions from agronomic inputs especially nitrogen whether in chemical or organic form and the level of productivity achieved. Thus, potentially, high use of nitrogen fertilizer - if it stimulates enough production - can have a lower carbon footprint Coffee farm certification (and size) Rainforest ha Conventional ha Organic < 5 ha Conventional < 5 ha Carbon footprint breakdown (gco 2 e/tonne coffee) Fertilizer N2O soil Pesticides Fuel per kg of product than less nitrogen use. This has led to much debate about the carbon footprint of organic production, where greenhouse gas emissions per hectare might be expected to be lower, but if productivity is much lower, the carbon footprint can be actually higher (Mondelaers et al 2008). Nevertheless, in two studies that have been carried out on organic coffee production it appears that organic production, although less productive, has a lower carbon footprint (Attarzadeh & Noponen 2010). Furthermore, across a survey of over 20 farms in each of Nicaragua and Costa Rica, it was found that there was a significant negative relationship between the carbon footprint of coffee production per kg and the quantities of nitrogen applied. In Nicaragua, organically produced coffee had a lower carbon footprint than conventional, whereas in Costa Rica they were similar. A study in Guatemala found an even greater difference, with agronomic emissions of about 2,700g CO 2 e per kg of roast and ground conventionally produced coffee but only 450g CO 2 e per kg of roast and ground organically produced coffee (FUNCAFE 2006). These studies indicate that in coffee there is a significant trade-off between increasing productivity (by increasing nitrogen inputs) and reducing the carbon footprint of the coffee produced. This begs the question: are there ways that you can increase productivity while minimizing the increase in carbon footprint? Table 3. Carbon footprint of agronomic production in Nicaragua (Attarzadeh & Noponen 2010) Transport Materials Total carbon footprint KgCO 2 e/ tonne coffee

3

4 March 2012 C&CI Climate Change 35 Possible means of mitigating the increase in carbon footprint from increased fertilization and productivity include: Applications of organic matter, compost or manure, which contribute to emissions of nitrous oxide but can also increase the carbon content of the top soil ameliorating the emissions Application of pruning material from shade regulation of the trees and coffee can also contribute to nitrous oxide emissions and the carbon footprint, but have a lower emission factor and also contribute to increasing carbon content of the top soil. Both organic inputs and pruning materials contribute to N2O emissions from the soil but they generally do not have emissions related to the manufacturing of the product as with chemical fertilizer thus the carbon footprint per kg of organic nitrogen applied is lower. However, they may also be less effective in increasing productivity, which may offset the lower GHG emissions from their application in terms of carbon footprint per kg of coffee produced. On-farm and across the value chain What, then, is the potential for carbon sequestration on-farm to offset the emissions from the whole chain? And what are the conditions that may enable that to happen? If we take the only published full coffee carbon footprint (PCF 2008) it indicates that about 55 per cent of the carbon footprint of a cup of coffee is from on-farm Shaded coffee systems that already have large carbon stocks are a different scenario. Although established shaded coffee systems can hold substantial stocks of carbon there is no data to enable us to estimate whether these systems can continue to sequester carbon emissions. This means that carbon sequestration on-farm must be approximately twice as high as emissions on-farm if the carbon footprint from the rest of the value chain is to be inset. The potential to generate the carbon to be inset depends on whether the coffee plantation, or at least the shade trees, are already established or newly planted. Newly planted shaded coffee systems, or coffee in which shade has been planted where the coffee used to be grown in full sun, can fix sufficient carbon to offset agronomic emissions during a period of ten years at least. After this, at some point, carbon sequestration from the growth of the trees will fall off and the situation becomes similar to established coffee systems. Full sun If we take our three experimental systems presented earlier in table 2, the full sun production system doesn t cover its own emissions and the legume shaded system was accruing 50 per cent more carbon than it was emitting over a nine year period. So there is some potential to offset emissions but not enough for the whole value chain. Timber shade Finally, the timber-shaded value chain sequesters four times as much carbon as is emitted, which would indicate that this system could offset the carbon emissions of the rest of the supply chain (that is, it can inset the carbon emissions in the value chain). This final scenario is a very particular one of planting new timber trees on a deforested site with coffee, but a similar scenario could be expected by planting free growing trees in un-shaded coffee. Shaded coffee systems that already have large carbon stocks are a different scenario. Although established shaded coffee systems can hold substantial stocks of carbon there is no data to enable us to estimate whether these systems can continue to sequester carbon. 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) The likelihood is that it will depend on the dynamic of tree shade regulation, harvesting, mortality, and planting as to whether carbon stocks continue to increase. In general, it can be said that allowing trees free growth (as opposed to regulating shade) will increase carbon stocks, but this may also affect productivity. Estimating carbon sequestration in established coffee will require measurements of changes in stocks every 3-5 years to determine whether the system represents a carbon sink overall. Nevertheless, if it is recognised that there is an economic cost in terms of loss of potential productivity from not reducing shade and intensifying production then a

5

6 March 2012 C&CI Climate Change 37 scenario of avoided deforestation can be invoked, such as is used to justify payments for conservation of carbon stocks in forests. This is currently being negotiated under the concept of REDD Reduced Emissions from avoided Deforestation and forest Degradation in international climate change negotiations. What this means for shaded coffee is less clear, although most shaded coffee does qualify as "forest" under international conventions. Another metric that could be considered is to estimate how large the stocks of carbon in these systems are relative to the emissions from coffee production and the carbon footprint of the whole value chain; if the stocks conserved represent a 100 years or more of emissions, then it would seem that their conservation is making a real contribution to avoiding emissions over the coming critical years during which GHG emissions need to be reduced. So what can we conclude about the potential of carbon sequestered in shaded coffee systems to offset agronomic emissions and, potentially, to contribute to insetting emissions across the value chain? If sufficient new free-growing trees are established in coffee plantations, or at least somewhere on the coffee farm, there is potential to offset the emissions from the agronomic management of the farm and even the whole value chain. More detailed evaluation would need to be made of established shaded coffee plantations in order to estimate the levels of carbon sequestration that may offset emissions. An alternative would be to build a justification for recognising systems that conserve considerable stocks of carbon, equivalent to at least 100 years of emissions from the supply chain. Maintaining systems such as these provides a significant opportunity so long as production is not intensified. The latter scenario would include large areas of shaded coffee produced across Central America, Mexico, India and the Andean countries of Latin America. REDD could be used as a reference to justify that systems such as these conserve carbon stocks in a similar way to natural forest. C&CI Guatemalan farm is verified as climate friendly Jeremy Haggar 1 and Martin Noponen 2 1 Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, ME4 4TB, Kent, UK J.p.haggar@gre.ac.uk El Platanillo coffee farm is the world s first coffee farm to have complied with the SAN s Climate Module El Platanillo in San Marcos, Guatemala, has become the world s first coffee farm to be verified for compliance with the Climate Module of the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN), the international coalition of conservation organizations 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 their farms 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 emissions and better adapt to changing climatic conditions. They will also be able to identify the risks that climate change poses to their farms and communities, and estimate their level of vulnerability in the face of 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 decomposed earth, reforesting certain areas on their farms and improving soil conservation, all of which helps reduce agriculture s climate impacts and offers farmers a way to do their part to solve this challenging global problem. Finca Platanillo has worked with EFICO and its clients for several years to adopt sustainable farming practices. The EFICO Foundation has supported the development of sustainable farming models, and Belgian coffee roasters Mokaturc and Colruyt have invested in certification, education and infrastructure development. Finca Platanillo, the Rainforest Alliance, Anacafe and EFICO joined forces to develop and implement the SAN Climate Module. The Climate Module seeks to raise awareness among farmers about the impacts of climate change and promote the adoption of new practices that can mitigate these impacts and be integrated into a farm s sustainable management plan. Nils Leporowski, Vice President of ANACAFE, said he hoped that more farmers would join the initiative. He said El Platanillo s verification "signalled the beginning of a new era in evaluating and acknowledging 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 joint goals of the SAN and the Rainforest Alliance, by encouraging people, producers, businesses and industries to share responsibility for mitigating climate change." The SAN Climate Module also provides benefits beyond the farm. "The concept of sustainability is a dynamic process that is continually evolving," said Katrien Delaet, EFICO s Sustainability Project Manager. "The module is a practical and accessible tool for the entire coffee chain. It encourages farmers to create carbon stocks and reduce their emissions, and it persuades industry to commit to sustainable supply chains." So far, three containers of the farm s coffee have been sold to three European roasters committed to sustainable development: Peeze Coffee in the Netherlands, and Belgium s Beyers Coffee and Rombouts. 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 men and 20 women year-round, and an average of 500 men and 200 women during harvest season. 2 School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UW, United Kingdom m.noponen@bangor.ac.uk