Avoiding a bitter end for climate change coffee

I didn’t start drinking coffee until last fall. Despite working as a barista for four years and growing up in a house that intravenously takes their coffee, I just never tasted it. The last drop that turned my years of knowledge of brewing coffee into a coffee drinking routine was to start my graduate studies. This moment is probably not a coincidence. But coffee also entered my life in another way when it became the subject of a year-long research project.

My classmates and I decided to focus on coffee for our final project after recalling the headlines warning of coffee’s death due to climate change. We were looking for a link between climatic stressors and coffee yield, but instead found a complicated political relationship which I decided to investigate further.

I remembered my coffee days, when the emphasis was on serving only fair trade coffee. Any frequent caffeinator has probably heard this phrase – it’s meant to mean premium beans, with standards based on social, economic, and environmental criteria. Fair Trade America even has a “climate standard,” which aims to protect cooperative farmers from the adverse effects of climate change. Until I immersed myself in coffee production, I still had this heroic idea of ​​fair trade and how it helped coffee farmers.

The problem is that the system to ensure fair prices for coffee producers is inaccessible to small farmers. Fair trade certification forces farmers to face a purchase cost, which is not possible for the poorest coffee producers, many of whom are already running an annual deficit. Economic studies on the benefits of fair trade, like this Harvard discussion paper released last year, show that the potential benefits do not extend to the most disadvantaged farm workers.

The idea of ​​a safety mechanism to help coffee growers is appealing, but a cost-effective solution that requires an initial investment is not it. By financially supporting farms even when crops fail, farmers are able to recover for the next planting season, but limiting access to this option means that climate stress will only exacerbate inequalities. Climate change may not be the death of the coffee in my local store, but it will be a huge ordeal for already struggling farmers.

Some farmers have turned away from fair trade for natural adaptations to the climate. Shade-grown coffee is one approach. By planting a mix of taller trees around coffee plantations, coffee is less susceptible to adverse climatic impacts. The new trees could provide additional income through crops like bananas or macadamia nuts. This method of rearing has additional ecological benefits, as it helps restore nutrients to depleted soils and provides habitat for migrating birds. Shade-grown coffee can even earn its own certification – bird-friendly coffee – which helps ensure that coffee plantations help restore bird biodiversity.

Shade-grown coffee, although currently more accessible to poor farmers than fair-trade, still requires an initial pool of money to plant new trees in addition to their main crops. Sometimes farmers can get subsidies for their mixed plantings, as these methods promote a more resilient crop. Green solutions, compared to economical solutions, enable farmers to respond to a changing climate.

I fear the collapse of the cafe for my own selfish reasons. I enjoy my daily cup of coffee and can even make some pretty convincing latte art. Even so, what I have to lose from the coffee collapse is pale compared to people who grow coffee for a living and barely scratch. The climate crisis is hitting farm workers hard, and it is more important than ever to subsidize sustainable farming practices. For the sake of coffee workers everywhere, the Joe must continue.

This story is republished courtesy of Earth Institute, Columbia University http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu.