March 2012 C&CI • Climate Change • 33


Income source Legume shade Diversified shade Forest shade Coffee


1060


Bananas 0 Firewood 5


0 Total income 1065


384 42 27


Timber 0 0 Palm fronds


104 557


200 10 38 77 0


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


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 car- bon footprint can be actually higher (Mondelaers et al 2008).


Coffee system Carbon footprint Carbon Full sun 5.0 4.4


Legume shade 6.1 9.2 Timber shade 5.1 45.2


Net Net Sequestered balance income US$/ha


-0.6 3.1


40.1


2313 2210 1499


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 agro- nomic emissions, what happens to the productivity and income from these sys- tems? Looking again at the different sys- tems in Guatemala (Table 1) we see that the net income from the high carbon sys- tems with forest shade is considerably lower than that from the more simple shaded systems which have lower car- bon 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 gen- eral effect was also found for coffee plantations with lower levels of agronom- ic 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 agro- nomic 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 produc- tion - can have a lower carbon footprint


Nevertheless, in two studies that have been carried out on organic coffee pro- duction it appears that organic produc- tion, 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 rela- tionship between the carbon footprint of coffee production per kg and the quanti- ties 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 emis- sions of about 2,700g CO2


e per kg of


roast and ground conventionally pro- duced coffee but only 450g CO2


e per kg


of roast and ground organically pro- duced 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 mini- mizing the increase in carbon footprint?


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


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


Rainforest 25-100 ha


Conventional 25-100 ha


Organic < 5 ha


Conventional < 5 ha


Fertilizer N2O soil Pesticides Fuel Transport Materials 102.9 94.5


2.1 94 1.5 49.4 90 44.5 62.4 4 3 3.9 6.3 2.1 10 2 0 0.5 10.4 1.3 4.2 2 1 3.9


Total carbon footprint KgCO2e/ tonne coffee


212 202 50 131


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52