SHADE COFFEE

Reprinted from Specialty Coffee Association reporter, Don Holly

"Shade" coffee is a phenomenon, probably one of the most complex and important issues currently active in the specialty coffee industry. What makes a phenomenon? Usually there are several causes acting together to create an effect that no one could have predicted. Sometimes the result is a positive thing, but almost always there are side effects. The SCAA gets many calls from reporters, researchers, and members asking us to define shade coffee, so we have done a little investigation. The answer, we find, depends upon your perspective, and that is the crux of the misunderstanding of the shade coffee phenomenon.
The issue of shade coffee has been raised in the US either by birders who love coffee, or coffee people who love birds, we're not quite sure which. Actually, it was scientists who first identified the link between coffee, shade, and birds. it all started when some very bright and concerned people recognized that the migratory bird population enjoyed here in the United States spent half their life in the rain forests of Central America, and that as the rain forests were being ravaged, so were the birds. It became apparent that rustic (non-technified) coffee farms were the next best thing to native rain forests in providing a diverse and protective habitat for the migratory birds and everything they represented. . . like bio-diversity and global warming prevention. Others also saw these forest-like coffee growing areas as overall more environmentally sound agriculture than any other cash crop being harvested in the Americas. A potential was recognized for marketing coffee that comes from multi-storied canopy areas to avid adult birders, of which there are an estimated 45 million in the U.S., as well as other environmentally concerned consumers.
When someone asked a farmer what they called the agricultural practice where trees taller than coffee are maintained in the fields, they were told that it was "shade" coffee. The name stuck - for whatever reason that phenomena have in naming themselves - and the concept has been researched, debated, and promoted as shade ever since. There has been a considerable investment of time and though into promoting the shade coffee issue here in the U.S. There has also begun some obvious misapplication of the term by roasters seeking to cash-in on the potential marked interest without a credible investment in certifying that the coffee does in fact represent what they claim it represents. Meanwhile coffee farmers are confused by what all the fuss is about; anxious to satisfy the market demand but not willing (for obvious reasons) to stake their agricultural practices on the latest "trend" without compelling premium value.
To provide clarity to the issue, and sponsor truth-in-labeling here in the U.S. for the specialty coffee industry, the SCAA's Environment Committee recently passed a resolution that defined shade coffee. Basing the criteria upon scientific research that had been done by a variety of researchers in various growing countries, the definition focused on specifications that would satisfy the consumers' perception of what shade coffee is about: preservation of forest-like ecosystems that promote bio-diversity and habitat maintenance. The resolution points to the SCAA's commitment to truth-in-labeling and concepts of sustainability, and recommends the adoption of an understanding that coffees that wish to be marked as "shade" coffee must satisfy a minimum criteria:

• Coffee grown under at least three levels of diverse, predominantly native species of trees, where the tallest level of canopy is at least 10-15 meters in height.

• That the shade canopy covers at least 40% of the cultivated coffee, after pruning.

The Environment Committee's resolution has been forwarded to the International Relations Committee to get their input, but initial reactions from producer members has not been favorable. They see the definition as a recommendation as to how they are supposed to grow coffee. This, of course, was not the intent. Rather, the definition was intended to provide a guideline as to how coffee could be marketed, not grown. If coffee was to be sold as shade coffee it had to meet a credible criteria. Still, there is a lack of understanding as to the value behind some of the criteria in the definition provided, such as why native species are important. A significant amount of discussion among all of the parties involved will have to occur if this issue is going to be resolved.
If you ask coffee farmers what "shade" is all about, most will respond that shade is an agronomic tool used to manage the health and yield of the coffee plants. To them, "shade" is like irrigation; either you need it to grow the coffee well or you don't. If coffee prices drop, they will let the shade grow thick to lower the metabolism of the coffee trees so that they require less costly inputs. If it rains late in the year, they prune the shade trees down to their trunks to dry out the coffee to prevent fungus growth. Ask the coffee farmers about birds and forest preservation, and they will quickly remind you that they are farmers and their first concern is feeding their families. Most farmers believe that shade reduces the yield of the coffee trees, and so suggestions that they should plant more shade trees is seen as a direct threat to their livelihood. while some coffee farmers believe that growing coffee under conditions that mirror the Environment committees recommended criteria is a good thing, economically sustainable (including some premium value for the shade label), and produces great coffee, the majority think we Norte Americanos are kind of strange.
The issue is complicated by the fact that there is a very clear definition for shade on the part of coffee producers. That first farmer that responded "shade" when asked what kind of coffee grew under a forest told the truth. Shade coffee has been around in producing countries, especially in Central America, since coffee was first cultivated. however, there is a broad range of shade as applied to coffee. For example, coffee that grows in valleys that are almost always topped with a thick cloud cover might be considered shade, even if the only plant species in the valley is coffee. A farmer could think of coffee planted on the North side of a very steep hill as shade because the trees are rarely in direct sun. One farmer even suggested that all coffee was shade because no cherries grow on the top row of branches, so therefore all cherries are always grown in the shade of the top leaves. In other words, the coffee farmer has a completely different, and long established, definition for shade than does the promoters of shade coffee in our country. Therefore, those that wish to sell "shade" coffee that was grown in relatively non-environmentally friendly conditions have a lot of wiggle room in which to justify their practices.
When gold was discovered in California it set off a phenomenon that drew millions to the West Coast - some to dig, and some to make money off the diggers. No one knows if there is any gold in promoting "shade" coffee. Unfortunately, while some very well intentioned people are working hard to discover if they can encourage positive environmental impact by investing in "shade", other companies are looking for a free "fad" ride. They feature the term "shade" on their packaging without making an effort to determine if the coffee truly represents the precepts to which the consumers are being educated. By passively misrepresenting the facts about the coffee's attributes, the industry sets itself up for another test of credibility with consumers, one which it will surely fail To allow this part of the phenomenon to go on further is criminal.
There are a few entities that have stepped up to the plate and are delivering coffees with credible claims and valuable systems for ensuring that their labels represent facts. The Smithsonian's "Bird Friendly" criteria, Counter Culture Coffee's "Sanctuary Coffee", Sustainable Harvest's "shade gradient", the ECO-OK label, Thanksgiving's "Songbird", are all examples of individuals in our industry creating and promoting valuable standards that support the concept of environmentally friendly coffee. it should also be noted that there are some growers, such as Walter Peters in Chiapas, who have proven their leadership in promoting the concept of shade grown coffees. While the rest of us are building consensus as to the proper terms we should use, we should congratulate and thank these leaders in our industry who have already invested hard equity into these concepts.

Shade Management Criteria for "BIRD FRIENDLY" coffee links:   http://www.seattleaudubon.org/Coffee/home.html. . . more information than you want!
or  http://www.consumerscouncil.org/coffee/coffeebook/appendixB2.pdf  (Maintained by the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center)  (Adobe Reader required)
or  http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/rouge_river/coffee.html   From Rouge River Bird Observatory

Revised: 04/05/08