This document examines national government responses to climate change threats facing Coffea arabica production. It analyzes the responses in relation to each country's economic data and scientific studies projecting coffee's future suitability. Countries where coffee exports make a negligible contribution have no adaptation plans, while countries where coffee contributes more significantly to exports have general or coffee-specific adaptation plans. No strong correlations were found between projected suitable hectares and government response due to high uncertainty in the projections. The document provides background on coffee, climate impacts, adaptation options, and barriers to farmer-level adaptation.

1. 1
LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
CANDIDATE: K. J. KRAMER
WORD COUNT: 9,962
Adapting arabica
Weighing scientific and economic influences in national responses to global
climate change and its threat to Coffea arabica
Abstract
This paper examines the response of national governments to climate change threats to
Coffea arabica production and correlates those responses to macro-economic data and
scientific studies on coffee’s future suitability in each region. Analysis shows that
countries without adaptation plans for coffee are those in which coffee exports make a
negligible contribution to total exports. Countries in which coffee makes a more
significant contribution to total exports either have general adaptation plans that include
coffee or have coffee-specific adaptation plans. No strong correlations were found
between projected hectares suitable for growing coffee and government response, most
likely due to the high uncertainty and resulting extreme variability of the land area loss
projections.

2. 2
Acknowledgements
I offer a very sincere thank you to my dissertation advisor, Dr. Declan Conway for helping
to corral and guide my ideas during their many evolutions over the past several months.
I would also like to thank Paul Watkiss for meeting with me early on in the process. His
insight and knowledge of coffee adaptation provided me with a solid foundation to start
this work.
A special thanks to those who made this such an enriching year, including (but by no
means limited to) my academic advisor, Dr. Michael Mason, for all his guidance; the
captain of the EPR ship, Dr. Richard Perkins, for charting a great course; and the entire
cohort of environmental students for being an amazing source of support and friendship.
Most of all, I am eternally grateful to my parents. I bet they never dreamed they would
one day know this much about coffee.

3. 3
List of Abbreviations
AOPC Arabica-only producing countries (and Brazil)
CDKN Climate Development and Knowledge Network
CSP Coffee-specific plan
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FNC Federación Nacional de Cafeteros
GCC Global climate change
GDP Gross domestic product
GIS Geographic information system
GPCC Greater plan citing coffee
ICA International Coffee Agreement
ICO International Coffee Organization
IFC International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group
IGC International Growth Centre
INCUNFCCC Initial National Communication under the UNFCCC
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ITC International Trade Centre
LDC Least developed country
MNCC Multi-national coffee corporation
MoAD Government of Nepal, Ministry of Agricultural Development
NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action
NGO Non-governmental organization
NTCB National Tea and Coffee Development Board (Nepal)
PES Payments for ecosystem services
UN United Nations
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USD United States dollars
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDA FAS USDA Foreign Agricultural Service
USDOC United States Department of Commerce
YCP Yemen Coffee Program

4. 4
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 2
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................... 4
1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 6
2 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 7
2.1 BIOPHYSICAL IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON COFFEE .................................................................................... 7
2.2 ADAPTATION OPTIONS FOR COFFEE ........................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.1 Plant adaptation ................................................................................................................................................. 9
2.2.2 Location adaptation ....................................................................................................................................... 11
2.2.3 Adapting on-farm practices ........................................................................................................................ 12
2.2.4 Other adaptations ........................................................................................................................................... 12
2.3 BARRIERS TO ADAPTATION AT THE FARM LEVEL ............................................................................................... 13
2.4 IMPLICATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 14
3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 ECONOMIC DATA ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
3.2 PROJECTED SUITABILITY OF COFFEE .................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 PUBLIC ADAPTATION PLANS .................................................................................................................................. 16
3.4 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................................. 17
4 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 19
4.1 ADAPTATION PLANS ................................................................................................................................................ 19
4.2 ROLE OF COFFEE IN THE ECONOMY ....................................................................................................................... 19
4.2.1 Relative importance of coffee to the economy .................................................................................... 20
4.2.2 Coffee in the LDCs ............................................................................................................................................ 21
4.3 PROJECTED AREAS OF SUITABILITY IN 2050 ...................................................................................................... 22
5 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................... 24
5.1 COFFEE ADAPTATION IN NONLDCS ...................................................................................................................... 24
5.1.1 Coffee adaptation as a tool .......................................................................................................................... 24
5.1.2 Jamaica ................................................................................................................................................................. 25
5.1.3 Brazil ..................................................................................................................................................................... 26
5.2 COFFEE ADAPTATION IN LDCS .............................................................................................................................. 27
5.2.1 Zambia .................................................................................................................................................................. 27
5.2.2 Malawi .................................................................................................................................................................. 28
5.2.3 Ethiopia ................................................................................................................................................................ 28
5.2.4 Opportunities in East Africa ........................................................................................................................ 29
5.2.5 Opportunities outside of the tropics ........................................................................................................ 31
5.3 UNCERTAINTY ........................................................................................................................................................... 32
5.3.1 Uncertainty of the projections ................................................................................................................... 32
5.3.2 Uncertainty of market response ................................................................................................................ 35
5.4 A STRATEGY FORWARD ........................................................................................................................................... 36
5.4.1 Economic considerations and flexible, site-specific adaptations ................................................ 37
5.4.2 Low-risk, no-regret adaptations ............................................................................................................... 38
5.4.3 Addressing barriers ........................................................................................................................................ 38
6 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................. 40
ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................................ I
ANNEX I. WORKS CITED .................................................................................................................................................... II
ANNEX II. SUITABILITY STUDIES ..................................................................................................................................... X

5. 5
Figures and Tables
FIGURE 1. GLOBAL SHARE OF ARABICA PRODUCTION IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES ....................................... 19
FIGURE 2. EXPORTS OF ARABICA FROM LDC COUNTRIES ............................................................................... 22
FIGURE 3. JAMAICAN PRICE PREMIUM ............................................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 4. ARABICA PRODUCTION IN ZAMBIA .................................................................................................. 28
FIGURE 5. THE DECLINING SHARE OF COFFEE AS A PERCENTAGE OF BURUNDI’S EXPORTS ....................... 30
FIGURE 6. RANGE OF SUITABILITY PROJECTIONS ............................................................................................. 32
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF ADAPTATION PLANS. ................................................................................................... 19
TABLE 2. TOP TEN COUNTRIES BY COFFEE PRODUCTION AND COFFEE EXPORTS ........................................ 21
TABLE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF COFFEE EXPORTS. ........................................................... 21
TABLE 4. COMPARING ADAPTATION PLANS AND COFFEE EXPORTS. .............................................................. 24

6. 6
1 Introduction
From its origins in the shady Ethiopian forests, the coffee plant has a long and storied
history of cultivation in tropical climates around the world. The importance of this plant
and its saga of expansion are well documented. Knowing its critical role, national
governments have long sought to protect this plant – in past centuries, harsh penalties
were imposed on merchant sailors smuggling seeds, and prohibitions were placed on
delivery of beans to foreign countries.
Today, climate change threatens the plant’s habitat, and its disappearance would have
dire repercussions for the 25 million growers, most of whom are smallholder farmers,
who depend on the plant for survival, and the additional 100 million people around the
world who make their living in the greater coffee industry. Through data analysis and
review of governmental policies, scientific studies, grey literature, and academic work,
this dissertation examines the links between the economic and projected climatic
conditions of coffee-producing countries, and the adaptation strategies that governments
employ to ensure the coffee plant’s continued growth in our changing climate.

7. 7
2 Background and literature review
Coffee is a highly traded global commodity and the second most valuable commodity
exported from the developing world (Talbot 2004). From production to brewing, an
estimated 125 million people worldwide derive their livelihood from coffee (Bunn 2015).
Production in the 2015/16 growing year was estimated at 153 million 60kg bags (USDA
FAS1 2015) and is projected to rise to almost 156 million bags in 2016/17 (USDA FAS
2015) to keep up with consumption, which is increasing at a rate of 2% a year (Lewin et
al. 2004; Perez 2016; ICO2 2016). The top four producing countries in the world - Brazil,
Vietnam, Colombia, and Indonesia — account for 65% of global coffee production (Ovalle-
Rivera et al. 2015). Coffee plays a critical role in the economies of many developing and
least developed countries (LDCs). In Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda, and Ethiopia, coffee is the
main source of foreign exchange (DaMatta & Ramalho 2006). It is estimated that around
25 million people globally grow coffee, the vast majority of whom are smallholder
farmers (Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015; DaMatta & Ramalho 2006). For instance, in Ethiopia,
around 95% of coffee comes from such growers (ICO 2015).
Coffee has two main species, Coffea arabica (arabica) and Coffea canephora (robusta).
Roughly two-thirds of coffee grown is arabica, with robusta compromising the remainder
(USDA FAS 2016; ICO 2016). Arabica’s higher quality allows it to command a price
premium on the global market, generally fetching twice the price of robusta (Van Der
Vossen et al. 2015).
2.1 Biophysical impacts of climate change on coffee
Coffee thrives in very specific climates. The plant prefers sloped hills of fertile red earth
volcanic soils or deep sandy loam (Assefa et al. 2015). The two species have differing
temperature preferences: arabica prefers the slightly lower temperatures (18°C - 21°C)
of tropical highlands (Davis et al. 2012), while robusta can be found at lower altitudes
with temperatures between 22°C and 26°C (DaMatta & Ramalho 2006). These specific
conditions make the plant highly sensitive to the effects of climate change (Bunn et al.
1 United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service
2 International Coffee Organization

8. 8
2015). Yields in terms of both quantity and quality are subject to variations in
temperature, rainfall, pests, diseases, and extreme weather events (Bunn et al. 2014;
DaMatta & Ramalho 2006; Davis et al. 2012; Jaramillo et al. 2009). Coffee is grown at low
latitudes almost exclusively between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. This is
particularly concerning because this Equatorial band is projected by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014) to be hit relatively harder by
global climate change (GCC) than the higher latitudes.
Already in the latter part of the 20th century, many growing regions had begun witnessing
steady temperature increases (Malhi & Wright 2004). While both species are
temperature sensitive, arabica is more affected by a rise in mean temperature (Craparo
et al. 2015); the more heat tolerant robusta is more affected by increased temperature
variability – specifically, diurnal temperature ranges and intra-seasonal temperature
variations (Bunn et al. 2014). Higher temperatures adversely affect arabica’s growth,
flowering, and fruiting, resulting in lower yields (Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015). These
temperatures also shorten the berries’ ripening time, affecting quality (Baker & Haggar
2007), and ultimately the price the farmer receives for the harvest.
Higher temperatures also increase the incidence and reach of pests and diseases
(Jaramillo et al. 2011). For example, in a study on the H. hampei pest (also known as a
berry borer), Jaramillo et al. (2011) found that warming temperatures have allowed this
pest’s habitat to creep up to higher altitudes on Mount Kilimanjaro by 300m in only ten
years. It is estimated that the berry borer is responsible for $500 million3 in annual losses
in East Africa alone. The incidence of pests and diseases such as the berry borer, leaf rust,
and nematodes is only increasing as temperatures continue to rise (ITC4 2010). Other
GCC-related variables can also affect crops. Changes in rainfall patterns in Nicaragua have
reportedly led to erratic flowering and incomplete maturation of coffee crops (Ovalle-
Rivera et al. 2015). Extreme events such as floods or heavy rainfall can cause erosion of
soil on the sloping lands (Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015). Droughts and frosts also can be
detrimental to the plants (Davis et al. 2012).
3 United States dollars
4 International Trade Centre

9. 9
2.2 Adaptation options for coffee
In the context of farming in a changing climate, human interventions become more
critical. Adaptation – the human input – is the planning and management practices used
to mitigate the effects of climate change, allowing for continued production in the context
of an altered climate. Watkiss (unpub.) compares the studies on future suitability of
indigenous coffee (Davis et al. 2012) to predictions on managed plantations (Bunn et al.
2014). He writes, “the divergence of the results […] indicates the effect that management
and adaptation of production systems can have” (Watkiss unpub.). Furthermore, we have
seen that coffee supply, keeping pace with demand, has grown about 2% a year (Bunn
2015); less than a quarter of this growth is attributed to increases in land area, while the
rest is from increases in yield (Bunn 2015). This gives weight to the idea that proper
management practices may be able to offset some of the projected area losses from
climate change.
The literature outlines a number of possible adaptations for coffee growing, which this
dissertation categorizes as (1) plant adaptation, (2) location adaptation, (3) adapting on-
farm practices, and (4) other adaptations.
2.2.1 Plant adaptation
As arabica is susceptible to climate change, there has been some discussion of switching
the type of coffee grown to a more robust variety (such as robusta), or even breeding new
varieties of enhanced cultivars (Hein & Gatzweiler 2006). Although robusta can manage
in higher temperatures, it is not entirely immune to GCC, requiring limited intra-seasonal
variability (which relegates it to lower latitudes) (Bunn et al. 2014). Robusta’s lower
quality also makes it a markedly different product. Although some advances are being
made in techniques to remove the harshness of robusta (Baffes et al. 2005), the
techniques have not yet led, and may not ever lead, to perfect market substitutability
between arabica and robusta species.
New coffee hybrids have the potential to be more resilient, with lower sensitivity to
warmer and drier climates (Baker & Haggar 2007) and even resistance to pests and
diseases (Schroth et al. 2009). In early 20th century Colombia, the Federación Nacional de

10. 10
Cafeteros (FNC) encouraged farmers to replace the traditional arabica varietals of
Bourbon and Typica with the more densely-planted Caturra varietal, allowing farmers to
produce more on the same amount of land. But the dense planting meant that Caturra
was more susceptible to disease. The response by FNC’s research institute was to develop
and promote the Castillo varietal, which is more resistant to disease and climate change
(Owen 2015).
But breeding new varietals has its obstacles. Coffee plants live decades, so the transition
to new plants may be slow. Farmers may be resistant to change, worried about the quality
of beans they will be producing and the price the beans will fetch. In the FNC’s attempt to
overcome such resistance to Castillo, they even went so far as to make false claims that
the winning beans in a prestigious coffee competition were Castillo beans, when later
reports revealed they were not (Owen 2015; Kaufman 2011). Switching to new varietals
is a very long-term adaptation option, as it takes years to breed new plants and even
longer for a new varietal’s acceptance and wide dispersal (Watkiss unpub.).
The adoption of new varietals is further complicated by the diminishing gene pool of
arabica. Germplasm collections (or genebanks) for coffee are quite expensive to maintain
as they require living plants, and as such, they have fallen into disrepair (World Coffee
Research 2016). Climate change is also threatening these genebanks, and the genetic
resources they contain are seldom shared. There are 19 coffee genebanks in the world,
but only one5 is party to an international treaty keeping its genetic resources in the public
domain. A review by Taye (2010) found that Ethiopia’s genebanks contained between
89.9% and 99.8% of arabica genetic diversity, but the combination of climate change and
neglect of the genebanks have already led to the loss of many of the trees in the collections
(World Coffee Research 2016). The rapid disappearance of these critical genetic
resources in Ethiopia and around the world threatens the potential for breeding more
climate-resilient arabica varietals.
5 Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza in Costa Rica

11. 11
2.2.2 Location adaptation
Migration of coffee plantations is another adaptation. Baker & Haggar (2007) estimate
that coffee plantations will have to migrate to higher altitudes at a rate of 150ft (45.72m)
per decade. Over the potentially 50-year life of a coffee plant, this could mean a 750ft
(228.6m) altitudinal shift. There may be opportunities for latitudinal migration as well.
For the most part, latitudinal migrations will be limited due to the plant’s need for low
temperature volatility and its critical need to avoid frost (Bunn et al. 2014).
Adaptation through migration has its obstacles as well. Smallholders with limited
financial wherewithal are reluctant to replace existing trees with new varietals because
of the decline in production during the three to five-year maturation process. In addition,
the long life of the plant means that trees planted today must be located in climates that
will be suitable for coffee both now and 20-50 years from now. Some studies imply that
location adaptation may be an implausible option. For instance, Jaramillo et al. (2011)
found that East African countries will need to shift production from current elevations of
1400-1600m to 1600-1800m by 2050. With no overlap in those ranges, there is no clear
picture of where to plant new trees today.
Migration of plants may have negative externalities, or might not be possible at all. As is
the case in Tanzania, new suitable areas could be home to substantial biodiversity
(Craparo et al. 2015). The new land may be protected forests, national reserves, or fall
under restrictions such as a watershed protection scheme (Baker & Haggar 2007).
Deforestation of these valuable ecosystems is of particular concern. Migration of coffee
plantations could displace other crops, which may have food security implications or
result in indirect deforestation as those crops are moved to new land. In Rwanda, coffee
is relegated to less fertile soils that have been degraded by erosion or intensive cropping,
reserving the more fertile soils for staple foods (Nzeyimana et al. 2014). Baker & Haggar
(2007) write that opportunities for migrational adaptation may actually be small in
practice. In some places, migration to new land is just not a viable option as higher
altitudes may lack the plant’s preferred soil or other climatic conditions. New areas
simply may not exist or may be more remote and lack necessary infrastructure for
economically viable production and delivery to markets.

12. 12
2.2.3 Adapting on-farm practices
One of the most widely suggested adaptations is the use of shade trees on coffee
plantations. For most of its history, coffee has thrived under shaded conditions. However,
during the green revolution of the mid 20th century, coffee farmers adopted a sun-grown
system, hoping to boost production (Bacon et al. 2012). Returning to shade-grown coffee
offers a myriad of benefits, proving to be an effective adaptation method. Studies have
found that the shade provided can decrease ambient temperatures around the coffee
plants by up to four degrees (Jaramillo et al. 2011). Shade trees also increase biodiversity
(Jha et al. 2014; Perfecto et al. 1996) and are beneficial to arthropods that keep certain
harmful pests under control. Shade trees aid soil and water conservation and
management as the trees increase relative humidity around the coffee plants, and the
more complex root structures reduce landslides (Philpott et al. 2008). Compared with
monocultures, providing shade by intercropping bananas, macadamia, rubber, or
coconut has been shown to improve soil fertility, carbon pools and nitrogen (Zake et al.
2015; Watkiss unpub.), and the additional crop revenue can potentially increase farmers’
incomes by 50% (Van Asten et al. 2011).
For areas where reduced rainfall or increased evaporation will be an issue, farmers may
need to employ water-focused adaptation strategies. As very few coffee farms have any
form of irrigation (World Bank 2016), conservation of soil moisture through
“composting, hedgerows, envelope forking (loosening soil without turning), burying
prunings, and mulching” (Watkiss unpub., p.7) will be important. Other on-farm
adaptations include, but are not limited to, proper spacing of the plants (Craparo et al.
2015), adding windbreaks, and fertilization (Rahn et al. 2014).
2.2.4 Other adaptations
Other adaptation options require a broader coordinated or institutional effort. These
strategies include conservation efforts focused on insects involved in coffee pollination.
Berecha et al. (2014, p.1) found a correlation between “impoverishment of insect
communities” and adverse effects on the resilience of coffee production. Rahn et al.

13. 13
(2014) suggest reforestation and restoration of degraded and risk-prone sites where
possible.
Other strategies could address the financial constraints typically faced by coffee growers.
The large volatility in the coffee market means that farmers do not know the price they
will receive for their crop at harvest time (Owen 2015). Some direct buyers will guarantee
prices, but even those considered “long” buying agreements are only for three to five
years (Owen 2015). Farmers may not have access to credit markets (Baca et al. 2014).
This leads to short-run cost-cutting measures, which may run counter to long-term
adaptation and sustainability goals. Reliance on a single crop exposes farmers to added
risk, as climate change may increase the incidence of extreme events that adversely affect
yields on one crop more than others. Measures to increase farmer security include crop
diversification, crop insurance (Rahn et al. 2014), increasing access to credit markets, and
modifying the payment structure for coffee to include some or larger upfront payments
or longer-term contracts with buyers. Increased financial security could enable farmers
to adopt long-term, and often more effective, solutions (Borsy & Techel 2015).
2.3 Barriers to adaptation at the farm level
The quantity and quality of coffee yields depend upon the varietal that is planted, where
it is planted, and the adaptation strategies employed to keep current and future trees
viable. Individual coffee farmers cannot be expected to do this on their own. A study by
the Coffee & Climate Initiative (Borsy & Techel 2015) provided an online adaptation
toolbox (with guidance and resources) to coffee farmers in four regions and noted the
uptake rates of various adaptive actions. They found that while “farmers frequently
undertake autonomous adaptations that they are familiar with and that are low cost”
(Borsy & Techel 2015:24), various hurdles exist that limit adoption of some of the more
effective adaptations. Some of the largest barriers to adaptation include:
• Uncertainty of benefits: While many farmers in the study were aware of the
adaptive measures, they had yet to see conclusive evidence of the benefits (Borsy
& Techel 2015) and thus were apprehensive to make investments in the
interventions.

14. 14
• Financial restrictions: Many farmers lack the financial resources to make even
small upfront investments in their farms (Baca et al. 2014). There may also be
reluctance by creditors or insurance providers. Farmers may lack awareness or
understanding of available financial tools (Borsy & Techel 2015).
• Lack of coordinated effort: Rural farmers in developing and LDC countries
cannot be expected to undertake suitability studies or coffee breeding programs
on their own. Van Der Vossen et al. (2015) suggest a world-wide coordinated
breeding program is needed. This is not something that can be done on the farm
level.
• Limited knowledge of programs: Lack of awareness of available programs may
also diminish adaptation uptake. Interviewing farmers in Mexico, Baca et al.
(2014, p.8) found that families “had knowledge of only one to three coffee sector
or environmental policies, and they did not have active participation in the
application of these laws.”
2.4 Implications
Because coffee is produced mostly on smallholder farms in developing countries and
LDCs, adaptation strategies have tremendous implications for livelihoods and poverty
reduction (DaMatta & Ramalho 2006). While changes in suitable growing regions will
impact the allocation of coffee crops around the tropics, Watkiss (unpub., p.2) notes
“there is a dearth of literature projecting the [resulting] economic and trade impacts.” To
make any projections on future shifts, one must look not only at suitability projections,
but on the response by producers. The long life of coffee trees means that adaptation
decisions need to be made now or in the near future despite the lack of clear guidance.
Adaptation will be required for coffee production to remain viable in many areas. As
many coffee adaptations are not within the adaptive capacity of individual farmers, they
will require some form of institutional support.
This paper (a) examines the response of national governments to GCC and its threat to
coffee production and (b) correlates those responses to macro-economic data and
scientific studies on coffee’s future suitability in each region. From this, we hope to infer
how economics and science may be informing these responses.

15. 15
3 Methodology
The objective of this dissertation is to find what correlations (if any) exist between the
projected suitability for coffee-growing under GCC, the economic importance of the coffee
industry, and public climate change adaptation plans in a region. The data collected is
from coffee-producing regions and falls into three categories:
(1) Economic data
(2) Projected suitability of coffee
(3) Public adaptation plans
3.1 Economic data6
Macro-level economic data was gathered for selected coffee producing countries (total
exports, gross domestic product (GDP), etc.), as well as macro-level data on the coffee
industry in each country (coffee production value, coffee exports, etc.)7. From this
information we can infer the relative importance of the coffee sector to each country—
either by total size of the sector or by relative size based on coffee as a percentage of GDP
or coffee exports as a percentage of total exports. Other illustrative data (agricultural
employment rates, rural poverty rates, irrigation rates, etc.) were gathered when
available. As disaggregated data on coffee exports could not be found, analysis in this
paper is primarily limited to countries that produce only the arabica species of coffee.
Data sources include:
• Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
• International Trade Centre (ITC)
• International Coffee Organization (ICO)
• United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA FAS)
• United States Department of Commerce (USDOC)
• The World Bank
6 All data is in United States dollars (USD).
7 All numbers in this report are averages of years 2011-2015 unless otherwise noted.

16. 16
3.2 Projected suitability of coffee
A review of the scientific and academic literature on coffee suitability projections for
various regions and countries was completed. Suitability projections are made by
comparing optimal growing conditions for coffee plants with conditions that are expected
to exist in 2050. The end result is a binary designation of “suitable” or “unsuitable” for a
specific hectare (ha) of land. The change in current suitable hectares and suitable
hectares in 2050 gives a projected suitability loss for an area. Although these projections
vary widely depending on each study’s methodology and the specifications of climatic
and agricultural variables that are taken into account, they can provide a general idea of
the effect GCC will have on each region’s coffee sector.
While this dissertation looks at many suitability studies, for data comparison, results
from Sachs et al. (2015) were used, as this study takes into account, builds upon, and
refines many notable previous coffee suitability studies. This data is also the most
comprehensive publically available information, showing not only the overall predicted
suitability change for each country, but also disaggregates the data into the amount of
new suitable area (increases), suitable area lost (decreases), and decreases occurring on
currently harvested land. All suitability numbers in this dissertation are taken from or
calculated using data from Sachs et al. (2015) unless otherwise noted.
3.3 Public adaptation plans
Government climate adaptation plans were gathered and sorted into three categories.
Any document containing specific plans for coffee adaptation was labeled a “coffee-
specific plan” (CSP). Plans for general agricultural adaptation that mentioned or included
coffee, but did not note what would be done specifically for coffee, were labeled as a
“greater plan citing coffee” (GPCC). When no mention of coffee could be found in a state-
related plan, such country was placed in the category “no mention.”
Much adaptation work is being done by private actors; a term that can include multi-
national coffee corporations (MNCCs), farming cooperatives, or individual farmers. There
is a significant amount being done by the civil sector as well, including non-governmental

17. 17
organizations (NGOs), charities, and academia. These actors do not always act
independently of each other. In fact, public-private partnerships are quite common.
Despite the fact that a large part of coffee adaptation work is being done by the private
sector, this dissertation examines only public (state-sponsored, endorsed, or supported)
adaptation strategies. This was done for two reasons. The first is about reliability and
accessibility of data. It is unclear how much public information on work done by MNCCs,
such as Starbucks and Nescafé, is for marketing and public relations. Meaningful adaptive
practices or technology might be trade secrets kept out of public documents. With respect
to farmers and cooperatives, it would be logistically impossible to interview and gather
data from a representative sample around the world in a timely manner.
The second reason for omitting private actors is the differing interests by various actors.
Farmers and local cooperatives have a much larger stake in their personal farm and the
farms in the cooperative than they do in the economy as a whole. In fact, classic economics
would dictate that as coffee becomes more scarce, the value of every bag produced should
go up (Nelson et al. 2014). MNCCs are mostly concerned about productivity in the short-
run. MNCCs generally do not grow coffee themselves, but rather buy their coffee (directly
or indirectly) from smallholder farmers on yearly or short-term contracts. MNCCs are
less concerned with long-term productivity of any particular area because they can easily
buy coffee elsewhere in the world as suitable growing areas change. MNCCs are also
concerned with getting the lowest price for a certain quality of coffee and not as much
about the welfare of those who grow it. Governments, on the other hand, have to think on
a longer and broader scale for the welfare of their citizens.
3.4 Summary
This data was analyzed for correlations between point (3) (public adaptation plans) and
point (1) (economic data) and also correlations between point (3) and point (2) (the
projected suitability of coffee). Due to the lack of adequate data on coffee disaggregated
between arabica and robusta, this paper examines those 29 countries where production
of arabica accounts for 95% or more of total coffee production. In addition, because of its
industry dominance, Brazil is included even though Arabica accounts for only 71% (USDA

18. 18
FAS 2016) of its total coffee production, bringing the total number of countries to 30.
These countries will collectively be referred to as arabica-only producing countries
(AOPCs).

19. 19
4 Results
4.1 Adaptation plans
The following is a summary of adaptation plans for the AOPCs. These plans were placed
into three categories:
All
countries
LDC nonLDC
Coffee-specific plans (CSP) 14 7 7
Greater plan citing coffee (GPCC) 8 -- 8
No mention of coffee in any adaptation plan 8 2 6
Table 1. Summary of adaptation plans.
Plan specifics will be examined in “Discussion” section.
4.2 Role of coffee in the economy
Figure 1. Global share of arabica production in different countries
Data sources: ICO, USDA FAS
0
50
100
1963 1989 2015
Production (1000s 60kg bags)
Brazil Colombia Ethiopia Honduras Peru LDC nonLDC

20. 20
On a global scale, the long-term coffee production and consumption trends are increasing
at a fairly steady pace of 2% a year (ICO 2016). This consistent increase in coffee
consumption results from new demand in developed countries as well as newly emerging
demand in countries from the developing world. Bunn (2015, p.150) calculated that the
“area necessary to meet future coffee demand will double in the future.”
4.2.1 Relative importance of coffee to the economy
Coffee’s importance to a nation’s economy varies by country. The coffee sector’s
contribution to national welfare can be measured in a variety of ways, such as the number
of people employed or the total production. Moreover, the reach of the coffee sector in an
economy goes beyond those who farm it. For instance, in Costa Rica, for every one of the
50,000 coffee farmers, there are seven more direct or indirect beneficiaries (Quirós
2013).
Some of the top arabica-producing countries in the world also happen to have quite large
economies. So while the sector might affect more total people in these countries, it affects
a higher proportion of the population in smaller economies such as Burundi and Rwanda.
Analysis of the data found that the majority of AOPCs exported over half of their
production. One-third of the countries exported over 90%. As this paper looks at
national-level adaptation plans, and as exports can be viewed as a country-level source
of income, this analysis chose to use a country’s coffee exports as a percentage of its total
exports as the parameter to control for population and economy size when comparing
countries.

21. 21
Table 2. Top ten countries by coffee production and coffee exports
Top 10 by
production
Production
(1000s
60kg bags)
Arabica as
a % of all
exports
Top 10 by
% of exports
Production
(1000s
60kg bags)
Arabica as
a % of all
exports
Brazil 38,400 1.51%1 Burundi 205 23.14%
Colombia 11,311 3.58% Honduras 5,105 16.66%
Ethiopia 6,428 16.57% Ethiopia 6,428 16.57%
Honduras 5,105 16.66% Nicaragua 2,025 9.56%
Peru 4,030 1.94% Rwanda 254 6.31%
Mexico 3,516 0.14% Guatemala 3.360 6.28%
Guatemala 3,360 6.28% El Salvador 835 4.17%
Nicaragua 2,025 9.56% Colombia 11,311 3.58%
China 1,734 0.01% Papua New Guinea 880 3.23%
India 1,631 0.04%1 Costa Rica 1,540 2.28%
Data sources: ITC, USDA FAS, World Bank, and own calculations
1Due to lack of disaggregated export data, export percentages were estimated.
From the coffee export data, three broad categories emerge:
Table 3. Distribution of the importance of coffee exports.
Arabica exports
as % of all exports
All
countries
LDC nonLDC
High Contribution >3.0% 9 31 6
Some Contribution 0.1% - 3.0% 11 42 7
Negligible Contribution <0.1% 10 23 8
Data sources: ITC, World Bank
1Burundi, Ethiopia, Rwanda
2Haiti, Malawi, Timor-Leste, Yemen
3Nepal, Zambia
4.2.2 Coffee in the LDCs
Coffee has “some” or “high” importance to exports in all LDCs other than Nepal and
Zambia. Taye (2010, p.1) points out that despite coffee’s “central role in the national
economies” of these African countries, coffee exports have declined in several of these
countries (notably Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) due to, among other things,

22. 22
deficiencies in policy (particularly as it relates to availability of financial tools) and lack
of access to improved technologies.
Figure 2. Exports of arabica from LDC countries
Data source: ICO
4.3 Projected areas of suitability in 2050
In this analysis, suitability refers to the area of land in hectares that will be suitable for
growing coffee in the year 2050. Models by Ovalle-Rivera et al. (2015), Bunn et al. (2014),
Sachs et al. (2015), and others show an array of regional loss projections. While the
impact of GCC is difficult to assess and predict, and the dynamic nature of GCC creates
vastly different conclusions among studies, almost all have projected aggregate global
loss of suitable area to be approximately 50%.
The results from Sachs et al. (2015) show almost across the board decreases in suitable
area for arabica production. Currently, 187.6 million ha of land are suitable for arabica
cultivation, of which only 10 million ha are currently used for coffee production. While
climate change will open up over 27 million ha of new suitable area, these gains are not
0
2
4
1994 2001 2008 2015
Exports (millions 60kg bags)
Ethiopia
Timor-Leste
Zambia
Nepal
Malawi
Haiti
Zimbabwe
Yemen
Rwanda
Burundi

23. 23
enough to offset the 132 million ha that will be lost. Globally, suitable hectares will
decrease by 55.9% by 2050. If we narrow the focus to include only area currently under
coffee cultivation, the study finds that 24.3% of the currently harvested 10 million ha will
no longer be suitable for coffee production in 2050.
Latin America (Schroth et al. 2009), Brazil, and South East Asia (Bunn 2015) are projected
to have the largest overall losses of suitability. Of AOPCs, Mexico, Ethiopia, and Colombia
each are projected to lose suitability on approximately 150,000 hectares of currently
harvested area.
Some studies find areas where the GCC impact on coffee will be relatively less severe.
Bunn et al. (2015) find that East African and Pacific Island countries will experience the
smallest impact (10%-20% loss), while the highlands of Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, and
some parts of Rwanda may even gain new areas of suitability. The study by Ovalle-Rivera
et al. (2015) agrees with the findings on East Africa, and adds Papua New Guinea to the
list of least affected countries. There are also areas of possible positive change in southern
Brazil and higher altitudes in Latin America, Indonesia, and Madagascar (Bunn et al.
2014; Schroth et al. 2014).
The changing climate will allow small pockets of suitability to emerge outside of the
tropics. Sachs et al. (2015) find future suitable areas in Bhutan, Spain, and Lesotho,
previously unsuitable for arabica production. Nepal, situated a few degrees north of the
Tropic of Cancer, has already been growing coffee for a few decades.

24. 24
5 Discussion
The clearest, and perhaps most intuitive, trend in this data emerges when comparing
economic importance of coffee based on exports with the types of plans countries have
for the future of the coffee sector. With the exception of Malawi, all countries where coffee
has “some” or “high” contributions to exports have CSPs or GPCCs.
Table 4. Comparing adaptation plans and coffee exports.
Arabica
contribution
to exports
CSP
LDC nonLDC
GPCC
LDC nonLDC
No Mention
LDC nonLDC
High Burundi
Ethiopia
Rwanda
Colombia
Honduras
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Guatemala
Papua New Guinea
Some Haiti
Timor-Leste
Yemen
Costa Rica
Jamaica
Brazil
Dominican Rep.
Mexico
Kenya
Peru
Malawi
Negligible Nepal Panama Bolivia Zambia China
Cuba
Paraguay
Venezuela
USA
Zimbabwe
With the exception of Nepal, Bolivia, and Panama, no country where arabica has a
negligible contribution to exports has a coffee adaptation plan.
5.1 Coffee adaptation in nonLDCs
In the nonLDCs, 15 of 21 countries have some form of coffee adaptation plan, although
the strategies used and motivations for adopting plans varied.
5.1.1 Coffee adaptation as a tool
Of the nonLDCs, four plans stood out where coffee adaptation was actually a means to
achieve another goal. In Bolivia, the government along with the United Nations Office on

25. 25
Drugs and Crime (2010) included coffee agroforestry as part of a $3.9 million plan to
inhibit the expansion of coca monocultures. The Dominican Republic’s Ministry of
Environment along with United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is
piloting a payments-for-ecosystem-services (PES) scheme offering farmers $50-$70 per
ha to shade their coffee crops (IBP Inc. 2014) with the goal of protecting downstream
water quality. Costa Rica’s coffee adaptation plan (the Low Carbon Coffee Project) is part
of the country’s plan to achieve national carbon neutrality by 2021 (Quirós 2013). The
United States—whose coffee exports are negligible, but has coffee imports exceeding $7
billion a year (USDA 2012)—has focused more on coffee adaptation abroad (through
USAID) rather than within its own borders.
5.1.2 Jamaica
Jamaica’s branding and marketing of their Blue Mountain Coffee, while not implemented
for climate reasons, has had indirect implications for their ability to adapt. Jamaica’s
product differentiation allows them to gain a massive premium over the world average.
This increased price, in turn, allows more extensive adaptations to become economically
viable. This bean premium approach could be used as an indirect, low-risk strategy for
other countries to emulate.

26. 26
Figure 3. Jamaican price premium.
Data source: ICO
Jamaica has also demonstrated that, given the economic incentives provided by premium
pricing, relocation adaptation can gain acceptance by growers and be viable. In the
interest of protecting its Blue Mountain Coffee, Jamaica is implementing plans to migrate
coffee farms farther up the mountain (IFC8 2015).
5.1.3 Brazil
While Brazil is a producer of both arabica and robusta, a discussion of the future of
arabica under GCC must include an analysis of this industry giant. Producing 43% of the
world’s arabica, a ripple from Brazil creates waves in the global market.
Brazil is projected to lose suitability in almost 35% of its currently harvested area,
meaning over 730,000 ha of coffee production area will no longer be climatically suitable
for growing arabica without intervention. The projected lost area in Brazil is almost equal
8 International Finance Corporation, World Bank Group
$0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
1990 1997 2004 2011
Price paid to growers per pound (USD)
Jamaica World Caribbean

27. 27
to the entire currently harvested area of the nine arabica-only producing LDCs. This loss
will mean production will have to increase or intensify elsewhere (either in other regions
of Brazil or other countries).
With the resources of a large country, Brazil’s government is responding with a
comprehensive coffee adaptation strategy. Among other things, they are analyzing
climate, developing crops, and providing financing to farmers. With this multi-faceted
approach, Brazil seems confident that they can maintain and even increase their
production; they project an increase from 45 million bags a year to 55 million in the next
ten years (Mara Garib et al. 2015).
5.2 Coffee adaptation in LDCs
Coffee’s economic importance and future suitability vary widely among LDCs. Yet all but
two of the countries (Zambia and Malawi) have plans. In most countries, coffee is
predominantly grown on smallholder farms. Malawi and Zambia are the exceptions; most
of their production occurs on larger estates (ICO 2015).
5.2.1 Zambia
Chapter 228 of the Laws of Zambia (1994) is also known as The Coffee Act. This 25-page
statute, among other things, dictates the operations of the coffee industry, establishes the
Coffee Board of Zambia, and allocates funds for coffee research. When the law was
enacted in 1994, coffee production was on the rise. Zambia’s production has since
declined from a peak of 120,000 bags in 2003 to only 27,000 bags in 2010 (last available
data from USDA FAS), as farmers and large coffee estates have begun abandoning the crop
due to declining yields and the inability to secure adequate financing (IGC9 2012). Now,
Zambia is a relatively small producer of arabica, averaging about 6,000 60kg bags a year,
accounting for 0.02% of its overall exports.
9 International Growth Centre

28. 28
Figure 4. Arabica production in Zambia.
Data source: USDA FAS
5.2.2 Malawi
Although agriculture (mostly corn) compromises 70% of Malawi’s economy, coffee only
accounts for 0.32% of exports. With persistent droughts hitting the country, the
government’s focus is not on coffee, but on more general agricultural adaptation
strategies; helping farmers sign up for crop insurance, promoting more drought-resistant
crops and seeds, advocating water-conserving farming practices, and disseminating
information on optimal planting times (Ludden 2014). Coffee may also not be a priority
due to the country’s very low suitability loss projection of only 1.10% of currently
harvested area.
5.2.3 Ethiopia
Although Ethiopia also has suffered from persistent droughts, it is taking the opposite
approach of Malawi. It is investing heavily in coffee, hoping to increase production by
45% through incentives and support for farmers (Norton 2016) and by streamlining the
governance and policies of the sector (Coffee & Cocoa International 2015). Again, the
0
60
120
1967 1988 2009
Production (1000s 60kg bags)

29. 29
context in each country might explain the difference in action. Coffee has a much stronger
economic and cultural significance in Ethiopia—it is, after all, the birthplace of the bean.
Not only is it one of the largest exporters, but in-country demand is unparalleled for a
developing country—consuming around half of their crop (Stanculescu et al. 2011). With
nearly one-fifth of the population involved in the coffee industry (Fairtrade Foundation
2012), Ethiopia has a very vested interest in keeping the sector alive.
5.2.4 Opportunities in East Africa
The global reduction in coffee suitability could potentially benefit countries in East Africa.
Coffee farming in this region currently yields fewer kilograms per hectare than other
parts of the world. This is because the cost of inputs to increase yields per hectare is
greater than the cost of simply expanding the amount of land under cultivation (ICO
2015). With suitable land growing more scarce, the increased prices could incentivize
farmers’ intensification practices on the currently harvested land. The current low yields
per hectare mean that land intensification will be less expensive in East African countries,
as inputs will yield larger marginal returns than in other parts of the world.
Malawi, for example, currently averages yields of 182 kg per ha. This is well below the East
African average of around 400 kg per ha (ICO 2015). Coffee in this region has the potential
of producing 800kg, 1000kg or even more with proper management. As Malawi’s current
coffee farms are projected to lose such little suitability, investment in these farms could
be quite beneficial.
East Africa might also find an opportunity in expanding coffee to new lands. Analysis by
Bunn et al. (2014) found that the new suitable lands that will open up in East Africa are
for the most part not currently forested. Development of agroforestry and intercropped
systems on this land has the potential to expand coffee while bringing added co-benefits
of increased food security and carbon sinks.
Finally, other East African countries could follow the bean differentiation model of
Jamaica and Ethiopia, the largest producer in East Africa. As Taye (2010, p.5) notes, with

30. 30
proper funding, these countries can “excel at the sustainable supply of superior quality
coffees to global customers.”
5.2.4.1 Burundi
Burundi offers one of the most dramatic examples of a country lessening its dependence
on a single industry, inadvertently adapting to GCC by lessening its dependence on a
climate-sensitive crop. Since the turn of the century, coffee exports have remained
relatively stable. Yet, its coffee exports as a percentage of all exports have declined from
peaking at over 50% to only 12.5% in 2013.
Figure 5. The declining share of coffee as a percentage of Burundi’s exports.
Data sources: ICO, ITC, World Bank
Despite its decreasing share, coffee still accounts for an enormous part of Burundi’s
exports. Consequently, with climate change threatening to make a quarter of the
currently producing land unviable by 2050, the country (along with the World Bank) has
developed a CSP, the Sustainable Coffee Landscape Project (Agostini 2016) to pilot land
and water management practices through a combination of financial, technical, and
material assistance as well as conservation activities.
0%
30%
60%
$0
$150
$300
2001 2007 2013
Value of exports (millions USD)
Coffee Exports Total Exports Coffee as a Percentage of Exports

31. 31
5.2.5 Opportunities outside of the tropics
While latitudinal shifts in suitability are limited due to coffee’s temperamental needs,
there are a few pockets that might become suitable in the future, including Bhutan,
Lesotho, and Florida, United States. Suitable land has already emerged in Nepal, and the
government now views coffee cultivation as a viable economic engine.
5.2.5.1 Nepal
Nepal, located a few degrees north of the Tropic of Cancer, is an interesting case of an
area that is new to production, having received its first seeds from Myanmar in the 1970s
(NTCDB10 2015). While production was attempted in the subsequent decades, the
practice was abandoned by many. From the FNCCI/AEC11 (2006, p.3):
The major complaints for this were,
• Lack of technical know-how on coffee farming.
• Severe attack by stem borer and failure to control it.
• Lack of price information, adequate marketing system and
institutional infrastructures.
Recognizing coffee’s “high potential to export and earn foreign currency” and
“[contribution] to the improvement of rural livelihoods” (MoAD12 & NTCDB 2014, pp.2–
6), the government has worked to increase coffee production in the country with the
formation of the National Tea and Coffee Development Board (NTCDB) in 1993,
partnering with the private sector and NGOs in 2006 on the Coffee Promotion Program,
and in 2014 undertaking a meticulous country-wide study of current and potential new
areas for farms (MoAD & NTCDB 2014).
Optimistically, the government is working to address the barriers to adaptation cited by
farmers, by providing them with technical and financial assistance, and promoting win-
win adaptations like banana-coffee intercropping (Ranjitkar et al. 2015). While the Coffee
Database in Nepal presents detailed maps of potential areas for new coffee plantations,
the report acknowledges that these are based only on two factors (altitude and
10 National Tea and Coffee Development Board
11 Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry Agro Enterprise Center
12 Government of Nepal Ministry of Agricultural Development

32. 32
availability of the land) and ignore other variables (soil, rainfall, temperature, and access
to infrastructure) that are required for viable plantations.
5.3 Uncertainty
In assessing and projecting GCC, uncertainty is a hovering specter, lurking in both the
suitability projections and in the market response to changing conditions.
5.3.1 Uncertainty of the projections
The chart below demonstrates the wide range of land suitability projections for the
individual AOPCs.
Figure 6. Range of suitability projections. Vertical bars show the range of results from a
few of the different studies of projected change in suitable areas. Note: these projections
are for changes to total suitable land, not projections for changes on currently harvested
land.
Data sources: Sachs et al. (2015); Ovalle-Rivera et al. (2015); Bunn et al. (2014); Bunn et
al. (2015); Bunn (2015)
Countries know that climate change will most likely not have a positive impact on coffee.
So those with a stake in coffee have plans. Since the suitability data is uncertain, the
predictions are taken more as a qualitative measure (dictating general loss) rather than
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
ZWE
JAM
PRY
CUB
VEN
NIC
HTI
SLV
PAN
TLS
MEX
HND
BRA
PER
CRI
GTM
YEM
MWI
BOL
COL
KEN
ZMB
BDI
PNG
DOM
NPL
ETH
RWA
CHN
USA
Average of suitability projections

33. 33
a strict quantitative and geospatial roadmap. Under this uncertainty, actions are justified
in economic terms rather than with scientific predictions.
Suitability projections are plagued with uncertainty. There is high variability in the
predictions, even for the same region. It is further convoluted as most of these projections
talk about suitability in terms of hectares of land that will most likely be conducive to
coffee growth. It must be noted that the suitability studies’ binary designation of
“suitable” or “unsuitable” does not speak to the quality or quantity of the harvest grown
on each of those hectares of land. Land designated “suitable” may be on the margin where
there is potential for yields to be negatively affected. For this reason, even “suitable” lands
may require some adaptive actions to remain economically viable under GCC. Conversely,
there may be “unsuitable” land that could become viable with proper adaptations (Bunn
et al. 2015).
Studies cannot possibly account for all variables. Most projections for future coffee
suitability use some form of geographic information system (GIS) to analyze climate-
related variables (like weather, pests, altitude, temperature, etc.) and generally do not
factor in the human response and ability to recoup or offset the lost suitable area through
management practices and techniques (i.e., adaptation methods). These results also only
predict how much land will be available, but do not predict how productive that land will
be.
Countries cannot base plans around suitability because GCC is so unpredictable. If
countries were to base their adaptation plans solely around a vague, uncertain suitability
projection, they run the risk of being wrong.
5.3.1.1 Yemen
Climate projections indicate that rainfall in Yemen could range anywhere from a 45%
reduction to a 46% increase relative to current levels (YCP13 2012). In light of this
tremendous uncertainty, Yemen has followed a precautionary path to upgrade and fortify
its water infrastructure. From the USAID’s Yemen Coffee Program (YCP 2012):
13 Yemen Coffee Program

34. 34
The overall production potential is limited primarily by lack of regular
water supply and secondarily by poor cultivation and resource
management practices. Yet, there is certainly room for a significant
increase in production volumes. However, any increases will have to come
from more intensive and— importantly—more resource-efficient
methods and not from using more water or more land.
Yemen’s five-year agricultural plan lays out specific strategies and allocates funding for
coffee plantation development (via improving production methods and marketing
efficiency), climate change awareness, and government pilot projects on coffee disease
and pest-control (Giovannucci 2005; YCP 2012). Yemen adopted this approach in hopes
of doubling coffee production in five years, and plans to continue production regardless
of climate outcomes (Al-Arashi 2013).
5.3.1.2 Tanzania
Tanzania produces both arabica and robusta coffee and was therefore omitted from the
greater analysis in this paper. However, its course of action regarding coffee adaptation
under known uncertainty provides a contrast to the path taken by Yemen. Coffee is
Tanzania’s most important export crop (Borsy & Techel 2015). While studies have
projected decreases of 25% (Bunn et al. 2014) and 22% (Sachs et al. 2015) in suitable
area, the Tanzanian government expects that as long as climate change stays within 2°C14,
the resulting increases in rainfall will increase coffee yields by 17% (NAPA15 2007). While
the official communications acknowledge that (quite possible) warming above 2°C
change would require irrigation, water conservation practices, and the development of
drought and disease resistant coffee to avoid significant losses, the government is
charting a path using the more optimistic scenario. From their Initial National
Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(INCUNFCCC) (2003, p.47):
Vulnerability: […] Simple linear regression models showed that coffee
production yields are likely to increase as long as standard agronomic
practices are followed.
14 Above pre-industrial levels
15 The United Republic of Tanzania’s Naptional Adaptation Programme of Action

35. 35
Adaptation Measure: Follow standard agronomic practices.
Rather than plan for multiple scenarios, Tanzania is planning for a 2°C change while
understanding what might be necessary in a worse climate scenario. In the meantime, to
better equip themselves for making informed judgments in the future, they are
developing better tools and models to assess GCC impacts on their core crops of coffee,
maize, and cotton (INCUNFCCC 2003; NAPA 2007).
5.3.2 Uncertainty of market response
In addition to uncertainty in suitability projections, there is also uncertainty in the extent
to which the market will respond. Studies have shown reduction in suitability will not
have a one-for-one effect on production (Nelson et al. 2014). The end result on production
will be influenced by other factors such as “markets, social and cultural preferences, and
policies” (Läderach et al. 2011, p.720). Lewin et al. (2004) found the demand for coffee to
be fairly inelastic, meaning that as coffee becomes more scarce, the result will be more
pronounced in price increase than reductions in consumption. From the 1960s to 1989,
market regulation from the International Coffee Agreement (ICA) kept coffee prices
artificially high. After the ICA’s abandonment in 1989, coffee prices dropped, causing
production shifts around the world, including a reduction in production in many LDCs.
With prices set to rise from GCC, many lands that became uneconomic to harvest after the
ICA collapse might become viable once again.
Rising prices in the future will spur a response by actors on the supply side. Nelson et al.
(2014) looked at the agriculture sector’s response to biophysical shocks and predicted
that the biophysical effect of a 17% decline in suitability would actually equate to a 2%
decline in overall production due to the economic effects—with producers responding to
the price by intensifying production or increasing acreage devoted to the crop. We do not
know how this will translate into the coffee sector. The notoriously high price volatility
of the coffee market may be a large inhibitor of adaptation when coupled with the
perennial nature of the crop, the long time from planting to harvest, and large
investments needed for many adaptations.

36. 36
The decrease in suitable land may lead more farmers to adopt a varietal that can be
planted more densely like the Caturra, which has the drawback of being more susceptible
to pests and disease, especially as GCC increases their prevalence. Perhaps farms in
cooler areas may revert to a sun-growing system, forgoing the internal and external
benefits of agroforestry such as increasing biodiversity and allowing farms to better
function as carbon sinks.
5.3.2.1 Rwanda
Rwanda’s plan to adapt and expand coffee embraces the climate and non-climate
uncertainty inherent in climate adaptation. Their plan is intended to “encourage action
with uncertainty in mind rather than ignoring it” (CDKN16 2015, p.4). With a flexibility
underpinning, Rwanda lays out its adaptation strategy in a three-part time horizon. The
first phase targets no-regret and low-regret actions. These include addressing their
current adaptation deficit (providing more immediate economic benefits),
mainstreaming resilience into other programs, and building capacity for the future.
During what the plan refers to as the “near future” (2020s), the focus is on reviewing and
enhancing programs in light of new risks that may have emerged. In the longer-term
(2050s), they plan to “act iteratively as risks evolve” (CDKN 2015, p.4).
Rwanda is actively working to incorporate scientific knowledge and prediction into its
development decisions. They stress more collaboration between those who make
projections and the end-users so that the information generated by these predictions can
be more useful. They also emphasize a “decision-first” (as opposed to “science-first”)
approach. As opposed to the goals being defined by the projections, this model defines
development objectives first and analyzes the science in that context.
5.4 A strategy forward
For coffee-producing countries, GCC will require action. But this action needs to be
targeted appropriately to make the best use of the limited resources available.
Developing unambiguous adaptation plans is an oxymoronic task given the ambiguous
16 Climate and Development Knowledge Network

37. 37
nature of GCC. While other AOPCs may not have the resources of the coffee juggernaut
that is Brazil, lessons can be gleaned from reviewing adaptation plans of Brazil and
others, which can guide a country’s specific strategic implementation of adaptive
measures.
A country’s adaptation plans should center on the following drivers:
(1) Adaptations should be flexible, site-specific, and responsive to economic
considerations.
(2) Where viable, low-risk adaptation options with co-benefits should be a
priority.
(3) The barriers to effective adaptation must be addressed.
5.4.1 Economic considerations and flexible, site-specific adaptations
As Ovalle-Rivera et al. (2015, p.5) point out, “simple averages are not enough to reveal
the truth on the ground.” Overall suitability averages and trends do not provide a proper
basis for making climate predictions and adopting responses. Suitability studies on a sub-
national level are necessary to identify areas on the margin of suitability, where
adaptation and intensification can do the most good to make such areas viable by
increasing the yields.
Countries can use GIS maps to identify areas for optimum adaptation. Suitable areas may
benefit from adaptations that increase yields. However, hectares that are currently
producing at optimal levels, and that are unlikely to be significantly impacted by GCC in
the short-term or even intermediate-term, should be identified in order to avoid
misplaced adaptation cost and effort. Similarly, adaptation efforts should not be made in
situations that might only result in marginal benefits on marginal land, particularly when
such adaptation measures are most expensive. Economically optimal adaptation requires
investment only up to the point where the return no longer outweighs the cost of
adaptation expenditures. As coffee becomes more scarce, the price will rise, and the
economically optimal level of adaptation will rise with it. Countries must determine and
strive for economically optimal levels of adaptation.

38. 38
An analysis of coffee in Haiti by the Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical
acknowledges the site-specific nature of coffee adaptation. From Eitzinger et al. (2013,
p.34):
Areas that will increase in suitability need strategic investment. Areas that
will lose some suitability are likely to be maintained through targeted
strategies such as irrigation, shade management and change to more
drought resistant varieties. Areas that are likely to suffer from significant
decrease in suitability need to start diversifying in order to switch to
different crops, such as cocoa, once coffee is not suitable any more.
5.4.2 Low-risk, no-regret adaptations
Adaptive actions should focus on measures that can benefit farmers regardless of the
level of future climate changes. These low-risk, no-regret strategies are preferable for
countries with limited resources that cannot afford, or are unwilling, to guard against a
risk that might never happen. The experience of Jamaica’s Blue Mountain Coffee brand
(see 5.1.2) showcases the rewards of a low-risk, no-regret adaptation.
Similarly, some certification schemes (Rainforest Alliance, Bird Friendly, Organic, etc.)
have requirements that parallel many adaptation strategies: shade cover, water and soil
conservation, and pest management. Certification of farms could have a double benefit of
allowing farmers to command higher prices for their yields, while buffering against the
harms of increasing temperatures. Shade trees, agroforestry, and intercropping have
been dubbed “triple wins” (Watkiss unpub., p.6) due to their positive implications on food
security, carbon uptake, and GCC adaptation. Government assistance in overcoming the
financial costs of certification can help farmers gain resources they could use for further
adaptation.
5.4.3 Addressing barriers
For effective national-level adaptation plans, awareness of the constraints of the targeted
population of farmers is key. Any program needs to have proper monitoring and
evaluation tools built into the design. The benefits of this are two-fold. First, it allows for
better program design in the future. Second, it reduces uncertainty for farmers.

39. 39
Information on the effectiveness and real costs of various adaptation instruments allows
farmers to better assess the fit for their farms.
Smallholder farmers could also benefit from better access to financing to enable
investment in adaptation. This may require guidance and incentives for financial
institutions to provide adaptation lending and crop insurance for coffee, as Kenya did
with the establishment of its Coffee Development Fund in 2006 (ICO 2015). Additionally,
education of farmers on financial tools available to them could increase the effectiveness
of these resources. Finally, the existence of a program does little without awareness by
the targeted population. Dissemination of information to stakeholders is key to turning
programs into production.
Governments of LDCs and developing countries often face hurdles of instability,
corruption, extremely limited resources, and the presence of trumping issues (like famine
or war). However, addressing the institutional constraints to enacting effective policies
merits extensive study in its own right. Acting with these limits in mind, a government’s
dominant strategy may be to provide a guiding role in partnerships with MNCCs, NGOs,
and researchers operating in the coffee sector in their country. For instance, a recently-
completed $500 million bond offering by Starbucks for farmer welfare and mitigating the
effects of GCC on coffee crops (Chasan 2016) could be a welcomed infusion of resources
for governments with those same goals. Through these public-private partnerships,
governments can take advantage of the technical and financial resources of these non-
state actors, while managing activities to avoid redundant or unproductive work.

40. 40
6 Conclusion
When comparing economic and scientific data to the response of governments related to
adaptation plans for Coffea arabica, this study found:
(1) There was very little correlation between the projected future suitability of
coffee growing and the existence of adaptation plans.
(2) Countries in which coffee made up over 0.3% of exports were more likely to
have plans for coffee adaptation, or to cite coffee specifically in an overall climate
plan.
(3) Countries in which coffee contributed insignificantly to exports were less likely
to have coffee adaptation plans, or mention coffee in a greater adaptation plan.
Additionally, it was found that suitability projections vary widely based on the
methodology of the study. Observations on global and country-level trends in coffee
suitability miss the critical details at the sub-national level that are essential to making
informed adaptation decisions. The benefits of some adaptations strategies are also
uncertain. These uncertainties can deter the implementation of adaptation measures;
governments are reluctant to allocate limited resources to programs that may or may not
be needed or that may or may not succeed. Economic rationale, rather than science-based
suitability trends, provides a less ambiguous basis for allocating resources to adaptation
needs.
One promising take-away is that many of these governments, located mostly in
developing countries and LDCs, are responding despite the lack of an unambiguous path
or a clear light to find one. Adaptation plans are being developed under economic
rationale in an attempt to protect the many smallholder farmers who depend on this crop
for their livelihoods. Some countries have even found ways to use this bean to promote
other goals, such as water quality and GCC mitigation goals.
In future studies, it would be interesting to see how the presence of non-state actors, such
as local coffee cooperatives, MNCCs, NGOs, and universities can affect or influence
national governments in adaptation planning (whether by reducing, increasing or
somehow changing their courses of action). It would also be interesting so see what

41. 41
actions are being taken by countries that produce both arabica and robusta. Finally,
although the existence of an adaptation plan is of utmost importance, it is only a first step
toward climate resilience. Future studies should look at the impact of different plans on
the uptake by farmers and ultimately the production in the country. This can help policy-
makers understand what types of national plans translate into optimum results for their
country.
Rising demand coupled with decreased global suitability for coffee means that countries
that can adapt and continue to grow arabica will see higher prices for every bag they
export. To take advantage of this opportunity, countries must create national adaptation
plans that can facilitate economically viable adaptation by providing institutional support
that can reduce barriers to adaptation.
Ultimately, economic forces will influence adaptive actions. Countries that see the need,
and have the will, to formulate and implement adaptation plans will do so. These
countries and their growers will have a better opportunity to prosper in the coffee
industry despite the threat of global climate change.

42. i
Annexes

43. ii
Annex I. Works Cited
Agostini, P. (2016) Burundi - Sustainable Coffee Landscape Project (P127258):
Implementation Status Results Report: Sequence 05, Washington, D.C.: World Bank
Group. [Online]. Available from:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2016/02/25912986/burundi-
sustainable-coffee-landscape-project-p127258-implementation-status-results-
report-sequence-05 [Accessed: 26 July 2016].
Al-Arashi, F. (2013) Yemen Plans To Double Coffee Production In 5 Years. National
Yemen. [Online]. Available from: http://nationalyemen.com/2015/01/18/yemen-
plans-to-double-coffee-production-in-5-years/.
Assefa, E., Alemayehu, A., Seti, A. & Tirun, A. (2015) Performance Evaluation of
Improved Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Varieties in the Mid Altitude Areas of Kafa
Zone, South Ethiopia. Journal of Biology. 5 (3), 222–226.
van Asten, P.J.A., Wairegi, L.W.I., Mukasa, D. & Uringi, N.O. (2011) Agronomic and
economic benefits of coffee-banana intercropping in Uganda’s smallholder farming
systems. Agricultural Systems. [Online]. 104 (4), 326–334. Available from:
doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.12.004.
Baca, M., Läderach, P., Haggar, J., Schroth, G., et al. (2014) An integrated framework for
assessing vulnerability to climate change and developing adaptation strategies for
coffee growing families in Mesoamerica. PLoS ONE. [Online]. 9 (2). Available from:
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088463.
Bacon, C.M., Getz, C., Kraus, S., Montenegro, M., et al. (2012) The social dimensions of
sustainability and change in diversified farming systems. Ecology and Society,
17(4). [Online]. 17 (4). Available from: doi:10.5751/ES-05226-170441.
Baffes, J., Lewin, B. & Varangis, P. (2005) Coffee: Market Setting and Policies. In M. A.
Aksoy & J. C Beghin (eds.). Global Agricultural Trade and Developing Countries.
Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The
World Bank. pp. 297–309.
Baker, P. & Haggar, J. (2007) Global Warming: the impact on global coffee. In: SCAA
Conference. 2007 pp. 1–14.
Berecha, G., Aerts, R., Muys, B. & Honnay, O. (2014) Fragmentation and Management of
Ethiopian Moist Evergreen Forest Drive Compositional Shifts of Insect
Communities Visiting Wild Arabica Coffee Flowers. Environmental Management.
[Online]. 55 (2), 373–382. Available from: doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0393-9.
Borsy, P. & Techel, G. (2015) Coffee & Climate Initiative: Project Evaluation, Freiburg,
Germany: Coffee & Climate Initiative. [Online]. Available from:
coffeeandclimate.org.

44. iii
Brazil. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento, Assessoria de Gestão
Estratégica, Gabinete da Ministra. Mara Garib, T., et al. (2015) Projeções do
Agronegocio: Brasil 2014/15 a 2024/25 Projeções de Longo Prazo. Brasília, DF,
Brazil. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.sapc.embrapa.br/arquivos/consorcio/informe_estatistico/Projecoes_
Agronegocio_CAFE_Mapa_2015_2025.pdf [Accessed: 16 August 2016].
Bunn, C. (2015) Modeling the climate change impacts on global coffee production.
[Online]. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Available from: http://edoc.hu-
berlin.de/dissertationen/bunn-christian-2015-10-
16/METADATA/abstract.php?id=42152.
Bunn, C., Läderach, P., Ovalle-Rivera, O. & Kirschke, D. (2014) A bitter cup: climate
change profile of global production of Arabica and Robusta coffee. Climatic Change.
[Online]. 129 (1-2), 89–101. Available from: doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1306-x.
Bunn, C., Läderach, P., Pérez Jimenez, J.G., Montagnon, C., et al. (2015) Multiclass
Classification of Agro-Ecological Zones for Arabica Coffee: An Improved
Understanding of the Impacts of Climate Change. PloS ONE. [Online]. 10 (10),
e0140490. Available from: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140490 [Accessed: 5 August
2016].
Chasan, E. (2016) Starbucks Raises $500 Million With Its First Sustainability Bond.
Bloomberg. [Online]. 16 May. Available from:
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-16/starbucks-raises-500-million-
with-its-first-sustainability-bond.
Coffee & Cocoa International (2015) Ethiopia to streamline regulation of coffee sector.
Coffee & Cocoa International Magazine. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.coffeeandcocoa.net/2015/08/21/ethiopia-to-streamline-regulation-
of-coffee-sector/.
Craparo, A.C.W., Van Asten, P.J.A., Läderach, P., Jassogne, L.T.P., et al. (2015) Coffea
arabica yields decline in Tanzania due to climate change: Global implications.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. [Online]. Available from:
doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.04.020.
DaMatta, F.M. & Ramalho, J.D.C. (2006) Impacts of drought and temperature stress on
coffee physiology and production: a review. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology.
[Online]. 18 (1), 55–81. Available from: doi:10.1590/S1677-04202006000100006
[Accessed: 1 December 2015].
Davis, A.P., Gole, T.W., Baena, S. & Moat, J. (2012) The impact of climate change on
indigenous Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica): predicting future trends and identifying
priorities. PloS ONE. [Online]. 7 (11), e47981. Available from:
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047981 [Accessed: 9 December 2015].
ECIAfrica Consulting (Pty) Ltd (2012) Potential of Non-Traditional Exports in Zambia:
Growth, Employment and Distribution of Wealth and Income (F-41007-ZMB-1).

45. iv
International Growth Centre. [Online]. Available from: http://www.theigc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/06/ECIAfricaConsulting-2012-Working-Paper.pdf.
Eitzinger, A., Läderach, P., Carmona, S., Navarro, C., et al. (2013) Prediction of the impact
of climate change on coffee and mango growing areas in Haiti. Full Technical
Report. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical. (August).
Fairtrade Foundation (2012) Fairtrade and Coffee: Commodity Briefing, London, United
Kingdom: Fairtrade Foundation. [Online]. (May). Available from:
http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/resources/2012_
Fairtrade_and_coffee_Briefing.pdf.
Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry Agro Enterprise Center
(2006) The Study Report On Trade Competitiveness of Nepalese Coffee, Kathmandu,
Nepal. [Online]. Available from: http://www.aec-fncci.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/Trade-competitiveness-study-Report-Coffee-Full.pdf
[Accessed: 18 August 2016].
Future Climate for Africa, Climate and Development Knowledge Network, United
Kingdom Department for International Development, et al. (2015) Mainstreaming
climate information into sector development plans: the case of Rwanda’s tea and
coffee sectors 2nd ed. Future Climate for Africa, Climate and Development
Knowledge Network, Global Climate Adaptation Partnership, United Kingdom
Department for International Development, National Environment Research
Council. (December).
Giovannucci, D. (2005) Moving Yemen Coffee Forward Assessment of the Coffee Industry
in Yemen to Sustainably Improve Incomes and Expand Trade. United States Agency
for International Development. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.dgiovannucci.net/docs/yemen_coffee_giovannucci.pdf [Accessed: 25
July 2016].
Hein, L. & Gatzweiler, F. (2006) The economic value of coffee (Coffea arabica) genetic
resources. Ecological Economics. [Online]. 60 (1), 176–185. Available from:
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.022.
IBP Inc. (2014) Dominican Republic: US Assistance to the Dominican Republic Handbook -
Strategic Information and Developments.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Summaries, Frequently Asked Questions, and Cross-
Chapter Boxes. A contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken,
K.J. Mach, et al. (eds.), Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization.
[Online]. Available from: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-
IntegrationBrochure_FINAL.pdf.

46. v
International Coffee Organization (2016) Historical Data on the Global Coffee Trade -
Total production. [Online]. 2016. Available from:
http://www.ico.org/new_historical.asp [Accessed: 2 January 2016].
International Coffee Organization (2016) Historical Data on the Global Coffee Trade -
Domestic Consumption. [Online]. 2016. Available from:
http://www.ico.org/new_historical.asp [Accessed: 2 January 2016].
International Coffee Organization (2016) Historical Data on the Global Coffee Trade -
Exports. [Online]. 2016. Available from: http://www.ico.org/new_historical.asp
[Accessed: 2 January 2016].
International Coffee Organization (2016) Historical Data on the Global Coffee Trade - Re-
Exports. [Online]. 2016. Available from: http://www.ico.org/new_historical.asp
[Accessed: 2 January 2016].
International Coffee Organization (2016) Historical Data on the Global Coffee Trade -
Prices to growers. [Online]. 2016. Available from:
http://www.ico.org/new_historical.asp [Accessed: 2 January 2016].
International Coffee Organization (2015) Sustainability of the coffee sector in Africa. In:
International Coffee Council 115th Session. [Online]. 2015 Milan, Italy. Available
from: http://www.ico.org/documents/cy2014-15/icc-114-5-r1e-overview-coffee-
sector-africa.pdf [Accessed: 22 February 2016].
International Finance Corporation (2015) Jamaica Coffee. [Online]. 2015. World Bank
Group. Available from:
http://ifcextapps.ifc.org/ifcext/spiwebsite1.nsf/a24f910d8d23aa078525753d006
58ca8/315e2c4d248c4c1285257f17006a88ab?opendocument.
International Trade Centre (2010) Climate Change and the Coffee Industry. The Coffee
Guide, International Trade Centre. (6), 28.
Jaramillo, J., Chabi-Olaye, A., Kamonjo, C., Jaramillo, A., et al. (2009) Thermal tolerance of
the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei: predictions of climate change
impact on a tropical insect pest. PloS ONE. [Online]. 4 (8), e6487. Available from:
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006487 [Accessed: 5 August 2016].
Jaramillo, J., Muchugu, E., Vega, F.E., Davis, A., et al. (2011) Some like it hot: The
influence and implications of climate change on coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus
hampei) and coffee production in East Africa. PLoS ONE. [Online]. 6 (9). Available
from: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024528.
Jha, S., Bacon, C.M., Philpott, S.M., Méndez, V.E., et al. (2014) Shade coffee: Update on a
disappearing refuge for biodiversity. BioScience. [Online]. 64 (5) pp.416–428.
Available from: doi:10.1093/biosci/biu038.

47. vi
Kaufman, F. (2011) Sip, Spit, Grade: Coffee experts crown Colombia’s best beans. Wired.
[Online]. 28 June. Available from:
http://www.wired.com/2011/06/ff_cupofexcellence/.
Läderach, P., Lundy, M., Jarvis, A., Ramirez, J., et al. (2011) Predicted Impact of Climate
Change on Coffee Supply Chains. In: The Economic, Social and Political Elements of
Climate Change. [Online]. pp. 703–723. Available from: doi:10.1007/978-3-642-
14776-0.
Lewin, B., Giovannucci, D. & Varangis, P. (2004) Coffee Markets: New Paradigms in Global
Supply and Coffee Markets Supply and Demand, Washington, D.C.
Ludden, J. (2014) Malawian Farmers Say Adapt To Climate Change Or Die. [Online].
Available from:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/01/01/250482654/malawian-
farmers-say-adapt-to-climate-change-or-die.
Malhi, Y. & Wright, J. (2004) Spatial patterns and recent trends in the climate of tropical
rainforest regions. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series
B, Biological sciences. [Online]. 359 (1443), 311–329. Available from:
doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1433.
Nelson, G.C., Valin, H., Sands, R.D., Havlík, P., et al. (2014) Climate change effects on
agriculture: economic responses to biophysical shocks. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. [Online]. 111 (9), 3274–3279.
Available from: doi:10.1073/pnas.1222465110 [Accessed: 3 November 2015].
Nepal. Ministry of Agricultural Development & National Tea and Coffee Development
Board (2014) Coffee database in Nepal. [Online]. Available from:
http://assets.helvetas.org/downloads/coffee_database_in_nepal__2014_.pdf
[Accessed: 24 July 2016].
Nepal. National Tea and Coffee Development Board (2015) History of Coffee in Nepal.
[Online]. 2015. Available from:
http://www.teacoffee.gov.np/en/detail.php?section=coffee&nav_id=13&nav_name
=history-of-coffee-in-nepal.
Norton, S. (2016) Ethiopia’s coffee could be its salvation against growing drought.
Independent. [Online]. 27 February. Available from:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/ethiopia-s-coffee-could-be-its-
salvation-against-growing-drought-a6900791.html.
Nzeyimana, I., Hartemink, A.E. & Geissen, V. (2014) GIS-based multi-criteria analysis for
Arabica coffee expansion in Rwanda. PLoS ONE. [Online]. 9 (10). Available from:
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107449.
Ovalle-Rivera, O., Läderach, P., Bunn, C., Obersteiner, M., et al. (2015) Projected shifts in
Coffea arabica suitability among major global producing regions due to climate

48. vii
change. PLoS ONE. [Online]. 10 (4). Available from:
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124155.
Owen, T. (2015) Interview with Henao, L. published 13 November 2015. Coffee
Cultivation in Colombia PART 2. [podcast] Sweet Maria's Coffee. Available from:
http://legacy.sweetmarias.com/library/weblog/podcast-coffee-cultivation-
colombia-part-2.
Perez, M.G. (2016) U.S. Caffeine Binge Drives Global Coffee Demand Higher: Chart.
Bloomberg. [Online]. 4 July. Available from:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-04/u-s-caffeine-binge-
drives-global-coffee-demand-higher-chart.
Perfecto, I., Rice, R. & Greenberg, R. (1996) Shade Coffee: A Disappearing Refuge for
Biodiversity. BioScience. [Online]. 46 (8), 598–608. Available from:
doi:10.2307/1312989.
Philpott, S.M., Arendt, W.J., Armbrecht, I., Bichier, P., et al. (2008) Biodiversity loss in
Latin American coffee landscapes: Review of the evidence on ants, birds, and trees.
Conservation Biology. [Online]. 22 (5) pp.1093–1105. Available from:
doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01029.x.
Plurinational State of Bolivia & United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2010) The
Bolivia Country Program 2010-2015: Capacity building in response to drugs,
organized crime, terrorism, corruption, and economic crime threats in Bolivia, La Paz,
Bolivia. [Online]. Available from:
https://www.unodc.org/documents/bolivia/proyectos_bolivia/The_UNODC_Bolivi
a_Country_Program_2010-2015.pdf [Accessed: 27 July 2016].
Quirós, L.Z. (2013) Coffee of Costa Rica: Keeping Coffee Growers and Farming Families in
Business, San Jose, Costa Rica. [Online]. Available from:
http://ccap.org/assets/Costa_Rica_Coffee_May
2013_NAMA_Executive_Summary.pdf [Accessed: 27 July 2016].
Rahn, E., Läderach, P., Baca, M., Cressy, C., et al. (2014) Climate change adaptation,
mitigation and livelihood benefits in coffee production: where are the synergies?
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. [Online]. 19 (8) pp.1119–
1137. Available from: doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9467-x.
Ranjitkar, S., Sujakhu, N.M., Budhamagar, K., Rimal, S., et al. (2015) Projected climatic
change impact on climatic suitability and geographical distribution of banana and
coffee plantations in Nepal, Heilongtan. [Online]. Available from:
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5716/WP15294.PDF [Accessed: 24 July 2016].
Republic of Yemen. Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (2012) A Promising Sector for
Diversified Economy in Yemen: National Agriculture Sector Strategy. [Online].
(March 2012). Available from:
http://www.ye.undp.org/content/dam/yemen/PovRed/Docs/Yemen_National
Agriculture Sector Strategy 2012-2016 En.pdf [Accessed: 25 July 2016].

49. viii
Republic of Zambia. Ministry of Legal Affairs (1994) The Laws of Zambia, Chapter 228:
The Coffee Act. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.parliament.gov.zm/sites/default/files/documents/acts/Coffee Act.pdf
[Accessed: 26 July 2016].
Sachs, J., Rising, J., Foreman, T., Simmons, J., et al. (2015) Climate suitability. In: The
Earth Institute Coffee Report. The impacts of climate change on coffee: trouble
brewing. The Earth Institute, Colombia University. [Online]. Available from:
http://eicoffee.net
Schroth, G., Läderach, P., Blackburn Cuero, D.S., Neilson, J., et al. (2014) Winner or loser
of climate change? A modeling study of current and future climatic suitability of
Arabica coffee in Indonesia. Regional Environmental Change. [Online]. 15 (7), 1473–
1482. Available from: doi:10.1007/s10113-014-0713-x [Accessed: 21 July 2016].
Schroth, G., Laderach, P., Dempewolf, J., Philpott, S., et al. (2009) Towards a climate
change adaptation strategy for coffee communities and ecosystems in the Sierra
Madre de Chiapas, Mexico. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.
[Online]. 14 (7), 605–625. Available from: doi:10.1007/s11027-009-9186-5.
Stanculescu, D., Scholer, M. & Kotecha, S. (2011) Ethiopian Coffee Quality Improvement;
2011 Aid for Trade Global Review: Case Story, Geneva, Switzerland: International
Trade Centre.
Talbot, J.M. (2004) Grounds for Agreement: The Political Economy of the Coffee
Commodity Chain. Lantham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Taye, K. (2010) Environmental Sustainability and Coffee Diversity in Africa, Jimma,
Ethiopia: International Coffee Organization. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.ico.org/event_pdfs/wcc2010/presentations/wcc2010-kufa-notes-
e.pdf [Accessed: 3 January 2016].
United Republic of Tanzania. Vice President’s Office (2003) Initial National
Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. [Online]. Available from:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/tannc1.pdf.
United Republic of Tanzania. Vice President’s Office Division of the Environment (2007)
The United Republic of Tanzania. National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA).
Government of Tanzania.
United States Department of Agriculture (2012) Climate change and agriculture in the
United States: effects and adaptation, Washington, DC., United States. [Online].
Available from: http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/effects.htm [Accessed:
27 July 2016].

50. ix
United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service (2016)
Production, Supply, and Distribution Online. [Online]. 2016. Available from:
http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdQuery.aspx.
United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service Office of Global
Analysis (2016) Coffee: world markets and trade. [Online]. Available from:
https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/coffee.pdf.
van der Vossen, H., Bertrand, B. & Charrier, A. (2015) Next generation variety
development for sustainable production of arabica coffee (Coffea arabica L.): a
review. Euphytica. [Online]. 243–256. Available from: doi:10.1007/s10681-015-
1398-z.
Watkiss, P. (n.d.) Climate change impacts on coffee and tea production in Rwanda:
Literature Review. [Unpublished.]
World Bank (2016) Agricultural irrigated land (% of total agricultural land). [Custom
range of data]. Available from: http://data.worldbank.org.
World Bank (2016) Exports of goods and services (% of GDP). [Online]. Available from:
http://data.worldbank.org.
World Bank (2016) GDP per capita, PPP (current US$). [Custom range of data]. Available
from: http://data.worldbank.org.
World Bank (2016) GDP per capita (current US$). [Custom range of data]. Available
from: http://data.worldbank.org.
World Bank (2016) GDP at market prices (current US$). [Custom range of data].
Available from: http://data.worldbank.org.
World Coffee Research (2016) Global Coffee Conservation Strategy. World Coffee
Research [Online]. 2016. Available from:
https://worldcoffeeresearch.org/work/global-coffee-conservation-strategy/.
Zake, J., Pietsch, S.A., Friedel, J.K. & Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. (2015) Can agroforestry
improve soil fertility and carbon storage in smallholder banana farming systems?
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. [Online]. 178 (2), 237–249. Available
from: doi:10.1002/jpln.201400281.

51. x
Annex II. Suitability Studies
Suitability studies reviewed, but not necessarily cited in main document.
Agricultural Risk Management Team of the Agricultural and Rural Development
Department of The World Bank (2010) Haiti Coffee Supply Chain Risk Assessment.
The World Bank.
Baca, M., Läderach, P., Haggar, J., Schroth, G., et al. (2014) An integrated framework for
assessing vulnerability to climate change and developing adaptation strategies for
coffee growing families in mesoamerica. PLoS ONE. [Online]. 9 (2). Available from:
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0088463.
Baker, P. & Haggar, J. (2007) Global Warming: the impact on global coffee. In: SCAA
Conference. 2007 pp. 1–14.
Brown, D. (2012) Climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation in Zimbabwe.
Climate Change. [Online]. Available from:
doi:10.1023/B:GEJO.0000003613.15101.d9 [Accessed: 27 July 2016].
Bunn, C. (2015) Modeling the climate change impacts on global coffee production.
[Online]. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Available from: http://edoc.hu-
berlin.de/dissertationen/bunn-christian-2015-10-
16/METADATA/abstract.php?id=42152.
Bunn, C., Läderach, P., Ovalle-Rivera, O. & Kirschke, D. (2014) A bitter cup: climate
change profile of global production of Arabica and Robusta coffee. Climatic Change.
[Online]. 129 (1-2), 89–101. Available from: doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1306-x.
Bunn, C., Läderach, P., Pérez Jimenez, J.G., Montagnon, C., et al. (2015) Multiclass
Classification of Agro-Ecological Zones for Arabica Coffee: An Improved
Understanding of the Impacts of Climate Change. PloS ONE. [Online]. 10 (10),
e0140490. Available from: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140490 [Accessed: 5 August
2016].
Craparo, A.C.W.C.W., Van Asten, P.J.A.J.A., Läderach, P., Jassogne, L.T.P.T.P., et al. (2015)
Coffea arabica yields decline in Tanzania due to climate change: Global
implications. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. [Online]. 2011–10. Available
from: doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.04.020.
Davis, A.P., Gole, T.W., Baena, S. & Moat, J. (2012) The impact of climate change on
indigenous Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica): predicting future trends and identifying
priorities. PloS ONE. [Online]. 7 (11), e47981. Available from:
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047981 [Accessed: 9 December 2015].
Deryng, D., Conway, D., Ramankutty, N., Price, J., et al. (2014) Global crop yield response
to extreme heat stress under multiple climate change futures. Environmental
Research Letters. [Online]. 9 (3), 034011. Available from: doi:10.1088/1748-
9326/9/3/034011 [Accessed: 15 August 2015].

52. xi
Dinar, A., Hassan, R., Mendelsohn, R., Benhin, J., et al. (2008) Climate Change and
Agriculture in Africa: Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. [Online].
Hoboken: Earthscan, 2012. - 223 p. Available from: http://gateway-
bayern.de/BV041004323 [Accessed: 3 January 2016].
Eitzinger, A., Läderach, P., Carmona, S., Navarro, C., et al. (2013) Prediction of the impact
of climate change on coffee and mango growing areas in Haiti. Full Technical
Report. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical. (August), 44.
Haggar, J. (2011) Coffee and Climate Change- Desk Study: Impacts of Climate Change in
the Pilot Country Guatemala of the Coffee & Climate Initiative. [Online]. p.20.
Available from:
http://www.nri.org/images/documents/promotional_material/D5930-
11_NRI_Coffee_Climate_Change_WEB.pdf.
International Coffee Organization (2015) Coffee In China. In: International Coffee Council
115th Session. 2015 Milan, Italy. pp. 0–9.
Jaramillo, J., Chabi-Olaye, A., Kamonjo, C., Jaramillo, A., et al. (2009) Thermal tolerance of
the coffee berry borer Hypothenemus hampei: predictions of climate change
impact on a tropical insect pest. PloS ONE. [Online]. 4 (8), e6487. Available from:
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006487 [Accessed: 5 August 2016].
Jassogne, L., Läderach, P. & Asten, P.V. a N. (2013) The Impact of Climate Change on
Coffee in Uganda. Oxfam Research Reports. Oxfam Policy and Practice: Climate
change and Resilience. 9 (April), 51–66.
Jones, P. & Thornton, P. (2003) The potential impacts of climate change on maize
production in Africa and Latin America in 2055. Global Environmental Change.
[Online]. 13 (1), 51–59. Available from: doi:10.1016/S0959-3780(02)00090-0
[Accessed: 19 November 2014].
Läderach, P., Lundy, M., Jarvis, A., Ramirez, J., et al. (2011) Predicted Impact of Climate
Change on Coffee Supply Chains. In: The Economic, Social and Political Elements of
Climate Change. [Online]. pp. 703–723. Available from: doi:10.1007/978-3-642-
14776-0.
Malhi, Y. & Wright, J. (2004) Spatial patterns and recent trends in the climate of tropical
rainforest regions. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series
B, Biological sciences. [Online]. 359 (1443), 311–329. Available from:
doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1433.
Mendelsohn, R., Dinar, A. & Williams, L. (2006) The distributional impact of climate
change on rich and poor countries. Environment and Development Economics.
[Online]. 11 (02), 159.
Nzeyimana, I., Hartemink, A.E. & Geissen, V. (2014) GIS-based multi-criteria analysis for
Arabica coffee expansion in Rwanda. PLoS ONE. [Online]. 9 (10). Available from:
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107449.

53. xii
Ovalle-Rivera, O., Läderach, P., Bunn, C., Obersteiner, M., et al. (2015) Projected shifts in
Coffea arabica suitability among major global producing regions due to climate
change. PLoS ONE. [Online]. 10 (4). Available from:
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124155.
Ranjitkar, S., Sujakhu, N.M., Budhamagar, K., Rimal, S., et al. (2015) Projected climatic
change impact on climatic suitability and geographical distribution of banana and
coffee plantations in Nepal. [Online]. Available from: doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5716/WP15294.PDF [Accessed: 24 July 2016].
Sachs, J., Rising, J., Foreman, T., Simmons, J., et al. (2015) Climate suitability. In: The
impacts of climate change on coffee: trouble brewing.
Schroth, G., Läderach, P., Blackburn Cuero, D.S., Neilson, J., et al. (2014) Winner or loser
of climate change? A modeling study of current and future climatic suitability of
Arabica coffee in Indonesia. Regional Environmental Change. [Online]. 15 (7), 1473–
1482. Available from: doi:10.1007/s10113-014-0713-x [Accessed: 21 July 2016].
Schroth, G., Läderach, P., Dempewolf, J., Philpott, S., et al. (2009) Towards a climate
change adaptation strategy for coffee communities and ecosystems in the Sierra
Madre de Chiapas, Mexico. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.
[Online]. 14 (7), 605–625. Available from: doi:10.1007/s11027-009-9186-5.
Taye, K. (2010) Environmental Sustainability and Coffee Diversity in Africa. [Online].
Available from:
http://www.ico.org/event_pdfs/wcc2010/presentations/wcc2010-kufa-notes-
e.pdf [Accessed: 3 January 2016].
Zullo, J., Pinto, H.S., Assad, E.D. & de Ávila, A.M.H. (2011) Potential for growing Arabica
coffee in the extreme south of Brazil in a warmer world. Climatic Change. [Online].
109 (3-4), 535–548. Available from: doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0058-0.