The Dilemma of Endangered Species

M. Sanjayan remembers debating grad school biology classmates about the fate of the California Condors back in the 1990s, when the bird was on the brink of extinction.

The California condor (pictured) had fallen to fewer than 25 animals.

Should the condor, which had almost been wiped out by habitat loss, hunting, and eating carcasses that were poisoned by lead bullets, be left to die in the wild?

Or should scientists take the remaining 22 condors into captivity and breed them, which would cost millions of dollars?

Sanjayan's view was that humans had a moral responsibility to save North America's largest flying bird.

That's exactly what happened: Captive-born condors were reintroduced into the western United States in the early 1990s. There are now more than 200 in California, Arizona, and northern Mexico.

On a recent trip to the Grand Canyon, Sanjayan—now the lead scientist at the Nature Conservancy—looked up and spied one of the big black birds soaring above.

"That's pretty incredible if you think about it," he says. "They're really out there in the wild now." 

The condor's recovery shows that endangered species can be brought back from the extreme brink. And there are plenty of other examples. Gray Wolves, which by the 1970s were wiped out of most of their North American range due to hunting, have bounced back to more than 3,500, thanks largely to reintroduction efforts. Northern elephant seals, hunted down to fewer than a hundred individuals, now number 150,000 along the West Coast.

But with dozens of new species going extinct every day—scientists say that more than 20,000 plants and animals are on the brink of disappearing forever—deciding which species to save is a tricky question.

This week, National Geographic will spotlight some of the world's most innovative and unusual efforts to save disappearing species, from the mountains of Tanzania to the plains of Missouri, in a series called "Last of the Last."

The series will focus on campaigns to bring back species deemed worth saving. Which raises a basic question: How do we decide which species to save?

In some cases, scientists and economists use algorithms and logistical models to determine a return on investment for trying to save the last of the last: If x dollars are put toward saving the spotted owl, it's possible to determine how many might be saved.

In practice, though, scientists and conservations prioritize based on a mix of public perception and a species' economic value—for instance, whether it's a popular seafood or brings tourism dollars to a state.

And there's a another, more subjective factor: How they feel about a particular piece of flora or fauna.

"What we decide to save really is very arbitrary—it's much more often done for emotional or psychological or national reasons than would ever be made with a model," Sanjayan says.

As in the case of the condor, he says, "people end up saving what they want to save—it's as simple as that."

Some conservationists argue that how we choose which species live or die is deeply flawed, that our bias for preserving cute and fuzzy animals diverts precious resources from creatures that actually keep our planet humming.

Ants, for instance, are essential environmental helpers, distributing seeds, aerating soils, and eating other insects that are often human pests, says Mark Behoff, an ethologist at the University of Colorado Boulder.

"If we're going to save pandas rather than ants, we need a good reason, and being cute is not a good reason," he says. (Also see "Is Breeding Pandas in Captivity Worth It?")

Hugh Possingham, an expert in environmental decision-making at Australia's University of Queensland, says our obsession with "celebrity species" is likely detrimental to as many as thousands of other creatures in need.

Snakes and Spiders Need Not Apply

Endangered species that get a lot of love are often those that elicit the broadest public interest.

Tigers are often rated the most popular animal in surveys conducted in the West, says Eric Dinerstein, lead scientist of World Wildlife Fund's (WWF) Conservation Science Program.

As a result, the endangered species may have more money spent on it than any other. In 2010, the cost of managing tiger reserves alone cost at least $82 million, according to the Economist (Take an endangered species quiz.)

Elephants are another animal fan favorite, even though there are still a half a million left on Earth.

Many lesser known species of fish and frogs are in more dire straits, with just 20 individuals left in some cases, says  Jean Christopher-Die, deputy director of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)'s Global Species Programme.

A bias against smaller, less iconic animals also shapes the decisions of major donors.

"If you want to attract the attention of companies, you are not going to achieve that with snakes and spiders," says Vie, whose new organization Save Our Species helps match funders with conservation groups that share their interests.

"Sometimes you want to save a species because you find it extraordinary and appealing—that's the way humans are."

Show Me the Money

Whether a threatened species has any economic value can go a long way in determining whether or not it disappears.

Murray Rudd, an environmental economist at Britain's University of York, recalls working for the Canadian government in the early 2000s, when Nova Scotia's Atlantic Salmon population dropped precipitously and mysteriously to about 250 fish.

Government scientists decided to take the expensive step of capturing some of the fish and breeding them in captivity to prevent their local extinction and to keep their genes diverse and healthy. The cost likely ran into the millions of dollars.

But for many Canadians, the expense was worth it: A survey of 2,800 Canadian households revealed that most were willing to pay $86 a year (U.S. $81.21) to support conservation of Atlantic salmon.

Such reverence has made Atlantic salmon an important part of Canada's economy, even though Canada hasn't allowed commercial Atlantic salmon fishing since the 1990s (most of the Atlantic salmon people eat is raised on fish farms).

In 2010, Atlantic salmon was worth $255 million in gross domestic product and supported 3,872 full-time jobs or their equivalent, according to a report commissioned by the Atlantic Salmon Federation, a conservation group.

Those numbers encompass recreational fishing and fishing by Canada's native peoples, collectively called the First Nation; tourism; education; and spending by governments, universities, and nongovernmental organizations.

The report was commissioned to "bolster the business case for ongoing intensive efforts to protect wild Atlantic salmon," Rudd says, an effort that he called "completely legitimate."

"But does that sort of lobbying take away funds from other species?” he asks. "Almost certainly, given the government of Canada's sparse budgets and light interest in environmental resources that do not have direct industry relevance."

And Rudd says the Nova Scotia program was a futile effort, since Atlantic salmon in the southern edge of their range had dropped to such low numbers that they were never going to rebound.

"Everyone loves Atlantic salmon," he says, but "funding salmon conservation was taking a lot of money that could go to leatherback turtles, right whales, or [other] lesser known endangered species in that area."

"Common Sense" Conservation

Rudd is keenly aware of the politics around species revival. In 2011, he led a study that asked nearly 600 conservationists around the world big questions about saving endangered species—including how priorities should be set around which to save.

The study, published in the journal Conservation Biology, found that 54 percent of conservationists agreed that scientists need to set criteria for a controversial concept known as "conservation triage."

Such thinking holds that conservationists need to quickly decide which species can be saved while realizing that others, in Rudd's words, "can't be saved no matter how much money we pour into them."

The University of Queensland's Possingham supports a logistical model he helped develop to determine the cost-effectiveness of saving a species, which he says is "just common sense."

The method builds on other logistical models that assess a species' value and threats against it by including two previously ignored criteria: the cost of management and the likelihood that the management will succeed—that a species will be saved from extinction.

Possingham says the model, called Project Prioritization Protocol (PPP), showed that focusing on just a species' value and threats to it is inefficient and that considering other factors substantially increases the numbers of species that can be managed successfully.

New Zealand has adopted this strategy and is getting more than twice the bang for its conservation buck, he says. In December, Australia announced they would also take this mathematical approach to conservation.

Defending the Defense of Furry Animals

Some groups that focus on the cute and fuzzy, meanwhile, say their efforts are often mischaracterized as benefiting only "celebrity animals."

WWF "gets criticized a lot because we focus on big furry animals," says Dinerstein. But he says that a lot more species benefit from the efforts to save particular animals.

By setting aside land for wide-ranging tigers, for instance, lots of smaller, lesser-known species—like pangolins, sloth bears, swamp deer, and pygmy hogs—will receive an umbrella of protection. (Also see "5 Winners and Losers on New 'Red List' of World's Rarest Species.")

That argument echoes a wildlife management approach known as "the ecosystem method," which involves setting aside species-rich regions, rather than trying to save a single species.

"If we protect vast swaths of habitats that have value to people," says Sanjayan, "we also pick up benefits to endangered species along the way."

That goes a long way toward solving conservationists' dilemma of what to save by trying to save a lot all at at once. As conservationists know all too well, he says, "it's bloody hard to pick and choose."

Assessment:

Based on the need to preserve biological diversity, and to benefit other organisms in the proccess, which organism(s) do you believe should be saved from the brink of extinction? Leave your comment in the comments section below.

Resources: 

Dell'Amore, Christine. "National Geographic: Images of Animals, Nature, and Cultures."National Geographic: Images of Animals, Nature, and Cultures. National Geographic News, 15 Dec. 2013. Web. 14 Jan. 2015.

Hannam, Peter. "Survival Is Winning the Numbers Game." The Sydney Morning Herald. 14 Dec. 2013. Web. 14 Jan. 2015. <http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/survival-is-winning-the-numbers-game-20131213-2zcm6.html>.

Rudd, Murray A. "Scientists’ Opinions on the Global Status and Management of Biological Diversity." Wiley Online Library. 9 Nov. 2011. Web. 14 Jan. 2015.

Positive News in the Environment

The court said that JARPA II activities can “broadly be characterized as scientific research,” but found several “shortcomings” with the program's details—saying in particular that Japan had not paid enough attention to nonlethal methods. “The evidence does not establish that the programme’s design and implementation are reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives,” the court said. Therefore, “the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II are not 'for purposes of scientific research,' ” the judges added.

A mother Minke whale and her calf are dragged aboard a Japanese vessel

UN Court orders Japan to halt annual arctic whaling expedition

Japan has to stop capturing and killing whales under its whaling program in the Antarctic, called JARPA II, the International Court of Justice has said.

In a judgement issued in the Hague in the Netherlands, the U.N. court has ordered Japan to revoke existing permits to catch whales for scientific purposes and to stop granting such permits in the future. The ruling is a victory for Australia, which filed court proceedings against Japan's whaling in 2010, arguing that it breached international obligations.

In 1982, the International Whaling Commission (IWC) adopted a moratorium on commercial whaling, allowing the taking and killing of whales for research purposes only. Scientific catch limits are set by each country on a yearly basis, submitted to a review by IWC's scientific committee.

Antiwhaling critics say that Japanese whale research is a fig leaf for commercial hunting, as whale meat can be sold to cover research costs. Japan counters that its whale meat sale is not profitable and that it needs to take and kill whales to study the animals and their potential as a food source.

The extra meat from the whales caught by Japanese research vessels are sold for consumption.

By 12 votes to four, the court ruled that Japan had breached several obligations under the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

Masayuki Komatsu, a former Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries official now at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo, says that whales are abundant, and therefore the moratorium and whaling restrictions are invalid in the first place. "It would not be appropriate to comply with a judgment based on illegal articles," Komatsu tells ScienceInsider.

The judgment is binding and without appeal, however, and Japan has already issued a statement saying that it will abide by the ruling, even though it is “disappointed.”

warning: The following video is graphic and may be unappealing to some viewers. Viewer discretion is advised.

I believe that the banning of Japan's JARPA II expedition is beneficial to the environment by allowing the whale population to be replenished, in turn keeping the food chain in the pacific stable. As whale meat is considered to be a delicacy in Japan, I predict the court ruling will be met with stiff opposition by the consumer population. However, I believe it would be very difficult for Japan to relieve itself from the international moratorium because their reputation of complying with international law would be smeared, and would possibly lead to troubling international relations with countries, such as Australia or New Zealand.

In large part, the defense of the second amendment seems to lean towards personal defense, hunting and sport shooting.  Although all of those ideas are indeed inherently protected under the "right to bear arms," the bigger point is overlooked.

Our Founding Fathers penned the Bill Of Rights under a singular notion:  these Constitutional Amendments are to protect the citizens from a power hungry government.  And the Second Amendment makes legal for the American Citizens to keep and bear arms as a specific deterrent against a tyrannical government.  Where you have a government who fears its citizens, you have liberty.  When you have the exact opposite, you have tyranny.

I encourage you to read the following essay by Lawrence Hunter (yes, his name is "Hunter") from Forbes magazine.  Its the most concise and insightful essay on this topic I've read during my research.  Some excerpts:

"It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it.  Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster’s first sense of the term—to “disregard” it.

Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy.  And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free.

A people cannot simultaneously live free and be bound to any human master or man-made institution, especially to politicians, judges, bureaucrats and faceless government agencies.  The Second Amendment along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent individuals’ enslavement to government, not just to guarantee people the right to hunt squirrels or sport shoot at targets, nor was it included in the Bill of Rights just to guarantee individuals the right to defend themselves against robbers, rapers and lunatics, or to make sure the states could raise a militia quick, on the cheap to defend against a foreign invader or domestic unrest.

The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law.  The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs.

That is why the gun grabbers’ assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself.  It’s not really about the guns; it is about the government’s ability to demand submission of the people.  Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state. "

What many fail to Recognize is that homicide cases that were carried out by a gun-wielding perpetrator are actually far less common than other types of death:


Are we to take away knives because people stab each other? or how about cars because we run into each other and kill someone in the process? Or doctors because they made a mistake while operating on us? the answer is simply no. All of these things do more countless times more good than they do harm. The problem is that you don't hear about when someone successfully defends his/her spouse, children and property from a break-in because they had a firearm.

I believe that the right to  bear arms is one of the most prolific amendments of the constitution, and also one that makes our country what it is today.

A powerful earthquake off the coast of Sumatra, Indonesia, in 2004 sets off a tsunami that wreaks death and devastation across the Indian Ocean coastline. The quake was the second strongest ever recorded and the estimated 230,000 dead made this disaster one of the 10 worst of all time.

It was 7:58 a.m. when the tremendous quake struck beneath the Indian Ocean 160 miles west of Sumatra. Not only did it register at approximately a 9.3 magnitude (only the 1960 Chile earthquake measured higher at 9.5, though there may have been stronger tremors prior to the invention of seismographic equipment) and last nearly 10 minutes, the quake moved a full 750 miles of underwater fault line earth up to 40 feet. The movement of the earth--there is evidence that huge boulders weighing thousands of tons were pushed several miles along the ocean floor--caused a massive displacement of water. It is estimated that the resulting tsunami had two times the energy of all the bombs used during II.

Within 15 minutes, tsunami waves were crashing the coast of Sumatra. At the north end of the island was a heavily populated region known as Aceh. There, waves reached 80 feet high over large stretches of the coast and up to 100 feet in some places. Entire communities were simply swept away by the water in a matter of minutes. The death toll in Indonesia is estimated at between 130,000 and 160,000 people, with an additional 500,000 people left homeless. About a third of the victims were children.

The huge waves missed the coast of Indonesia on the north side and went on to Thailand, where between 5,000 and 8,000 people died. The tsunami also moved east across the Indian Ocean. In Sri Lanka, the tsunami came ashore about 90 minutes after the earthquake. Although the waves were not as high as in Aceh, they still brought disaster. Approximately 35,000 people lost their lives and half a million others lost their homes. In addition, about 15,000 people died in India. The killer waves even reached 5,000 miles away in South Africa, where two people perished.

In total, about 190,000 people are confirmed dead with another 40,000 to 45,000 missing and presumed dead. Although billions of dollars of humanitarian aid poured in to the affected region in the aftermath of the disaster--an estimated $7 billion within the first 18 months—some areas are still suffering from the massive devastation.

This year is the tenth anniversary of the event and it is still impacting the region; programs and studies continue, both to support recovery efforts and to understand the science behind this devastating natural disaster. Now that the world is more sensitive to the danger posed by tsunamis, awareness has improved early alerts and warning systems, as well as prepared disaster-relief agencies with real data.

The earthquake has been titled the Sumatra-Andaman Islands Earthquake and is the highest magnitude earthquake in the region in over 40 years. Over 227,898 people have been confirmed dead making this the fourth largest death toll from an earthquake in recorded history. Several years after the quake and tsunami events, the entire region is still trying to recover and to rebuild. Some areas will never recover.

The amount of preparedness for the tsunami varied greatly, as some countries in the Phillipines and the surrounding Countries with Indian Ocean coastline were better off financially. However, it is very hard to be prepared for a wave measuring 80-100 feet with 15 minutes between the displacement of the water and the impact of the wave on the coastline. While the levels of preparedness varied, none were at an optimum level to prevent mass death and destruction. That being said, if the West Coast of the United States were to be hit by a tsunami, the economic loss in that region would be unthinkable. There were early detection devices placed in the Indian Ocean at the time, but they were closer to the middle of the ocean. by the time the waves hit the early detection devices, they had already slammed in to Indonesia.

                    

The Total amount of relief efforts were around 7.5 Billion dollars in worth. An additional 20 million dollars were spent in tsunami early-warning systems. Months after the tsunami hit, outbreaks in disease caused an additional 150,000 deaths.

The future of Energy: Biofuels

The Basics

Unlike other renewable energy sources, biomass can be converted directly into liquid fuels, called "biofuels," to help meet transportation fuel needs. The two most common types of biofuels in use today are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol is an alcohol, the same as in beer and wine (although ethanol used as a fuel is modified to make it undrinkable). It is most commonly made by fermenting any biomass high in carbohydrates through a process similar to beer brewing. Today, ethanol is made from starches and sugars, but NREL scientists are developing technology to allow it to be made from cellulose and hemicellulose, the fibrous material that makes up the bulk of most plant matter.
Ethanol can also be produced by a process called gasification. Gasification systems use high temperatures and a low-oxygen environment to convert biomass into synthesis gas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The synthesis gas, or "syngas," can then be chemically converted into ethanol and other fuels.

Ethanol is mostly used as blending agent with gasoline to increase octane and cut down carbon monoxide and other smog-causing emissions. Some vehicles, called Flexible Fuel Vehicles, are designed to run on E85, an alternative fuel with much higher ethanol content than regular gasoline.
Biodiesel is made by combining alcohol (usually methanol) with vegetable oil, animal fat, or recycled cooking grease. It can be used as an additive (typically 20%) to reduce vehicle emissions or in its pure form as a renewable alternative fuel for diesel engines. Research into the production of liquid transportation fuels from microscopic algae, or microalgae, is reemerging at NREL. These microorganisms use the sun's energy to combine carbon dioxide with water to create biomass more efficiently and rapidly than terrestrial plants. Oil-rich microalgae strains are capable of producing the feedstock for a number of transportation fuels—biodiesel, "green" diesel and gasoline, and jet fuel—while mitigating the effects of carbon dioxide released from sources such as power plants.
The second department of biofuels is called "Biopower". This is when organic matter is chemically converted to materials that are burned, powering steam turbines.Most of the biopower plants in the world use direct-fired systems. They burn bioenergy feedstocks directly to produce steam. This steam is usually captured by a turbine, and a generator then converts it into electricity. In some industries, the steam from the power plant is also used for manufacturing processes or to heat buildings. These are known as combined heat and power facilities. For instance, wood waste is often used to produce both electricity and steam at paper mills.
Many coal-fired power plants can use cofiring systems to significantly reduce emissions, especially sulfur dioxide emissions. Cofiring involves using bioenergy feedstocks as a supplementary energy source in high efficiency boilers.
Gasification systems use high temperatures and an oxygen-starved environment to convert biomass into a gas (a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane). The gas fuels what's called a gas turbine, which is very much like a jet engine, only it turns an electric generator instead of propelling a jet.

The decay of biomass produces a gas - methane - that can be used as an energy source. In landfills, wells can be drilled to release the methane from the decaying organic matter. Then pipes from each well carry the gas to a central point where it is filtered and cleaned before burning. Methane also can be produced from biomass through a process called anaerobic digestion. Anaerobic digestion involves using bacteria to decompose organic matter in the absence of oxygen.
Methane can be used as an energy source in many ways. Most facilities burn it in a boiler to produce steam for electricity generation or for industrial processes. Two new ways include the use of microturbines and fuel cells. Microturbines have outputs of 25 to 500 kilowatts. About the size of a refrigerator, they can be used where there are space limitations for power production. Methane can also be used as the "fuel" in a fuel cell. Fuel cells work much like batteries but never need recharging, producing electricity as long as there's fuel.
In addition to gas, liquid fuels can be produced from biomass through a process called pyrolysis. Pyrolysis occurs when biomass is heated in the absence of oxygen. The biomass then turns into a liquid called pyrolysis oil, which can be burned like petroleum to generate electricity.

Part II: Transmission

 Biofuels, because they are a solid, need to be transported by vehicles which employ gasoline and other petroleum products. However, because the raw materials are organic, they help take carbon out of the atmosphere at the same time. That being said, processing plants are completely different from standard  petroleum-electricity plants. The biofuels produced in these processing facilities can be used in a system integrated  into a standard petroleum-electricity plant. That means that a standard combustion engine powering a steam turbine can be duplicated and changed to run off of biofuels, feeding the same steam turbine.

There are already many different types of engines that run off of ethanol and other types of biofuel, so it could play a heavy part in the future of transportation.

Processing of biomass is decentralized, and can be used off grid through an ethanol generator.

Part III: Consumption 

There are many obstacles to adoption. The first is that it produces the same amount of carbon that fossil fuels upon use in a combustion engine. However this problem solves itself in that biomass absorbs carbon while its alive, and it is readily available because there is such an abundance of leftover biomass after farmers harvest their crops.

I believe that the government can create incentives by offering tax breaks to farmers who sell their stripped stalks of corn to biofuel production plants. They can also offer tax breaks to those who drive ethanol or biomass fueled vehicles or power their house's electrical system through biofuel.

There is not one single person in the supply chain of the coffee industry that is not affected by the globalization of cofee. Having originated from a region near Ethiopia, Coffee has grown to become one of America's favorite drinks, and a Multi-billion dollar industry.

There are two main species of coffee: Arabica and Robusta. Arabica coffee is mainly grown in Africa and Latin America, while Robusta is main grown in Asia. North America has the world’s most coffee consumers.

This analysis will examine the regulation of the coffee industry; the global consequences of the recent Coffee Crisis; the globalization of the coffee supply chain; the role of the coffee industry in Africa, Asia, and the Americas; the impact of the sustainable development and climate change on the coffee industry; and, the role of corporations in shaping the coffee industry and global coffee culture.

Regulating Coffee: International Treaties

The International Coffee Organization (ICO) is the main world institution used for regulating coffee through the use of quota systems to help keep the price of coffee stable. There have been seven agreements since the ICO was founded. Each agreement offers increasing oversight over the coffee industry, such as quotas (and suspension of quotas when the supplies are too low or prices too high) and increased market transparency measures. The ICO agreements provide a forum to publish and discuss issues, such as sustainability and private sector concerns. The ICO funds research, such as pest control studies, and promotes consumption.

Coffee Crisis
From 2000 to 2005, there was a global coffee crisis in which coffee prices reached historic lows, impacting farmers from around the world. The crisis stemmed from a flood of low-quality, Vietnamese coffee (robusta) onto world markets, upsetting the balance of supply and demand. Vietnam aggressively promoted its coffee industry; it even expropriated land from the indigenous “Montagnard” people to build coffee plantations. The large quantities of low quality Robusta coffee beans on the world market forced Arabica coffee producers to lower their prices and also lowered customer expectations and interest, due to the increased number of defective coffee beans.

The coffee crisis led to a loss of jobs, lands, and livelihood in all coffee-exporting countries, including Vietnam. Social upheaval and unrest and migration followed. For example, in Colombia, there was a surge of kidnappings, violence and farming of drug crops. Since a coffee tree takes five years to cultivate, before it becomes fully productive, the low prices had a long-term effect, as crops were neglected and farmers shifted products.

Coffee prices rose again by 2005, partially due to increased consumption of coffee in China and Russia, as well as lower harvest yields around the world. While coffee prices have been higher since this crisis period, within the last few years, farmers have had to contend with rising fertilizer costs. Latin American countries, such as Colombia started subsidizing fertilizers, to offset the increased prices.

Coffee Supply Chain

Coffee cherries are picked by hand. In the dry season, there can be multiple flowerings and thus multiple times when the coffee is picked. To ensure quality, many countries, including the United States and EU-countries employ mandatory grading and standards. Other countries, such as Ethiopia, use grading systems as well. Middlemen (often referred to as coyotes) buy the coffee from the small farmers; larger plantations usually do not use middlemen, but sell directly to the international coffee processing or distribution company. The middlemen tend to pay less than the market rate and then sell the coffee at the higher market rate (keeping the difference).

During processing, ripe coffee cherries are separated from the under- and over-ripe berries and then are dried or sent to pulping machines. After being pulped, the beans can be dried or fermented. Once all the beans are dried, they are ground into a powder and shipped worldwide, or boiled (a traditional Arab way of preparing coffee). At this point, some beans are placed into machines for special processing used to make espresso and cappuccino.

The larger producers are able to sell coffee, by prices set by the the New York Coffee Exchange. Similar to other commodities, futures contracts for coffee are bought and sold on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Coffee and Economic DevelopmentAfrica

Legends site that coffee was originally discovered in Ethiopia in 850 and cultivated on the Arabian Peninsula in 1100. For top African producers of coffee, Ethiopia (#1) and Uganda (#2), coffee is the one of the main sources of income for the country.

Ethiopia uses four coffee productions systems: forest coffee (10 percent), semi-forest coffee (35 percent), garden coffee (35 percent) and plantation coffee (15 percent); 95 percent Ethiopia’s coffee is organic. Fifteen million Ethiopians are involved in the coffee industry; the coffee is harvested using both wet and dry methods. Since consumers seem to prefer wet coffee, Ethiopia plans to increase the use of wet harvesting methods.¹¹

Asia
The world’s first coffee shop opened in Istanbul in 1475. In 1690, The Dutch were the first to transport and cultivate coffee commercially, smuggling it from the Arab world to the East Indies. The Dutch also brought coffee to Java, Indonesia (which is now the 4th largest supplier of coffee worldwide).

Over the last decade or so, Asia has begun to play an increasingly important role in exporting coffee, with India, Vietnam, and Indonesia as its top exporters. Vietnam, the world’s second largest coffee producer, mainly produces robusta coffee. Recent drops in the price of coffee, due to the global economic downturn and to decreased speculation, have led Vietnam to consider stock-piling coffee to protect its growers from the low international prices of coffee.

Nestle has recently entered into a partnership with Vietnam to help train the country’s farmers to improve the sustainability and quality of their coffee crops. Nestle plans to introduce water optimization techniques as well as post-harvest procedures. The coffee though will still be used for low priced blends.

Americas

Coffee is grown across the Americas.  There are differing accounts of its origin in the Americas. Some say John Smith first brought coffee to Virginia in 1607 , while others claims early settlers first brought the crop to Canada. Coffee was brought to Brazil in the 1700s. While Brazil is still the world’s top producer, Colombia, Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, are also big producers/exporters as well. For many of these (and other countries in the region), coffee is the primary export product.

Coffee exports provide about $700 million in national income for Mexico. About 200,000 of the 283,000 coffee farmers in Mexico are indigenous campesinos, who own less than five acres of land. Some of these farmers are part of cooperatives, such as Union of Indigenous Communities of the Isthmus Region (in Oaxaca), which provide most of the social services needed by these communities. Similar cooperatives can be found all across Latin America.

While these cooperatives are successful, there is still unequal land tenure in much of the region, in which a small number of land-owners control most of the land. This problem is particularly bad in Guatemala where two percent of landowners own 65 percent of the farmland. Much of the population is land-less and work as part-time, wage laborers.

Colombia is the only country in the world to have a National Coffee Federation, which subsidizes farmers when international prices are too low. The Federation taxes the coffee when it is high to provide social services and infrastructure improvements in coffee-growing regions. There are about 560,000 coffee farms in Colombia, many of which are organized into cooperatives.

Environment and Sustainable Development

There are different ways for growing coffee; one of the most sustainable methods is forest grown or shade-grown method. The coffee cherries are infused with the flavor of plants growing in the vicinity, such as cardamom, citrus, and vanilla. Forrest- grown coffee allows for natural soil replenishment, reducing the need for the use of pesticides and other chemicals.

Climate change is expected to greatly impact many coffee-exporting countries. Coffee-growing regions will shift as increases/decreases in temperatures will affect disease and pestilence problems. Too little rainfall causes coffee cherry to shrivel. Another environmental problem associated with coffee bean farming is soil degradation from the use of too much fertilizer as well as exposure to the elements, which occurs when forests are cleared for coffee farming.

One issue that is often associated with coffee is the use of the fair trade system. Fairtrade coffee guarantees $1.26/pound (which is considered to provide a living wage to the farmers.) The fair trade movement also guarantees access to credit at fair prices. Often the extra funds associated with fair-trade are reinvested in the local communities for schools, health care facilities, and better housing.

To be certified as fair trade, cooperatives must prove to be democratically operated and must implement sustainable-growing practices (which are often expensive). There are approximately 300 fair trade cooperatives worldwide, which represent more than half a million growers or 12 percent of the international coffee growing community.

                                                   Coffee, Corn and the cost of Globalization clip

Conclusion

Globalization impacts every aspect of the coffee industry. International laws regulate the industry and try to prevent price spikes and dips. Major corporations try to shape the market and influence which beans are grown and how they are processed. Farmers around the world are joining cooperatives, often funded and supported by international NGOs, to obtain better prices for their crops, as well as gain needed social services for their communities. Not all of the impacts are positive though, environmental degradation and greedy commodity traders can certainly hurt the industry and its supply chain.

Nonetheless, socially-conscious coffee drinker can play a role by choosing to support companies that treat their workers fairly and pay them living wages.