Optimizing value per harvested area (Fig. 1) should be a common goal but a host of factors can prevent it. At the farm-level, coffee farmers are limited by their available resources, knowledge at hand, and suitability/predictability of their growing environment. However, as part of a national production system they are greatly impacted by the sustainability of systems of support, often implemented by government and embedded research organizations. Our comparison of three national robusta coffee production systems uncovers three scenarios, each impacted by their own set of positive and negative influences.
Historically, Côte d’Ivoire, one of Africa’s leading coffee exporters in the 1960s and 1970s, experienced strong growth in production via area expansion until 1989 (Fig. 2). The stability up to this point is largely attributed to the export quota system under the International Coffee Agreement that was dismantled in 1989, initiating a decline of the sector in several African coffee producing countries. The effectiveness of regulatory frameworks and national coffee institutions weakened.
In Côte d’Ivoire, the area planted to coffee grew until the 1980s, leveled off, and then declined sharply from 1989 onwards. After 1989, Côte d’Ivoire planting area was virtually driven by typical commodity boom and bust cycles, and the decline of the industry further exacerbated by two civil wars between 2002 and 2011. Countries with strong government support, like Vietnam, benefited. Supported by economic reforms, the country increased production and its share of global output to become the world’s second largest coffee producer, moving from 1 million 60-kg bags in 1990 to about 30 million bags today. Strong government support for input subsidies (i.e., planting materials, fertilizer) fostered conditions for steep growth trajectories for value intensification.
Countries able to maintain some government support, such as Uganda through its Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA; founded shortly after the breakdown of the agreement in 1991), managed the post 1989 effect with less market shock. The country initially increased the area somewhat as it benefitted from its preferred robusta quality compared to other countries although yields declined from 1996 until 2005, likely due to coffee wilt disease. Then, efforts by UCDA and the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) enhanced productivity and disease resistance of coffee varieties and the area planted increased from just over 200,000 ha in 2005 to almost 800,000 ha in 2022. Coffee quality was improved through collaboration between UCDA, NARO and international partners, notably USAID and the Coffee Quality Institute (CQI), accelerating the value intensification in the coffee sector.
Quality improvement initiatives and price differentials for Ugandan robusta incentivized the area expansion despite the year-to-year declining productivity. At the same time, agronomic inputs for coffee in Uganda remained very low until two or three years ago when intensification became a national area of interest as well. Uganda needs this momentum to continue as its trees age and low input practices degrade its soils, making it harder to compensate for low yields with quality differentials, especially with global coffee prices that have steadily increased since the pandemic.
Contributors: Dr. Thomas Oberthür, APNI Director Business & Partnerships, Benguérir, Morocco. Gavin Sulewski, APNI Senior Editor. Dr. Simon Cook, Adjunct Professor, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.
