Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62

DOI 10.1007/s10584-016-1788-9

Climate change adaptation of coffee production

in space and time

Peter Läderach 1,2 & Julian Ramirez–Villegas 2,3,4 &

Carlos Navarro-Racines 2,3 & Carlos Zelaya 1 &
Armando Martinez–Valle 1 & Andy Jarvis 2,3

Received: 18 September 2015 / Accepted: 26 August 2016 / Published online: 26 October 2016
# The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract Coffee is grown in more than 60 tropical countries on over 11 million ha by an

estimated 25 million farmers, most of whom are smallholders. Several regional studies
demonstrate the climate sensitivity of coffee (Coffea arabica) and the likely impact of climate
change on coffee suitability, yield, increased pest and disease pressure and farmers’ liveli-
hoods. The objectives of this paper are (i) to quantify the impact of progressive climate change
to grow coffee and to produce high quality coffee in Nicaragua and (ii) to develop an
adaptation framework across time and space to guide adaptation planning. We used coffee
location and cup quality data from Nicaragua in combination with the Maxent and CaNaSTA
crop suitability models, the WorldClim historical data and the CMIP3 global circulation
models to predict the likely impact of climate change on coffee suitability and quality. We
distinguished four different impact scenarios: Very high (coffee disappears), high (large
negative changes), medium (little negative changes) and increase (positive changes) in climate
suitability. During the Nicaraguan coffee roundtable, most promising adaptation strategies
were identified, which we then used to develop a two-dimensional adaptation framework for
coffee in time and space. Our analysis indicates that incremental adaptation may occur over

This article is part of a Special Issue on BClimate change impacts on ecosystems, agriculture and smallholder
farmers in Central America^ edited by Camila I. Donatti and Lee Hannah.
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1788-9)
contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

* Peter Läderach
[email protected]

1
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Managua, Nicaragua
2
CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Cali,
Colombia
3
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia
4
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
48 Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62

short-term horizons at lower altitudes, whereas the same areas may undergo transformative
adaptation in the longer term. At higher elevations incremental adaptation may be needed in
the long term. The same principle and framework is applicable across coffee growing regions
around the world.

Keywords Climate change . Adaptation . Spatial modeling . Nicaragua . Incremental adaptation .

Transformative adaptation

1 Introduction

The global climate has changed over the past century and is projected to continue changing
throughout the twenty-first century (IPCC 2014). Global circulation models (GCMs) all point
to higher mean temperatures and changes in precipitation regimes.
Central America is affected by droughts, hurricanes and the El Niño-southern oscillation
(ENSO) phenomena (CEPAL 2011) and is therefore one of the most exposed regions to
climate change and variability (Giorgi 2006). A global evaluation of the impacts of extreme
weather events between 1993 and 2012 ranks three countries in the region among the top ten
(Honduras is ranked first, Nicaragua fourth and Guatemala tenth) on the Global Climate Risk
Index (Kreft and Eckstien 2013).
Nicaragua has already experienced substantial climate change, which contributed to stag-
nating yields for maize (Zea mays) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), and its coffee sector (Coffea
arabica) is, after El Salvador, the most exposed globally to progressive climate change
(Gourdji et al. 2015; Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015).
Coffee is grown in more than 60 tropical countries (Waller et al. 2007) on over 11
million ha by an estimated 25 million farmers, mostly smallholders (Waller et al. 2007).
Coffee production is a significant contributor to agricultural GDP and export earnings in
Latin America. In Nicaragua, coffee production accounts for 18.2 % (MAGFOR 2012)
and 17 % (ICO 2013) of GDP, respectively, and is considered a nationally strategic
activity, since it is grown on 127,000 ha, giving labor to 44,500 families (MAGFOR
2012). Furthermore, agroforestry systems, commonly used in the tropics to produce
coffee, provide important environmental benefits such as biodiversity (Jha et al. 2014),
carbon accumulation (van Rikxoort et al. 2014) , water storage and erosion control
(Wardle et al. 2011) .
Farmers who grow annual crops have the flexibility to select among the group of
crops suited to their location. The selection is based on criteria that include sustenance,
market dynamics, productivity, cultural preferences, level of investment and risk avoid-
ance. Market factors can drive rapid changes in cropping systems, which can be both a
problem and an opportunity. In contrast, growers of perennial crops, such as coffee,
which require longer -lead times for both farmers and business partners to make changes,
do not have this flexibility. Decisions coffee growers make today may take years to take
effect, due to the long lead time of agroforestry systems, as they take years to be
established compared to annual crops.
Urgent action is required to address the issues of future changes in climate as they apply to
perennial cropping systems, as previously shown for coffee (Baca et al. 2014; Bunn et al.
2014; Craparo et al. 2015; Garcia et al. 2014; Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015) and cocoa (Läderach
et al. 2013; Schroth et al. 2016a, b). In this paper, our objectives are (i) to quantify the impact
Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62 49

of climate change on the suitability to grow coffee (MaxEnt analysis) and to produce high
quality coffee (CaNaSTA analysis) and (ii) to develop an adaptation framework across time
and space to guide adaptation planning in Nicaraguan coffee systems.

2 Methods

In the following sub-sections, we first describe the sampling design, including coffee presence
and quality data collection. We then describe the input of current and future (2050) climate
data and explain climate suitability modeling and validation. Finally, we describe how
promising adaptation strategies were identified through a national coffee roundtable.

2.1 Sampling design, coffee presence and quality data

Coffee-growing areas in Nicaragua were mapped by Valerio-Hernández (2002) but

without distinguishing between Arabica and Robusta coffee. The map shows that coffee
is produced at Nicaraguan altitudes of 100–1400 masl. According to CAFENICA
(Cooperativas de Pequeños Productores de Café de Nicaragua) experts, Arabica coffee
grows between 500 and 1400 masl. In contrast, below 500 masl most producers grow
Robusta coffee. Robusta coffee plants have different eco-physiological requirements than
Arabica coffee plants and would have introduced error to the analysis, as Coffea arabica
(Arabica coffee) and Coffea canephora (Robusta coffee) are two different species.
Therefore, we only used information on Arabica coffee and sites with elevations between
500 and 1400 masl. We extracted the geographical coordinates of coffee farms in the
3155 polygons (area of approximately 1200 km2) identified as growing coffee that
represent the Nicaraguan coffee zone. We obtained coordinates, at 30 arc-second spatial
resolution (approximately 1 km at the equator), for a total of 4919 pixels that show
where coffee is currently present.
For the coffee quality analysis, we used the data of a recent PDO project (FUNICA
2012). We designated the population of farms for our model to be the coffee-producing
departments of Estelí, Madriz and Nueva Segovia, which contain 87 % of Nicaragua’s
coffee growers. From these we selected a statistical subset of 295 farms, which repre-
sented 0.66 % of the 44,519 coffee farms in Nicaragua. FUNICA harvested ripe coffee
cherries from each of these farms. The cherries were de-pulped, fermented and dried
according to a standardized protocol (Läderach et al. 2011). A panel of 15 cuppers1
assessed the quality of the samples of coffee from each farm according to the Specialty
Coffee Association of America (SCAA) standards (Lingle 2001). The sensory attributes
evaluated were acidity and flavor, which are those for which Nicaragua’s coffee is
famous for. Each attribute was scored from 1 to 10 depending on its intensity (Lingle
2001). For the CaNaSTA modeling (see section 2.4). Flavor is self-explanatory while
acidity is the intensity of acidic sensation in the mouth.

1
The cuppers were experts from the cupping laboratories of the Asociación de Cafés Especiales de Nicaragua
(ACEN), CISA Exportadora, Asociación de Cooperativas de Pequeños Productores de Café de Nicaragua
(CAFENICA) and Promotora de Desarrollo Cooperativo de Las Segovias, Sociedad Anónima (PRODECOOP,
S.A.).
50 Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62

2.2 Historical climate data

We obtained historical climate data of monthly total precipitation and mean monthly minimum
and maximum temperatures from the WorldClim database (Hijmans et al. 2005 ) at 30 arc-
second resolution. Hijmans et al. (2005) calculated means for 1960–1990 from weather
stations with more than 10 years of data. The data for precipitation were from 47,554 locations
and for temperature, from 14,835 locations globally. The WorldClim database includes 225
stations for precipitation and 18 stations for temperature for Nicaragua.
The WorldClim database also includes 19 bioclimatic variables (Table 1), which are more
biologically meaningful (Busby 1991) for use in ecological niche modeling (e.g., BIOCLIM,
GARP) than the monthly temperature and precipitation data. They Brepresent annual trends

Table 1 Bioclimatic variables. Nineteen bioclimatic variables used for the analysis, representing mean and
extreme conditions. The table shoes the average current and future values for the bioclimatic variables for the 19
GCMs (CMIP3) under the SRES-A2 emissions scenario by 2050s (2040–2069) across the coffee growing areas
in Nicaragua

ID Variable Current mean 2050s mean

(Standard Deviation)a (Standard Deviation)b

Bio 1 Annual mean temperature 21.58 (1.34) 23.89 (0.78)

Bio 2 Mean diurnal range 104.1 (4.37) 109.21 (18.65)
(Mean of monthly
(max temp - min temp))
Bio 3 Isothermality (Bio2/Bio7) (a100) 72.11 (1.06) 72.06 (2.09)
Bio 4 Temperature seasonality 935.01 (95.53) 1060.08 (155.72)
(standard deviation a100)
Bio 5 Maximum temperature of warmest month 28.76 (1.53) 31.38 (2.00)
Bio 6 Minimum temperature of coldest month 14.42 (1.38) 16.36 (0.62)
Bio 7 Temperature annual range 14.34 (0.61) 15.03 (2.26)
(Bio5 – Bio6)
Bio 8 Mean temperature of wettest quarter 21.91 (1.25) 24.33 (0.86)
Bio 9 Mean temperature of driest quarter 21.44 (1.40) 23.65 (0.89)
Bio 10 Mean temperature of warmest quarter 22.63 (1.35) 25.00 (0.88)
Bio 11 Mean temperature of coldest quarter 20.23 (1.38) 22.35 (0.78)
Bio 12 Annual precipitation 1741.6 (325.29) 1645.82 (167.45)
Bio 13 Precipitation of wettest month 278.65 (41.98) 277.46 (20.53)
Bio 14 Precipitation of driest month 23.99 (10.57) 22.24 (3.11)
Bio 15 Precipitation seasonality 65.71 (9.07) 66.53 (3.02)
(coefficient of variation)
Bio 16 Precipitation of wettest quarter 758.95 (119.23) 726.46 (69.70)
Bio 17 Precipitation of driest quarter 88.25 (32.76) 86.53 (9.31)
Bio 18 Precipitation of warmest quarter 428.23 (103.38) 429.32 (85.74)
Bio 19 Precipitation of coldest quarter 192.31 (63.34) 206.82 (45.46)
a
Average (and Standard Deviation) of the bioclimatic values at know coffee production locations for the current
climate
b
Average of the bioclimatic values of the 19 GCM’s (CMIP3) SRES A2 at know coffee production locations
under future climate (2050). Standard Deviation is the deviation of the 19 GCM’s SRES A2, averaged between
the evidence points
Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62 51

(e.g., mean annual temperature, annual precipitation), seasonality (e.g., annual range in
temperature and precipitation), and extreme or limiting environmental factors (e.g., tempera-
ture of the coldest and warmest month, and precipitation during the wettest and driest
quarters)^ (WorldClim, 2015).
We clipped climate surfaces for each bioclimatic variable for Nicaragua from the original
WorldClim dataset. We then used Arc/Info (ESRI, version 9.2) to extract the data correspond-
ing to each of the locations in the study from the WorldClim gridded data.

2.3 Future climate

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) was
based on data from 19 global climate models (GCMs) (IPCC 2014). The spatial resolution of the
GCMs output (1 degree, about 110 km at the equator) is often too coarse to analyze the impacts of
climate change in agriculture. This is especially a problem in heterogeneous landscapes such as
the Nicaraguan coffee zone, where one cell can cover the entire width of the mountain range.
We therefore need downscaled GCM outputs if we are to project the likely impacts of
climate change on agriculture. We used statistical downscaling of GCM output to produce 1-km
resolution surfaces of the mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures and monthly
precipitation (Hijmans et al. 2005 ; Ramírez and Jarvis 2010). The delta method corrects the
mean bias in the monthly GCM projections by first computing the change (or delta –difference
between the transient future and historical climate in the GCM simulation), then interpolating
this change and finally adding it onto the historical observations (i.e. WorldClim). In all cases,
we used the IPCC scenario SRES-A2 (Bbusiness as usual^) (SRES 2000). The data we used are
available on the CCAFS Climate portal ( 2016) (URL: www.ccafs-climate.org).

2.4 Climate suitability analysis

We used the niche models MaxEnt (maximum entropy) and CaNaSTA (Crop Niche Selection for
Tropical Agriculture), which can predict crop suitability (MaxEnt) and performance (CaNaSTA),
such as quality, over large areas with limited input data (Oberthür et al. 2011; Ovalle-Rivera et al.
2015; Whitsed et al. 2010) to project the impact of climate change on coffee suitability and
quality. All the analyses were conducted using raster format and WGS84 projection.
MaxEnt has been used to analyze the impact of climate change on coffee at regional and
global scales (Baca et al. 2014; Bunn et al. 2014; Davis et al. 2012; Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015;
Schroth et al. 2009). Here we use it for a more restricted scale in Nicaragua. Maximum entropy
(MaxEnt) allows the user to make predictions or draw inferences from incomplete information
(Phillips et al. 2006). Similar to logistic regression, MaxEnt weights each environmental
variable (explanatory variables) starting with a uniform distribution of probabilities. It then
iteratively alters one weight at a time to maximize the likelihood of reaching the optimum
probability distribution to predict the response variables (coffee suitability). The probability
distribution of the explanatory variables is then applied to the pixels with incomplete infor-
mation (where no response variable is available) to predict the probability of coffee climate
suitability for these areas. In MaxEnt we applied a logistic function to the output with the
maximum set to 1 to give probability estimates 0–1 (Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015). The inputs to
the MaxEnt model were the coordinates of known coffee production areas and spatial layers of
the 19 bioclimatic variables for current and 2050 climate conditions. The outputs were spatial
layers of climate suitability to produce coffee currently and in 2050.
52 Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62

We used CaNaSTA to project the impact of climate change on coffee quality. While MaxEnt
operates only with coordinates, CaNaSTA uses both coordinates and performance indicators. It
was therefore more useful to evaluate the effect of climate change on the beverage attributes of
acidity and flavor. Oberthür et al. (2011) used CaNaSTA to subdivide the PDO of Colombian
coffee. CaNaSTA (O’Brien et al. 2004; Whitsed et al. 2011) employs Bayesian statistics to
define prior and conditional probability distributions and to combine these to calculate posterior
probabilities for each possible outcome. The input to CaNaSTA were beverage quality (flavor
and acidity) attributes for the sampled sites and spatial layers of the 19 bioclimatic variables for
current and 2050 climate conditions. The output were spatial layers of suitability to produce the
respective coffee quality attributes currently and in 2050. We analyzed the cupping scores of the
acidity and flavor attribute, which are average values between 0 and 1. We overlaid the
CaNaSTA results with a filter of certainty of 80 %, as previously recommended, and tested to
perform coffee quality analysis (Oberthür et al. 2011 and Whitsed et al. 2011).
We refer to ‘climatic suitability’ of a site as the probability that Arabica coffee grows well
there because of favorable climate conditions (Ovalle-Rivera et al. 2015), for the case of the
MAXENT analysis. In the case of the CaNaSTA model and quality projection, it refers to the
probability that the climate associated to a particular site will produce coffee with high acidity
and flavor as determined by cupping. We calibrated the climate suitability for coffee, using the
current distribution of coffee in Nicaragua, as follows: Suitability lower than 40 % refers to
marginal areas, where today only very little or no coffee is grown; suitability of 40–60 % refers
to marginal areas that are currently in coffee production, but where farmers already suffer from
lower yield, increased pest and disease pressure and decreased quality; suitability of 60–80 %
refers to main coffee growing areas; and suitability of 80–100 % refers to areas at higher
altitudes that are being rewarded by the market with premiums for high-grown coffee.
MaxEnt and CaNaSTA predict the probability that areas have suitable climates, which may
differ from where coffee is actually grown because of the many factors that influence land use.
Furthermore, future climatically suitable areas may not grow coffee because they are urban-
ized, are protected areas or are used in different cropping systems.
Demand on the world market and the price of coffee also affect where coffee is grown.
Areas predicted to have low climate suitability in the future might still produce coffee if market
prices are high. A possible scenario is increasing demand and therefore increased coffee
marked prices coupled with less suitable area available, leading to increased prices.

2.5 CaNaSTA and MaxEnt model validation

Using the 4919 presence points, we ran MaxEnt 25 times, using 75 % of the points (3689) for
model training and the remaining 25 % for model testing in each run. We used the default
settings, which allowed the complexity of the model to vary depending on the number of data
points used (see Phillips et al. 2006; Phillips and Dudík 2008; Warren and Seifert 2011). We
used two measures to assess model skill: the area under the receiver operating characteristic
curve (AUC) (Peterson et al. 2008) and the maximum possible Cohen’s kappa (kmax) (Manel
et al. 2001; Liu et al. 2005). AUC is a widely used measure of species distributions models skill
(Phillips et al. 2006; Elith et al. 2006; Barbet-Massin et al. 2012, and references therein), which
measures the ability of the model to discriminate between presences and absences. High AUC
values indicate a high discrimination power (i.e. low rates of false positives and false negatives)
whereas AUC values near 0.5 indicate the model performs the same as a random prediction.
Cohen’s kappa is defined by the precision of the prediction in relation to a random prediction
Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62 53

(Fielding and Bell 1997). A high kappa coefficient indicates that the prediction has low errors of
omission (i.e. low rate of false negatives and high rates of true positives) and commission (i.e.
low rates of false positives and high rates of true negatives). We calculated both measures using
the whole area of Nicaragua as a fixed background area from which we drew 10,000 random
pseudo-absences of coffee; that is, a fixed-area AUC (VanDerWal et al. 2009). We used two
measures to guard against the caveats that can arise when the AUC is the only measure used to
evaluate the model (see Lobo et al. 2008). We used the 25 model runs to project baseline
(WorldClim) and future distributions (19 downscaled GCMs) on to their respective 30 arc-
second grids. This produced a total of 25 suitability predictions for the baseline and 475 (25
suitable predictions for the baseline X 19 GCMs) suitability predictions for the 2050s. We
computed means and standard deviations of the suitability predictions and of the future changes
in suitability (difference between future and baseline). These illustrate predicted changes and
their associated uncertainties of both the MaxEnt estimations and the GCMs’ predictions.
We followed a similar procedure with CaNaSTA. We split the 295 observations for sensory
attributes at random, 25 times for each attribute, flavor and acidity. We used 75 % of them (221)
for training and 25 % (74) for testing. For both the acidity and flavor characteristics, we fitted
the model using the training data. We calculated the AUC and kmax (as in MaxEnt) for both the
training and testing data. We drew 1414 random pseudo-absences based on a land-use map of
Nicaragua (MAGFOR 2012), to assure equal sample representation for coffee and non coffee-
producing areas. In contrast to MaxEnt, runs of CaNaSTA cannot be automated. We therefore
used the 357 data points to produce one single Bbest information available^ model for each of
the characteristics (which we hereafter call the final model). We projected this model onto the 19
future downscaled GCM projections. We then used the future projections to analyze future
changes in suitability and estimate uncertainties caused by variations in the GCMs’ projections.

2.6 Participatory expert round table and literature review to identify adaptation
options

In September 2011 the Consejo Nacional del Café (CONACAFE) convened a one-day
workshop to identify the most promising strategies for the coffee sector to adapt to climate
change. Attendees comprised 173 experts from government, private sector and academia
including researchers, technicians and farmers. Researchers presented information on the
impact of climate change on the coffee sector, including the present study. The workshop
then identified the most promising adaptation strategies, which were further complemented by
a review of the literature (Rahn et al. 2013; Schroth et al. 2009; van Rikxoort et al. 2014) to
complement the list of most promising adapation strategies in coffee. Both inputs where then
used for the the development of the two-dimensional adaptation framework in time and space
for coffee production, which suggests adaptation strategies for the four main impact scenarios.

3 Results

3.1 Detailed climate change data for Nicaragua coffee areas

The GCMs of the AR4 for the SRES-A2a (business as usual) emission scenario for 2050
continue showing a trend of increasing temperature and some decrease in precipitation for
coffee-producing regions in Nicaragua (Fig. 1 and Table 1). The mean annual temperature will
54 Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62

Fig. 1 Present-day and future (2050) projected monthly precipitation (bars) and mean temperature (lines) for
coffee growing evidence sites used in analysis. Future values are averages of 19 GCMs under the SRES-A2
emissions scenario by 2050s (2040–2069)

likely increase by 2.2 °C, while the mean daily temperature range will increase from 10.4 °C to
10.6 °C. Total annual average precipitation is projected to decrease from 1740 mm to
1610 mm, while the maximum number of dry months will remain constant at 5 months.

3.2 Impact of climate change on coffee suitability in Nicaragua

At present, Arabica coffee has its maximum suitability at elevations 800–1200 masl, in the
departments of Nueva Segovia, Jinotega, Estelí and western Matagalpa (Fig. 2). Uncertainties
in the baseline were low, ranging between 0 and 5.2 % of the full-projected suitability range.
The areas with the highest uncertainty were in relatively low-elevation zones where coffee
suitability was deemed marginal (data not shown here).
The predictions indicate a considerable reduction in the area suitable for Arabica coffee in
Nicaragua by 2050 (Fig. 2). All future ensemble members project decreases in suitability in
more than 90 % of the growing areas. Particularly negative were the reductions in suitability at
lower elevations 500–800 masl, where even the most optimistic ensemble member indicated a
suitability reduction in the range 25–50 % (Fig. 2). Uncertainties in the projection to 2050 were
larger than in the baseline period. Most areas where coffee is projected to remain suitable in the
future show that projected suitability decrease between 10 and 25 % across ensemble
members. This uncertainty was mostly driven by uncertainty in GCMs’ projections of future
climates. Previous studies on climate uncertainty and its effects on crop models have shown
similar results (Challinor et al. 2005; Knutti and Sedlacek 2012).
Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62 55

Fig. 2 Projected change in suitability and associated prediction uncertainties. a Average change in suitability of
the 475 (19 GCMs × 25 Maxent runs) future ensemble members; b standard deviation of the 475 ensemble
members; c impacts by 2050 according to the altitudinal ranges; d current and future suitability versus altitude,
area available at different altitudes and target areas for transformative adaptation (a = coffee disappears),
incremental adaptation (b = large negative and c = little negative changes) and expansion (d = positive changes)

3.3 Impact of climate change on coffee quality in Nicaragua

We chose two attributes of coffee quality for their importance in consumer preference for
specialty coffees: acidity and flavor. Both attributes are highly influenced by the environmental
conditions of the sites where the coffee is grown. Moreover, the variation in these attributes is
not random but is linked to climatic conditions.
By the 2050s the CaNaSTA analysis shows an overall decrease in suitability to
produce coffee beans with high acidity and flavor (Fig. 3). At lower altitudes (500–
800 masl) the effect is very pronounced, whereas at mid altitudes (800–1400 masl) the
suitability decreases slightly. However, at higher altitudes (1400–1600 masl) new areas
in which no coffee is currently grown become suitable for production of high quality
coffee by 2050 (see also Table 2).
We compared the pessimistic and optimistic GCMs to estimate their effects on flavor
suitability (Fig. S4). The mean of the first quartile of the ensemble members shows decreases
of 60–89 % in suitability to produce coffee beans with high flavor (Fig. S4B). The mean of the
third quartile (Fig. S4C), decreases only slightly in suitability (20 %) and some sites even
increase in suitability. While some areas have very (< 6 %) low standard deviations amongst
model predictions (white areas in Fig. S4D), the contrary is true for higher elevation areas
where suitability reductions are the largest (black areas in Fig. S4D).
56 Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62

Fig. 3 Suitability change of flavor and acidity by 2050 as average of the 25 CaNaSTA ensemble members (left)
and current and future quality suitability versus altitude, area available at different altitudes and target areas for
transformative adaptation, incremental adaptation and expansion (right)

Acidity behaves very much the same as flavor. The first quartile of the ensemble members
shows decreases greater 40 % (Fig. S4B1). The third quartile of the ensemble members,
however, shows little change (0–19 %) (Fig. S4C1). Again, the standard deviation shows that
the projection of change is robust (standard deviation <6 %) in most areas (Fig. S4D1). As for
flavor, higher elevation areas where suitability reductions are the most significant show larger
(standard deviation between 12 and 30 %) uncertainty.
The areas that have been selected as potential sites for the implementation of PDO
(FUNICA 2012) occur in the third quartile of the ensemble members (Figure S4C and
S4C1). They show only slight decrease or even in some areas an increase in suitability of
areas to produce beans with high flavor and acidity content.

3.4 CaNaSTA and Maxent model performance

MaxEnt performed well, with AUC (kappa) values 0.81 (0.88) – 0.84 (0.91) for the test data
(25 %), and almost no variation for the training data (75 %) (Figure S1). The good perfor-
mance gave low baseline uncertainties.
CaNaSTA performed even better than MaxEnt, particularly for coffee acidity
(Figure S2 und S3). For the test data AUC values for acidity were 0.989–0.993, whereas
the test data kmax values were 0.957–0.98. For flavor, test-data AUC and kmax values
were 0.989–0.995 and 0.932–0.98, respectively.
Table 2 Two dimensional adaptation frame work in time and space of coffee production. The table shows incremental and transformative adaptation according to their time and space
(altitude) dimension

Impact by 2050 Area Color in Space (m.a.s.l.) Type of adaptation Adaptation options towards 2050a Measures to cope with climate variability
Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62

(ha) Fig. 1c towards 2050 (in addition to previous column)

Coffee 10.505 Red Low altitude Transformative Move from diversification to replacing - Coffee insurance schemes to balance
disappears (500–800) adaptation crops, emigrate to other region, off climate risk.
farm employment (+ cell below) - Diversified multistrata shade management
Large neg. 6.092 Orange Medium altitude Incremental Breed new varieties; graft Arabica on to manage seasonal precipitation variability
Changes (800–1200) adaptation Robusta varieties, diversification into and extreme temperatures.
Robusta coffee, cocoa, or other tree - Strengthen community organization to
crops. (+ cell below) confront increased market risk related to
greater variability of coffee production
Little neg. 821 Yellow High altitude Incremental Shade and irrigation; improved crop, - Reforest degraded and risk prone sites due
Changes (1200–1400) adaptation pest and diseases, shade, soil, water to extreme weather events leading to
and fertility management flooding, landslides and fires
Positive change 190 Green Very high altitude Transformative Expand to new areas, including processing
(New areas) (1400–1600) adaptation infrastructure, streets and market access.
(expansion)
a
Adaptation strategies (column 6 and 7) identified through the coffee and climate change round table and other practices identified through literature review (Rahn et al. 2013; Schroth
et al. 2009; van Rikxoort et al. 2014)
57
58 Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62

3.5 Participatory expert round table and literature review

The participatory workshop and literature review identified the most promising adapta-
tion strategies responding to the four different impact scenarios (Table 2, column 6 and
7). For the impact scenario of positive suitability change a cautious expansion to new
areas is recommended, for the scenario of little negative suitability change the imple-
mentation of good agricultural practices such as shade, irrigation, where feasible, and
pest and disease management are recommended, for the scenario of large negative
suitability changes new varieties and diversification to other tree crops is recommended
and finally for the scenario of unsuitable locations (coffee disappears) diversification to
other crops or livelihoods is recommended.

4 Discussion

4.1 Impacts of climate change on suitability to grow coffee and coffee quality
in Nicaragua

Our MaxEnt model results indicate that coffee grows optimally at elevations between 800 and
1400 masl, but that this optimum will likely increase to 1200 and 1600 masl by 2050. These
results are consistent with what would be expected from the degree of warming (~2.5 °C, see
Fig. 2) and the adiabatic lapse rate (0.65 °C per 100 m).
CaNaSTA results also indicate that areas at higher altitudes (above 1500 masl) will
likely become more suitable to produce high quality coffee with climate change.
Importantly, there was a high likelihood that between today and 2050, areas at elevations
between 500 masl and 1500 masl will suffer the greatest decrease in coffee suitability.
According to our analyses, not only overall coffee production, but also coffee quality and
the related PDO are likely to come under pressure as climatically suitable areas are likely
to move up in altitude. Therefore, adaptation strategies need to consider practices and
breeding of new varieties to maintain or increase production and quality while at the
same time address disease and pest pressure.
This shift in elevation means that areas at high elevations will have similar climatic
conditions in the future as those currently at lower altitudes’. Therefore, we argue that current
management practices and strategies to manage climate risks at lower altitudes will very likely
serve in the future at higher altitudes.

4.2 Two-dimensional adaptation framework in space and time of coffee production

The development of a two-dimensional adaptation framework in time and space is

discussed using the results of climate suitability modeling and the identified adaptation
strategies for coffee in Nicaragua. Uncertainties pertinent to planning of adaptation
strategies for the long term compared with near term are likely to be different
(Vermeulen et al. 2013). At lower levels of progressive climate change the climate signal
may be indistinguishable from climate variability. Farmers can adjust by making incre-
mental adaptation and innovations based on their experiences to deal with climate
variability. Incremental adaptation implies that stakeholders adjust their decisions so that
they can continue to meet current objectives under changed conditions (Stafford et al.
Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62 59

2011). Examples are changing cultivars or management practices. However, at higher

levels of progressive climate change, transformative adaptation is likely to be needed.
This may include reconfiguration of one or more livelihoods, diets and geography of
farming and food systems (Kates, et al. 2012; Rickards 2012). Transformative adapta-
tion, therefore, refers to fundamental changes in objectives (Stafford et al. 2011), such as
changing livelihoods, including moving to another industry or another region.
We used the concept of adaptation across time scales (Rickards 2012; Vermeulen et al. 2013) to
provide specific recommendations for coffee-growing areas to adapt in time and space. We call
this a two-dimensional adaptation framework in space and time of coffee production (Table 2). We
identified four major impact scenarios by 2050 for coffee in Nicaragua (see Table 2, Figs. 2 and 3)
according to the elevation of the growing zones and their recommended adaptation strategies:

& Low elevations (500–800 masl), where coffee disappears and transformational adaptation
is recommended (e.g. replacement of Arabica coffee by Robusta coffee or cocoa);
& Medium elevation (800–1200 masl), where large negative changes are projected and
incremental adaptation is recommended (e.g. new varieties and diversification);
& High elevations (1200–1400 masl), where little negative changes are projected and
incremental adaptation is recommended (e.g. shade and irrigation); and
& Very high elevations (1400–1600 masl), where positive changes are projected and trans-
formational adaptation is recommended (e.g. expansion into new areas).

Our analysis of adaptation indicates that incremental adaptation occurs in a short timeframe
at lower altitudes, whereas the same areas may undergo transformative adaptation in the long
term. At higher altitudes incremental adaption may be needed in the long term. The same
principle and framework is applicable across coffee growing regions around the world, as the
patterns of decreasing exposure with higher altitudes are the same globally (Ovalle-Rivera
et al. 2015); only the magnitude and timeframe changes.
Although we did not analyze the effects of climate variability on coffee production, it is
very important as shown, for example, by Avelino et al. (2015) for the case of climate
variability, which was an important factor to trigger the coffee rust crisis in Colombia and
Central America. We argue that in addition to the strategies listed in Table 2, strategies will be
needed to cope with climate variability and changes in soil properties that result from land
degradation and climate change. These strategies should be in place in all current growing
areas and at all times. However, a better understanding of climate variability and its impacts on
coffee production, as well as changes in soil properties under climate change is required.

5 Conclusions

Arabica coffee, which is highly sensitive to temperature, will be affected by climate change.
By 2050 the suitability of areas to grow arabica coffee in Nicaragua will move approximately
300 m up the altitudinal gradient. Farmers at lower elevations will no longer be able to grow
quality coffee and may have to abandon it. Moving to higher elevations may increase pressure
on forests and natural resources at higher altitudes. Actors along the coffee supply chain will
have to adapt to the changes that climate change will bring.
We applied the concept of adaptation across time and space to provide specific adaptation
recommendations for coffee-growing areas at different elevations in Nicaragua. We identified
60 Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62

four major impact scenarios and its related adaptation strategies. Incremental adaptation occurs
over a short term horizon at lower altitudes, whereas the same areas may undergo transfor-
mative adaptation in the long term. At higher altitudes incremental adaptation may be needed
in the long term. Furthermore, strategies to cope with the impact of climate variability on
coffee production should be in place in all growing areas now and for the future. The
developed frame work is readily applicable across other coffee growing regions, as those
regions will likely experience similar climatic impacts.

Acknowledgments This research was conducted under the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change,
Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and repro-
duction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

References

Avelino J, Cristancho M, Georgiou S, Imbach P, Aguilar L, Bornemann G, Läderach P, Anzueto F, Hruska AJ,
Morales C (2015) The coffee rust crises in Colombia and central America (2008–2013): impacts, plausible
causes and proposed solutions. 7:303–321. doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0446-9
Baca M, Läderach P, Haggar J, Schroth G, Ovalle O (2014) An integrated framework for assessing vulnerability
to climate change and developing adaptation strategies for coffee growing families in Mesoamerica. doi:10.
1371/journal.pone.0088463
Barbet-Massin M, Jiguet F, Albert CH, Thuiller W (2012) Selecting pseudo-absences for species distribution
models: how, where and how many? Methods Ecol. Evol 3:327–338
Bunn C, Läderach P, Ovalle Rivera O, Kirschke D (2014) A bitter cup: climate change profile of global
production of Arabica and Robusta coffee. Clim Chang 129:89–101
Busby JR (1991) A bioclimatic analysis and prediction system. In: Margules CR, Austin MP (eds) Nature
conservation: cost effective biological surveys and data analysis. CSIRO, Australia pp 64–68
CCAFS-Climate-Portal (2016) http://ccafs-climate.org.
CEPAL (2011) La economía del cambio climático en Centroamérica. CEPAL, Mexico. http://www.cepal.org/es/
publicaciones/26058-la-economia-del-cambioclimatico-en-centroamerica-reporte-tecnico-2011
Challinor AJ, Wheeler TR, Slingo JM, Hemming D (2005) Quantification of physical and biological uncertainty
in the simulation of the yield of a tropical crop using present-day and doubled CO2 climates. Philos Trans R
Soc B: Biol Sci 360:2085–2094
Craparo ACW, Van Asten PJA, Läderach P, Jassogne LTP, Grab SW (2015) Coffea arabica yields decline in
Tanzania due to climate change: Global implications. Agric For Meteorol 207:1–10
Davis APGT, Baena S, Moat J (2012) The impact of climate change on indigenous arabica coffee (Coffea
arabica): predicting future trends and identifying priorities. PLoS One 7(11):e47981. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0047981
Elith* J, Graham* CH, Anderson RP, Dudík M, Ferrier S, Guisan A, Hijmans RJ, Huettmann F, Leathwick JR,
Lehmann A, Li J, Lohmann LG, Loiselle BA, Manion G, Moritz C, Nakamura M, Nakazawa Y, Overton
JMM, Townsend Peterson A, Phillips SJ, Richardson K, Scachetti-Pereira R, Schapire RE, Soberón J,
Williams S, Wisz MS, Zimmermann NE (2006) Novel methods improve prediction of species’ distributions
from occurrence data. Ecography 29:129–151. doi:10.1111/j.2006.0906-7590.04596.x
Fielding AH, Bell JF (1997) A review of methods for assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/
absence models. Environ Conserv 24(1):38–49
FUNICA (2012) Informe Anual 2012. Fundación para el desarrollo tecnológico, agropecuario y forestal de
Nicaragua. http://funica.org.ni/index/informacion-publica/category/38-informes-anuales.html?download=
591:InformeAnual2012
Garcia LJ, Posada-Suarez H, Läderach P (2014) Recommendations for the regionalizing of coffee cultivation in
Colombia: a methodological proposal based on agro-climatic indices. PLoS One 9:e113510
Giorgi F (2006) Climate change hot-spots. Geophys Res Lett 33:1–4. doi:10.1029/2006GL025734
Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62 61

Gourdji S, Läderach P, Valle AM, Martinez CZ, Lobell DB (2015) Historical climate trends, deforestation, and
maize and bean yields in Nicaragua. Agric For Meteorol 200:270–281
Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate
surfacesfor global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978. doi:10.1002/joc.1276
ICO (2013) Statistics on coffee: historical production data worldwide. In Organization ICO (ed.) Retrieved July,
2016, from: http://www.ico.org/trade_statistics.asp
IPCC (2014) AR4 GCM data. http://www.ipcc-data.org/sim/gcm_monthly/SRES_AR4/index.html
Jha S, Bacon CM, Philpott SM, Ernesto Mendez V, Läderach P, Rice RA (2014) Shade coffee: update on a
disappearing refuge for biodiversity. Bioscience 64:416–428
Kates RW, Travis WR, Wilbanks TJ (2012) Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate
change are insufficient. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109(19):7156–7161
Knutti R, Sedlacek J (2012) Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections. Nature
Clim 3:369–373. doi:10.1038/nclimate1716
Kreft S, Eckstien D (2013) Global climate risk index 2014: who suffers most from extreme weather events?
Weather-related loss events in 2012 and 1993 to 2012. Bonn, Germany
Läderach P, Oberthür T, Cook S, Estrada Iza M, Pohlan JA, Fisher M, Rosales Lechuga R (2011) Systematic
agronomic farm management for improved coffee quality. Field Crop Res 120:321–329
Läderach P, Martinez A, Schroth G, Castro N (2013) Predicting the future climatic suitability for cocoa farming
of the world’s leading producer countries, Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. Clim Chang 119:841–854. doi:10.1007/
s10584-013-0774-8
Lingle TR (2001) The coffee cuppers’ handbook – a systematic guide to the sensory evaluation of coffee’s flavor.
Specialty coffee Association of America, Third edn. Long Beach, California
Liu C, Berry PM, Dawson TP, Pearson RG (2005) Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species
distributions. Ecography (Cop) 28:385–393
Lobo JM, Jiménez-Valverde A, Real R (2008) AUC: a misleading measure of the performance of predictive
distribution models. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 17:145–151
MAGFOR (MAG - Agricultural Ministry of Nicaragua) (2013) El Café en Nicaragua. Retrieved July, 2016, from:
http://www.magfor.gob.ni/descargas/publicaciones/cafecacao/cafenicaragua.pdf
Manel S, Williams HC, Ormerod SJ (2001) Evaluating presence–absence models in ecology: the need to account
for prevalence. J Appl Ecol 38:921–931
O’Brien K, Eriksen S, Schjolden A, Nygaard L (2004) What’s in a word? Conflicting interpretations of
vulnerability in climate change research. Center for International Climate and Environmental Research
CICERO, pp. 1–19
Oberthür T, Läderach P, Posada H, Fisher MJ, Samper LF, Illera J, Collet L, Moreno E, Alarcón R, Villegas A,
Usma H, Perez C, Jarvis A (2011) Regional relationships between inherent coffee quality and growing
environment for denomination of origin labels in Nariño and Cauca, Colombia. Food Policy 36:783–794.
doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.07.005
Ovalle-Rivera O, Läderach P, Bunn C, Obersteiner M, Schroth G (2015) Projected shifts in Coffea arabica
suitability among major global producing regions due to climate change. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124155
Peterson AT, Papes M, Soberón J (2008) Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in
ecological niche modeling. Ecol Model 213:63–72
Phillips SJ, Dudík M (2008) Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: new extensions and a comprehen-
sive evaluation. Ecography 31:161–175. doi:10.1111/j.0906-7590.2008.5203.x
Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions.
Ecol Model 190:231–259
Rahn E, Läderach P, Baca M, Cressy C, Schroth G, Malin D, van Rikxoort H, Shriver J (2013) Climate change
adaptation, mitigation and livelihood benefits in coffee production: where are the synergies? Mitig Adapt
Strateg Glob Chang 19:1119–1137
Ramírez J, Jarvis A (2010) Downscaling global circulation model outputs: the delta method in (CIAT).
DaPAwpICfTA (ed.) Decision and policy analysis working paper No. 1
Rickards LHS (2012) Transformational adaptation: agriculture and climate change. Crop Pasture Sci 63(3):240–250
Schroth G, Läderach P, Dempewolf J, Philpott S, Haggar J, Eakin H, Castillejos T, Garcia Moreno J, Soto Pinto
L, Hernandez R, Eitzinger A, Ramirez-Villegas J (2009) Towards a climate change adaptation strategy for
coffee communities and ecosystems in the sierra Madre de Chiapas, Mexico. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob
Chang 14:605–625
Schroth G, Läderach P, Martinez-Valle AI, Bunn C, Jassogne L (2016a) Vulnerability to climate change of cocoa
in West Africa: patterns and opportunities and limits to adaptation. Sci Total Environ 556:231–241
Schroth G, Läderach P, Martinez-Valle AI, Bunn L (2016b) From site-level to regional adaptation planning for
tropical commodities: cocoa in West Africa. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang. doi:10.1007/s11027-016-
9707-y
62 Climatic Change (2017) 141:47–62

SRES I (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of working group III of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change. in Nakićenović N, R Swart eds, Cambridge University
Press, UK. 570 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=0
Stafford MHL, Harvey A, Hamilton C (2011) Rethinking adaptation for a 4 °C world 2010. Philos Trans R Soc
369(1934):196–216
Valerio-Hernández L (2002) Elaboración del Mapa del Cultivo de Café de Nicaragua. in Informe Final. Dirección
General de Estrategias Territoriales. Ministerio Agropecuario y Forestal. Managua N (ed.)
van Rikxoort H, Schroth G, Läderach P, Rodríguez-Sánchez B (2014) Carbon footprints and carbon stocks reveal
climate-friendly coffee production. Agron Sustain Dev 34:887–897
VanDerWal J, Shoo LP, Graham C, Williams SE (2009) Selecting pseudo-absence data for presence-only
distribution modeling: how far should you stray from what you know? Ecol Model 220:589–594
Vermeulen S, Challinor AJ, Thornton PK, Campbell BM, Eriyagama N, Vervoort JM, Kinyangi J, Jarvis A,
Läderach P, Ramirez-Villegas J, Nicklin KJ, Hawkins E, Smith DR (2013) Addressing uncertainty in
adaptation planning for agriculture. PNAS 110:8357–8362. doi:10.1073/pnas.1219441110
Waller JM, Bigger M, Hillocks RJ (2007) World coffee production. Coffee pests, diseases and their management.
CABI, Wallingford, pp. 17–33
Wardle DA, Bardgett RD, Callaway RM, Van der Putten WH (2011) Terrestrial ecosystem responses to species
gains and losses. Science 332:1273–1277
Warren DL, Seifert SN (2011) Ecological niche modeling in Maxent: the importance of model complexity and
the performance of model selection criteria. Ecol Appl 21:335–342
Whitsed R, Läderach P, Corner R, Collet L, Cook S, Peters M, Cock J, Oberthür T (2010) Crop niche
selection for tropical agriculture CaNaSTA. Version 1.0. Method, manual and case studies. Verlag
Dr Müller, Saarbrueck
Whitsed R, Corner R, Cook S (2011) A model to predict ordinal suitability using sparse and uncertain data. Appl
Geogr 32:401–408
WorldClim Global Climate Data (2015) http://www.worldclim.org/bioclim