Part II: Rwanda Finds Hope in Coffee

Submitted by Ethan Arpi on August 8, 2006 - 12:00.

Part I of this series described Rwanda’s burgeoning cooperative movement and its thriving coffee industry, which have combined to alleviate crippling poverty and ethnic tensions in this country. Part II of this series places the current success of Rwanda’s coffee industry in a broader historical context and explains why export oriented development might not be such a good thing after all.

Part II
Coffee was introduced to what is now present day Rwanda by Belgium colonialists, who, in 1933, made it compulsory for Rwandan’s to grow coffee on at least a quarter of their land. Even today, more than forty years after independence, coffee has the foul aftertaste of colonialism here and many Rwanda’s refuse to drink it, opting instead for tea. But for highbrow American connoisseurs, Rwandan coffee is a delicacy. Premium coffee roasters, with snooty names like Intelligentsia, are coming to Rwanda in droves and paying upwards of $3.50 a pound for high quality beans. And with entire armies of coffee-sipping yuppies taking over neighborhood cafes in the United States, Rwanda’s coffee bean growers, who now produce some of the world’s highest quality beans, are finally seeing this vestige of colonialism pay off.

But is exporting high-end coffee beans for yuppie consumption the best and most sustainable form of economic development? Granted, coffee is currently playing an important role in bringing increased stability and relative prosperity to Rwanda. But what happens if the economy turns south or the market becomes oversaturated, causing coffee prices to plummet? The New York Times notes that when coffee prices crashed five years ago, Rwanda’s farmers were desperately scrambling to grow enough food just for themselves, “uprooting their coffee trees and planting quick-growing food crops to survive.” For yuppies, the difference between economic growth and economic stagnation is the difference between a grande and a tall mocha at Starbucks. But for many Rwandan farmers, an economic lull can be a life threatening situation.

There is a strong case to be made, I think, that economic activity in Rwanda should not revolve entirely around global commodity markets. That is, developing a diverse range of businesses that meet local needs and patterns of consumption is the best way to foster a dynamic economy that is well equipped to ride out a financial storm. So while investment in coffee is currently a good thing, it should not distract attention away from other business ventures, which directly confront the problems facing Rwandans.

The Musheri Center, for example, is a women's cooperative that owns a cell phone and sells calls to villagers in Rwanda. According to the Chicago Tribune, the co-op is planning to use a microloan from CARE to purchase a Weza, a foot-powered generator, and charge local residents a small fee for recharging their cell phones and car batteries. Because 95% of Rwandans don’t have access to electricity, the Musheri Center’s business scheme promises to generate a whole lot more than electricity. Being able to work and study after the sun sets, without the health complications associated with kerosene and candles, is perhaps the most tangible benefit of the Musheri Center’s business.

In sum, don’t believe the hype. The coffee industry is booming in Rwanda, but it won’t last forever. So while Rwanda is ahead in the game, it should seize this opportunity, diversify its economy, and invest in more programs like the Musheri Center. If it doesn’t, and it continues to focus exclusively on coffee cultivation, it is very likely that coffee farmers will soon be uprooting their coffee trees and planting fast growing crops just so they can survive.


. . . . .
Submitted by Anonymous on August 8, 2006 - 16:51.
To what extent could coffee growers mix other crops with the coffee trees, growing and harvesting both at the same time? IF this could be done, the extra crops might be able to take the edge off the down-turns, either through extra food, a more diverse income, or just more money to save up in the good times. Also, how secure is that bank mentioned in part I? If it's not, forget about the farmers saving their profits in the good times. . .
Submitted by Ethan Arpi on August 9, 2006 - 09:23.
Thanks for your comment and I encourage you to keep posting on Nextbillion. I think that you are correct when you say that farmers who diversify their crops will be less vulnerable. At least to a point. The climate needed for coffee cultivation--relatively high altitude, volcanic soil, and mist--may not be ideal for cultivating most other crops.
Submitted by _ben on August 11, 2006 - 07:29.
The celebration of Rwanda's recent success as the new darling of the specialty coffee market is great. Farmers have benefited, and people need to know that there's a possibility for economic recovery after the genocide. But let's not get carried away here—I thank you for your critical eye and especially for your point on the danger of pinning economic development on a crop whose price is inextricably connected to a global commodity market. If peace in Rwanda is to be built on money from coffee, then it's a fragile peace, and that's frightening and terribly short-sighted for all involved.

Are increased prices to many of Rwanda's coffee farmers the end of the story, or are they a key step in a larger process?

Belgian colonial rule not only established coffee monocultures, but also defined a society that celebrated the Tutsi identity and belittled the Hutu. The definitions of this ethnic divide were (and are) intimately connected to economic class, and in particular, to patterns of agriculture. To be poor was to grow food crops, which was Hutu. Now the complexion of coffee has changed, and farmers seem to be proud to grow this crop. But considering the legacy of the last 70 years, how will the alliance of coffee companies, government agencies, and Rwandan cooperatives who've worked together for the past 4 years use coffee as a piece in a larger integrated strategy?

And beyond Rwanda, how does the fair trade movement continue to create a market that benefits farmers while not spurring dependence on a cash crop economy? What does a healthy cash crop economy look like anyway, and how would someone evaluate that balance?
Submitted by Ethan Arpi on August 11, 2006 - 08:39.
Ben, well written! I could not agree more. Growing cash crops should not be seen as an end in itself, but as a means to developing larger swaths of the economy.
Submitted by Ethan Arpi on August 22, 2006 - 10:55.
Here is an exerpt from today's Wall Street Journal: "Amid the broader prosperity of the past decade, Americans grew far more willing to shell out for $4 cups of coffee and $400 handbags. Retailers such as Starbucks Corp., Whole Foods Market Inc. and Williams-Sonoma Inc. -- operator of Pottery Barn and its own kitchen stores -- expanded by appealing to the aspirations of middle-class shoppers. Now, many of those retailers are feeling pinched. In recent weeks, Starbucks, Whole Foods and Williams-Sonoma -- along with others such as boat maker Brunswick Corp. and specialty-sandwich chain Panera Bread Co. -- have reported disappointing sales that sent their share prices lower. Restaurants catering to middle-income consumers are seeing a sales slump too. Growing evidence suggests the chief culprit is gasoline prices in the $3-a-gallon range -- up 71 cents from six months ago, according to federal data."
Submitted by coffee beans on September 29, 2006 - 10:24.
I was just going through your stuff. Really, really nice.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Basic HTML tags are accepted.
  • To ensure that you are human, your comment must first be previewed, then posted to the site. Please click "Preview" to see how your comment will look when posted.