By PhD candidate Jen Whittingham

My morning coffee: some might say a habit, some – a ritual. Either way, something so habitual and mundane like coffee, tea, salt, or pepper can so easily evade the critical eye. But last week I accidentally bought whole coffee beans from Checkers instead of ground, forcing me to dig out the manual coffee grinder. Round and round my arm goes, getting more tired with each revolution, yet this repetition made space and time for some critical reflection. This reflection relates to the recent ‘rediscovery’ of a ‘forgotten’ coffee species (C. stenophylla) in Sierra Leone by a team of scientists lead by Kew Gardens, London. I thought to myself, how can something be discovered again? Who forgot what? Who remembered and why? And what are the implications of this remembering? In what follows, I briefly present the main points emerging in a few popular articles based on a paper by Davis et al. (2020) titled “Lost and Found: Coffea stenophylla and C. affinis, the Forgotten Coffee Crop Species of West Africa”. The main focus of this critique however is to interrogate the narratives and assumptions embedded within the paper and its surrounding popular literature.

Informing my thinking is literature from postcolonial science and technology studies (Kloppenburg 2005, Brockway 1979, Schiebinger 2011, Delbourgo 2007) who take us back to the colonial relations that enabled the systematic global search for commercially viable plants – of which coffee was one. They demonstrate how the search and exchange of plant material between European colonies and their capitalist centers created the conditions for a global network of exchange based on exploitation and inequity – often with Kew at the center. Brockway (1979) reminds us that botanic gardens, like Kew, fed and were fed by colonial expansion of western Europe through their active participation in the transfer of plant material and their scientific development as plantation crops. These authors also show us how “a nascent botanical science was called early into the service of capital” (Kloppenberg 2005: 156) and how this emergent network was directly related to the economic necessities of colonial and capitalist expansion. This is the backdrop against which contemporary botanical research and exchanges occur, to which my cup of Checkers coffee is inextricably linked and the fact that the main author of this paper is based at Kew Gardens embroils him too in this network and politicizes his research whether this is his intention or not.

I also draw on literature from the ‘Plantationocene’ (Haraway et al. 2016, Tsing 2017, Wolford 2021), as a way to think through the relations that are so embedded and even hidden in contemporary botanical discovery. This is a concept that emerges from the assertion that the modern era has been so fundamentally shaped by the plantation model that we can understand it best as the plantationocene (Wolford 2021). Tsing (2017) mobilises the concept particularly to depict the  transportation of non-human organisms (this includes plant biological material) around the world and the homogenization and simplification of complex ecologies, to “create assets for future investments” and thus secure infinite human consumption. As a concept, it attends to the ways in which plantation agriculture in colonial overseas territories “propelled colonial exploration, sustained an elite, perpetuated a core–periphery dualism within and between countries, organized a highly racialized labor force worldwide, and shaped both the cultures we consume and the cultural norms we inhabit and perform” (Wolford 2021: 2). As a framework it draws attention to the planetary effects of extractive practices, monocultures, and coercive labor structures that have propelled modernity and climate change since at least the 1500s. Thinking with and through the Plantationocene (P) is a conscious move away from and beyond the Anthropocene (A). While (A) thinking draws attention to the myriad ways in which the anthropos – the human species has exploited the earth to serve itself, it fails to address Indigenous dispossession of land, settler colonialism, slavery, and the racialized impacts of climate change. (P) thinking gets more granular, is historically situated and draws attention to the exploitation of some humans to the benefit of others and also to the exploitation of nonhumans (plants, animals, and microbes) for the benefit of certain human groups. Bringing these authors together forms the lens through which I see this paper and my morning cuppa.

———————-

The popular articles (Cham 2021, Kew Gardens 2021, CNN 2021 ) that speak to the research paper by Davis et al. (2020) produce a narrative where science and research is a neutral activity and the rediscovery of C. stenophylla (C. sten) is cause for celebration. The research carried out by researchers from the UK, France, and Sierra Leone found that Coffea stenophylla is a rare, wild, and threatened species that is different to C. arabica and C. robusta – the main coffee species that dominate 99% of the global coffee market. C. sten tastes better than the dominant species, is equivalent in quality, and can grow in warmer climates than its counterparts, implying that it may be more climate resilient. The global multibillion dollar coffee industry is presented as the main benefactor of the rediscovery, for it is predicted that C. sten will serve as a lifeline to an industry vulnerable to climate change. It’s thought that this coffee species will not only provide an alternative crop in a warming world but provide climate resilient genetic traits for breeding programmes that can sustain the global coffee industry. While acknowledgement and appreciation of the species by the scientific world is positive, the conditions that enabled this rediscovery and the trajectory along which future industrial engagement with the species and its farmers is worth a closer look.

It is the case that Sierra Leone’s coffee production and exports over the past 20 years have suffered due to civil war (NRI 2013), which without doubt has wrought disruption and suffering upon local farmers and their communities. The introduction of a tasty, climate resilient coffee plant thus holds the potential to invigorate the market and, according to one of the paper’s authors “provide an alternative for local farmers”, as the dominant species (C. arabica) is threatened by climate change. However, this like-for-like replacement of a cash crop monoculture does not resist plantation thinking, nor does it transform the inequitable relations that gave rise to the plantation model. This is a model based on monocultures that reduce the ecological and social complexity of the landscape, where imperial and capitalist formations of power are acutely embedded and where the erasure of certain forms of life and relationships persists (Wolford 2021). What imaginaries might lie beyond the plantation? What harmful relations might be broken and what generative ones might be formed through new approaches to botanical research? More specifically, how might a former plantation crop be reimagined into a viable livelihood strategy for local farmers? Although allusions to these possibilities are made through reference to the potential of limited domestication for the niche, specialty coffee market and the need for government involvement, the industrial application for the export market remains central.

The key objectives of the original research by Davis et al. (2020: 2) were “to explain the current cultivated and wild status of C. stenophylla and C. affinis, the taxonomic identity and systematic position of the poorly known C. affinis, and to assemble available information on crop plant attributes.” While these objectives seem purely scientific and benign, the research paper also highlights the need to show that hybridization is possible across all three coffee species and that C. stenophylla possess useful genetic traits for coffee crop plant development. The lines between industry and science here become blurred and questions regarding who benefits from the science and its industrial application need to be asked. Will the scientists gain accolades for their ‘re’discovery? Will the global coffee industry be ‘future proofed’ against the warming climate? Will coffee farmers in Sierra Leone experience economic, social, or cultural benefits? And will these stakeholders benefit equally? Or is it a case of industry first and the benefits will trickle down?

This blurring of science and industry was not so blurry during the European ‘Age of Discovery’ (15^th to 18^th century) in which many scientists and natural philosophers became creatures of the commercial networks that connected Europe, Africa, and the Americas (Delbourgo 2007). The systematic search for new and useful plants was motivated by their commercial potential, the riches stored inside them were forecast to provide a never-ending stream of revenue that could flow through colonial networks long after mineral wealth of the New World had dried up (Kloppenburg 2005). While science is often hailed as the ultimate knowledge system, objective and insulated from the virtues and evils of society, scientists too are granted these same privileges, which can often hide more subtle alliances and/or agendas. Schiebinger (2004: 6) on the role of scientists in the colonies writes; “naturalists saw coffee [and] cacao … as money makers for king and country—and, often, for themselves.” While societal and scientific norms have shifted and developed for the better, the role of European scientists on the African continent, particularly in the fields of botany and agriculture are still in need of further emancipation from the colonial remnants of harmful, inequitable relations. Indeed, this research involved the UK, France, and Sierra Leone, but how was the scientific responsibility shared? It is reported that the colleague from Sierra Leone “undertook the bulk of the fieldwork” while European colleagues engaged in literature and herbarium reviews, wrote the manuscript, and performed DNA sequencing and analysis (Davis et al. 2020: 16). Are the flows of germplasm, information, and knowledge any different now than they were 100 years ago? How might contemporary scientific research come to terms with this history, take responsibility, and reimagine real equity in scientific collaboration and its technological and industrial applications?

The science-in-service-of-capital dynamics are by no means absent today. The necessities of capital continue to expand into new realms and new plants through discoveries like this one. C. stenophylla is not new – not even to science (it was discovered by a Swedish botanist in 1854 [Don 1854]). It had however been forgotten by capital. According to the ‘Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information‘ by Kew Gardens (1896: 190), C. stenophylla was widely cultivated in Sierra Leone in the late nineteenth century and fetched a decent export price that provided “a fairly profitable trade”. This cultivation decreased over the years to make way for C. arabica with its quicker growth, larger size, and higher yield. This decrease was so dramatic that C. sten hadn’t been seen by science in the wild since 1954 (Davis et al. 2020). Still, it was always there – just mostly unseen by economic eyes and forgotten by capital. So, might capital itself be our protagonist in this story of lost and found? For it was capital, not science that forgot C. stenophylla and now, due to the ravages of climate change threatening global coffee production, it is capital, with the help of science – who has remembered.

———————

1. stenophylla is a wild species. It has not been hybridized or genetically modified, meaning that at this stage, it is not patentable. However, with its tantalizing traits of climate resilience, it is possible that new varieties may be engineered that are. C. sten is classified as ‘vulnerable’ on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Without urgent safeguarding, these delectable coffee dreams will not be realised. According to the researchers at Kew, further work is needed to fully evaluate its potential as a climate resilient, high-value crop species and breeding resource (Kew Gardens 2021). What follows in the subsequent chapters of this caffeinated tale of rediscovery will determine if the plantation lives on, or, if life beyond the plantation may be dreamt and willed into existence. Will our protagonist prevail once again, or will characters from the margins edge their way into the main storyline?

 

References

Brockway, L. H. (1979). Science and colonial expansion: the role of the British Royal Botanic Gardens. American Ethnologist, 6(3), 449-465.

Cham. K. (2021). “‘Rediscovered’ coffee could boost farmers’ livelihoods”. Available at https://www.scidev.net/sub-saharan-africa/news/rediscovered-coffee-could-boost-farmers-livelihoods/ Accessed on 12.05.2021

CNN. (2021). “Forgotten for half a century, this rare bean could save Sierra Leone’s coffee industry”. Available at https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/sierra-leone-coffee-stenophylla-hnk-spc-intl/index.html Accessed on 12. 05. 2021

Davis. A. P, Gargiulo. R, Fay. M. F, Sarmu. D, Haggar. J. (2020) Lost and Found: Coffea stenophylla and C. affinis, the Forgotten Coffee Crop Species of West Africa. Front. Plant Sci. 11:616. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00616

Davis, A.P., Mieulet, D., Moat, J. et al. Arabica-like flavour in a heat-tolerant wild coffee species. Nat. Plants 7, 413–418 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-021-00891-4

Delbourgo, J., & Dew, N. (Eds.). (2008). Science and empire in the Atlantic world. Routledge

Haraway, D., & Neyrat, F. (2016). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene. Multitudes, (4), 75-81.

Kew Gardens. (1896). “Highland Coffee of Sierra Leone. (Coffea stenophylla, G. Don.)”. Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew). No. 119. pp. 189-191

Kew Gardens (2021). “Forgotten’ coffee species that grows at higher temperatures and boasts a superior flavour could help to futureproof the coffee industry under climate change, says new study” Available at https://www.kew.org/about-us/press-media/forgotten-coffee-species-futureproofing-industry-against-climate-change#:~:text=Until%20recently%20(late%202018)%20stenophylla,exist%20in%20coffee%20research%20collections. Accessed on 12.05. 2021

Kloppenburg, J. R. (2005). First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology. Univ of Wisconsin Press.

(NRI) Natural Resource Institute. (2013). Regenerating coffee production in Sierra Leone. Available at https://www.nri.org/latest/news/2013/regenerating-coffee-production-in-sierra-leone. Accessed on 30. 05. 2021

Schiebinger, L. L. (2009). Plants and empire. Harvard University Press.

Tsing. A. L. (2017). “A Threat to Holocene Resurgence is a Threat to Livability”. The Anthropology of Sustainability: Beyond Development and Progress. (Ed) Brightman. M and Lewis. J. New York. Palgrave McMillan

Wolford. W. (2021). The Plantationocene: A Lusotropical Contribution to the Theory. Annals of the American Association of Geographers. DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1850231