Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This contribution reviews the scientific evidence concerning climate resiliency claims as well as sustainability issues for robusta coffee ( Coffea canephora ), focusing on: climate change analyses, climate parameters, soil water, and farming inputs, especially irrigation and synthetic fertilizer use. In addition to the literature review, an analysis of terrestrial water availability for indigenous robusta is conducted. The findings show that climate resiliency claims for farmed robusta are misguided, and that climate change analyses are likely to be misleading due to methodological oversights and a failure to appreciate the scale of irrigation and the role of terrestrial water availability governing the distribution of indigenous robusta populations. Countries lacking climate suitability for robusta, which includes Brazil, India, and Vietnam, often require substantial irrigation. Extensive irrigation, in combination with low tree‐shade cover and high synthetic fertilizer use, are at odds with aspirations for ecosystem and biodiversity stewardship, and counter to goals for a low carbon economy. The sustainability of robusta farming requires: shifts to regions that have climate suitability, changes in cultivation practices, and climate‐focused crop development. A summary of climate parameters for wild and cultivated C. canephora , and four other coffee crop species ( Coffea arabica , Coffea dewevrei , Coffea liberica , and Coffea stenophylla ) is provided.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Davis et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: