122. Rwanda 2026 Season Update

There will be a ying-yang theme to the 2026 season in Rwanda this year. 

Yin: Cherry prices are high, which means farmers are happy.

Yang: Cherry prices are high, which means the rest of the supply chain will struggle.

We'll attempt to un-pack what's behind this state of affairs.

Why Are Cherry Prices High?

Good question. In fact, you might ask, weren't the cherry prices last year the highest ever? See our blogpost 117, "Highest cherry prices ever in Rwanda's 2025 season." Last year the government of Rwanda set the farmgate price at 600 Rwf/kg cherry. This year, on Jan. 13, the farmgate was announced as 750 Rwf/kg cherry for sinkers (good cherry). The Rwandan government typically only sets this floor price for cherry once a year. It doesn't typically get adjusted even when the C market changes significantly.

The farmgate price of 750 Rwf/kg cherry is one reason the cherry prices are high. The other is competition due to 2026 being a "down" production year. Coffee trees naturally have an up-year / down-year cycle. Cooperative leaders have already been reporting to us that they're seeing fewer flowers on the trees in the past months, which means production will be low. Economics 101: low supply means high demand and high prices.

What is the Impact on Farmers and Cooperatives?

750 Rwf/kg cherry is only-in-your-dreams coffee heaven  for many coffee farmers. I believe Rwandan farmers have been underpaid for so long, this is not an overpayment, it is a market correction. But that doesn't make it easier to swallow for anyone in the supply chain. This is especially true for cooperatives, many of which have limited access to capital and therefore insufficient cash flow to pay cash on delivery to farmers --- which is absolutely what Rwandan coffee farmers are demanding. Organizations without sufficient cash will not get cherry and will not have coffee to sell. 

Coffee cooperatives in Rwanda often struggle against two forces that are out of their control: 

1) their cooperative's past financial mistakes, and 

2). a cash flow problem. The banking system is unable to work in a timely manner for the calendar of the coffee year. 

1. Past financial mistakes. Many cooperatives are weighed down by the fact that there was a cooperative manager 5 or 15 years ago (now long gone), who embezzled money or made ill-advised choices with the loans they agreed to take. In such cases, today's cooperative managers are often saddled with debt at high interest rates, and / or bad credit at the banks. Add to this the fact that many cooperatives struggle to keep good records, and especially financial statements based on international standards are rare. Even the most generous of non-profits which run programs to support rural businesses will require good financial records. Thus, some cooperatives are sand-bagged repeatedly by lack financial accounting skills.

There is another unfortunate consequence due to a cooperative's past financial mistakes. It used to be that farmers who were members of a cooperative would be willing to deliver their cherry to their cooperative's collection site in return for credit. The farmer understood they would get cash after a few months, after the coffee buyers start sending payments to the cooperative. 

But if there is financial mis-management, that trust and ability to pay members with short-term credit is gone. Add to that situation a market where prices and demand are high, and farmers know it's in their best interest to insist on being paid in cash, even if it means walking past your cooperative's gate because you know the coop is 'paying' credit and someone else nearby is paying cash. Or, middlemen start showing up on the doorstep of the farmer's house offering to pay them cash on the spot, and "don't even worry about the transport." The middleman will pay cash and probably has a small truck waiting not far away, which can transport all the cherry collected that day to the mill owned by a multi-national company with deep pockets.

2. The second problem is the cash flow problem cooperatives face due to inadequate financial systems. Probably farmers in any country would say that the banks don't understand their problems, but that is certainly true in Rwanda. If a financial institution offers any agricultural credit in Rwanda, the application process is long (at least 4 months) and available resources are scarce (10x more applicants than funds available). Even after a loan is approved, dispersement of funds comes late. Many cooperative managers have told me that their bank loan for working capital was so late, it only arrived after the peak season for purchasing cherry had passed.

The cash flow situation is serious for one of Artisan's cooperative suppliers this year, we'll call them "Cooperative K"). The manager came to Artisan in January 2026 and requested an advance on Artisan's contract. Artisan has advanced funds to Cooperative K for the past two years. K's other clients (including large retail chains in the UK and Germany) were unable to help them with a cash advance. This isn't surprising. Large organizations have financial teams that will shun a highly risky advance to cooperatives of small farmers in a non-G7 country. 

Artisan is different. 

Artisan now has a 10 year relationship with Cooperative K and Artisan knows about the challenges they've overcome throughout that decade. Artisan has invested in relationships with the leaders of the cooperative and therefore built a relationship with the cooperative as a whole. So Artisan has advanced money to Cooperative K and the advance was earlier than previous years, which adds risk to Artisan, but adds benefit to Cooperative K, especially this year with the high cherry price.

Does it matter if coffee comes from a cooperative or not? There are certainly those who will say it doesn't matter and there are some who even insist it's better to have post-harvest processes run by private companies, not cooperatives. These individuals are usually unable to look past the weaknesses in accounting and bookkeeping mentioned above. But at Artisan we believe farmer cooperatives can be well-run organizations and we believe those are the ideal organizations to ensure that farmers benefit the most from the farmers' hard labor to produce coffee. The by-laws of any cooperative literally spell out how the profits from the sale of coffee will be divided among the members. Helping more cooperatives become well-run and well-managed organizations is part of what we do at Artisan.

If you're a roaster and you'd like to work with Artisan as we make cooperatives in Rwanda stronger, please send an email to info@biz.artisancoffeeimports.com and let us know! Or contact your sales representative, Shaa'ista Sabir or Ryan Grenier. We're working to build cooperative strength in Ethiopia, too. Ethiopian cooperatives face many of the same challenges. However, the volumes are bigger and the history of cooperatives there is different. Topic for a future blogpost!

The "yin"; all coffee farmers will be happy in Rwanda this year, both cooperative members and non-cooperative members.

The "yang": all Rwandan coffee cooperatives will struggle with cash flow this year, and this is where roasters can make a difference. Work with your importer to order Rwandan coffee that fits your budget and share your preference for coffee produced by a cooperative. It's building infrastructure that will support farmers long after the private companies have left or changed plans.

89. Paying Farmers More - One Coop at a Time

Dec. 7, 2018

In Rwandan culture the woman is considered the heart of household and the family. The sentiment is based on the idea that once the heart is working well, everything in life is also working well. It's not surprising that many cooperatives in Rwanda have established sub-groups to support their female members. One is Ejo Heza, a sub-group of about 320 women who are also members of the larger Kopakama cooperative. With this post we'd like to share some of the details of how this kind of cooperative operates in case it's helpful for readers working elsewhere in Rwanda and the coffee world.

When combined, the factors below allow for contracts with higher prices, which means farmers can be paid more.

Customer Relationships:  relationship with Artisan Coffee Imports, a small importer, with roaster customers who are passionate about ensuring their purchase of coffee is managed ethically, especially in terms of benefiting the farmers themselves. Artisan's customers have strict standards also. Communicating customer standards and creating ways to support economic improvements for the farmers is where Artisan's forte lies. In short, relationships between farmer and roaster are fostered and grown!

Partnerships: others like TWIN, IFAD, and ICS International Service have enabled the coop to receive training and linkages that would otherwise be difficult to secure. With each partnership, long-term support is critical. IFAD returned in August 2018 to do a 10 year evaluation of the impacts of their loan.

Farmer Field Schools: Kopakama, over time, has created 12 farmer field schools (FFS) to which it's close to 800 members belong. Three agronomists and the technical director, share the work of holding a FFS lesson once a month with each group. There is a program of ten topics which the agronomists bring to the farmers, at the point in the season that is relevant. For example, pruning is taught in June or July, the time that is recommended for cutting back branches.

Annual General Meeting: Kopakama holds an annual general meeting with all the farmers of the cooperative. At this meeting key messages, policies and strategies are shared with farmer-members and the 30 site-collectors employed by the cooperative. When possible, this is also the time that premiums and dividends are distributed.

Women's Group: Kopakama's leaders agreed in 2011 to provide targeted to support to a vulnerable section of their membership and community: women. They recognized the unique challenges women face and the value that more gender equity would bring to all members. The women's group "Ejo Heza" was formed and they were given about 1 ha of land near the Mushubati washing station. They work as a 'sub-cooperative' to cultivate and harvest the coffee on this land.

63. Cost of Production research paper announced

November 9, 2016
Feeling a little proud and anxious today as Michigan State University announced to my department, (Community Sustainability in the College of Natural Resources), that I will defend my "Masters B Project" on January 11. Below is the announcement. All invited!

Estimating Farmer Cost of Production: Implications for

Sustainable Growth in Rwanda’s Coffee Sector

Master’s B Project Proposal Defense

By Ruth Ann Church

Wednesday, January 11, 2017, 10:00am

Room 130 Natural Resources Building

A better understanding of costs of production is essential to understanding the profitability and sustainability of coffee in Rwanda where the crop is a main source of household income at the farm level, and of export revenue at the national level. Toward this end the present research seeks first to provide an analysis of the major components of producer cost of production. Further, the study describes a methodology and quantitative estimation process that can be used to collect the necessary data and generate CoP estimates in other coffee producing countries with predominantly smallholder production. Applied to Rwanda, the estimation procedures arrive at mean and median CoP values of 177 RWF/KG and 122 RWF/KG cherry, respectively. These costs for many farmer groups are higher than the average cherry prices being paid in Rwanda. This finding has serious implications for Rwanda’s long-term production as the country continues its transition into higher quality and higher priced specialty coffee markets.

In addition to satisfying the above dual objectives, (an analysis of components of CoP and an estimation methodology) this study provides an analysis of five external determinants of coffee cost of production and how they affect farmer costs in Rwanda: number of trees, years of farmer’s experience, cooperative membership, gender of head of household, and steepness of the slope of the coffee field. The research shows that the number of trees on a farm plantation is significantly and inversely related to CoP. It is recommended that this finding be used to guide both the design and the evaluation of farmer training programs. Programs should maximize impact by seeking to target their resources according to the scale of the targeted coffee producer. The study also shows how the main determinants of CoP can help to explain notable regional differences in production costs.   

With this research on costs of production, those who set cherry prices in Rwanda and those who purchase coffee anywhere in the coffee value chain are better able to adjust the incentive structure to motivate Rwanda’s coffee farmers to invest in their coffee plantations and to raise their productivity levels. We recommend that the cost of production estimated in this study (177 RWF/KG cherry) be incorporated into the formula and process for determining the floor price for coffee cherry in Rwanda. We also see the need for steps to regularly update CoP estimates in the future.  Tracking such cost estimates over time will be helpful to NAEB and washing stations in their strategic planning and as well as day-to-day management decisions. A more accurate formula for establishing cherry floor prices based on multiple years of data will be an essential step towards ensuring Rwanda’s “second sunrise” for coffee.

Committee Members:

Dr. Daniel C. Clay (Chair)

Dr. Maria Claudia Lopez

50. Cost of Production Building Blocks

April 5, 2016
WARNING! This is a pretty geeky researcher post. Non-geeks may want to pass.

The data is in from the 1024 household surveys of Rwandan farmers. All 350 questions, which turns into close to 800 variables. It is a large database. The 10 enumerators worked for 10 weeks, working 5 days/week, 7am until 7pm each day, two interviews per day to complete the interviews. (See this post for an up close view of an enumerator's day.) Cleaning and re-coding the data has taken a couple weeks by a team of researchers, some highly experienced in this type of work in SPSS, and some less so (like me). Now we're starting to build the formulas in SPSS that will actually start to analyze what the farmers have told us.


Here's what the beginning of my formulas to calculate cost of production look like:


Looks fun, eh? We have seven cultivation variables (e.g. weeding, pruning, fertilizing, etc.) for both household labor and wage labor. We have one variable for harvest labor (both paid and unpaid), and one for sorting labor (paid and unpaid). Transportation variables include both time required to transport cherry and time required to transport parchment, and fees paid for hired help and fares. To these variables we will add whatever the farmer reported on 10 different types of equipment and 6 types of consumables (pesticide, fertilizer, mulch,...).

In short, the level of detail is serious for this attempt to quantify and understand farmer's cost to produce. Stay tuned for what we learn as we get these formulas going.