JulieCraves

Coffee Review: Caribou Coffee Ecuador Changaimina

Plainspoken Coffee. A Coffee Review for Ordinary People by Ordinary People, #17.

Coffee from Ecuador is something you don’t see every day. In fact, I think I’ve seen more places offering coffee from the Galapagos Islands (which are Ecuadorian) than from the mainland. So I was surprised to see it offered at Caribou Coffee.  Their limited edition coffees are known as the Roastmaster’s Reserves, and the current selection is Ecuador Changaimina, from the southern province of Loja (red on map).

Coffee has been grown in Ecuador for generations.  The lowlands produce robusta, but the high mountain regions produce decent  arabicas. Most of the high-grown coffee, from Loja province, is grown on small farms with very little use of chemicals. The major co-op in this area is PROCAP (Asociacion Agroartesanal de Productores de Café de Altura Puyango), an
organization of 380 families of which about two-thirds are certified organic. The organic coffee from this co-op is sometimes marketed as shade grown Puyango (Puyango is a canton, or subdivision, in the province, and the most important coffee-growing area in Loja, if not the whole country). Typica, bourbon, and caturra are the most frequently grown varieties, usually all grown on the same farm.

The lack of Ecuador beans in the market has been due to a lack of attention to proper harvesting and processing, and the expense of transportation from the highlands to the ports. A lot of Ecuadorian coffee goes to making instant coffee, so the large corporate coffee roasters are major buyers of Ecuadorian coffee. Improvements have been made in production methods, and farmers are aiming more for the specialty coffee market, hence we may be seeing more Ecuadorian coffee in the coming years.

Based on this Caribou Ecuador Changaimina, we cannot say the region is quite ready for prime time.  This wasn’t bad coffee, just unremarkable. At the first tasting, three of us sat there sipping silently, unable to come up with much to say. The next day, I sent the Kingfisher off with it in his travel mug.  I asked him later what he thought of it.  He sort of summed up the whole experience when he replied, “I don’t remember.”  Not a strong endorsement, but considering you tend to remember bad coffee, not a strong condemnation, either. 2.25 motmots.

Green Mountain and Starbucks make top 100 list

The CRO (Corporate Responsibility Officer, formerly Business Ethics magazine) has just published its eighth annual 100 Best Corporate Citizens, considered the third most influential corporate ranking.  Companies are rated on their performance in eight categories:  shareholders, community, governance, diversity, employees, environment, human rights, and product.

Coming in at #1, for the second year in a row, is Green Mountain Coffee RoastersThe Mermaid also made the top 10, placing ninth; Starbucks has made this list all eight years. Whole Foods Market (owner of Allegro Coffee) was at #54. Missing from the list were any of the big four corporate coffee pushers.

UTZ Certified

[Note: As of 2020, UTZ merged with Rainforest Alliance and created a new standard, which you can read about here. This post is for historical reference only.]

UTZ-new-logoFair Trade, organic, Rainforest Alliance, and Smithsonian Bird Friendly are the most frequently seen coffee certifications, especially in the U.S. Another seal is becoming more familiar. Founded by the Dutch coffee retail giant Ahold (but now run by a foundation), UTZ Certified Good Inside certifies “socially and environmentally responsible” coffee (and other crops), requiring adherence to their Code of Conduct.

UTZ emphasizes traceability and transparency in the supply chain. UTZ has strong chain of custody requirements, and tracking tools for both wholesale and consumer buyers.

The certification standards also include various criteria related to efficient farm management such as soil erosion prevention, minimizing water use and pollution, responsible use of chemicals, and habitat protection. Unfortunately, the standards in the Code that deal with the environment are quite general and lack specificity.

Certification requires compliance with mandatory control points; the number required increases over a four-year period. There are a total of 19 points in this chapter, 15 of which are mandatory after 4 years. Here are some examples:

  • The producer “protects and conserves” water streams and sources.
  • The producer “allows a strip of native vegetation to grow” along water streams. (In contrast, Smithsonian Bird-Friendly criteria specify a 5 m buffer for small streams and a 10 m buffer for rivers, determined by ecologists to be the minimum effective widths to protect waterways.)
  • If the farm is within 2 km of a protected area, the certificate holder must “be in touch” with park authorities.
  • Coffee production “does not take place in protected areas” and (separate point) the producer does not plant new coffee on “land that is not classified as agricultural land and/or approved for agricultural use.”

The language of these standards leaves a lot to interpretation. What does “be in touch” mean? Warn park authorities about the agrochemicals headed their way? Invite them to the community pig roast? And while I agree that the land use restrictions should be mandatory, should 13% of the required points be devoted to compliance with existing law?

There is no requirement for using shade trees. One mandatory point deals with this topic: “The producer uses shade trees whenever this is compatible with the local coffee production practices and takes into consideration the productivity.” I think it’s possible to interpret this as “all my neighbors grow sun coffee, so it’s compatible with local practices.” But although it’s unclear, I’ll give the Code the benefit of the doubt and take it that “local coffee production practices” means areas where the habitat does not include forest, such as the Brazilian cerrado. Still, the second part of the point clearly gives producers an out. Sun coffee is almost always higher yielding than shade coffee. That economic consideration can trump the requirement for planting shade trees. And of course, there is nothing about how many shade trees, what species to use, and other specific criteria that are meaningful for the preservation of biodiversity.

On the plus side, there has been an improvement and strengthening of the standards. In the 2006 version, this section had 21 points, but only one of them was specified as required, along with 11 of 12 “minor” points; the remaining were just recommended.

The bottom line is that UTZ Certified has the least stringent environmental criteria of any of the major certification programs.

The following graphs, from Standards Map, show the number of UTZ criteria or requirements related to the environment and biodiversity; this only indicates the number, not the strength, specificity, or mandatory/voluntary nature of the requirements. These do not coincide with numbers in the actual standards, but those developed by Standards Map to facilitate comparisons.  See recent data, including comparisions and detailed information on all criteria, at Standards Map.

UTZ graphs

While environmental protection is not a strength of UTZ certification, they have found an important niche in focusing on capacity building for coffee producers, or creating “professional farmers.” This means assisting with methods that help develop the business and technical aspects of coffee farming, which in turn leads to an increase in quality and higher prices — a path to the road to sustainability. In my talks with UTZ representatives, I have been encouraged by their enthusiasm and plans for improving the standards and pushing producers to improving all aspects of their operations. Not all coffee growers have the ability to be marvels of eco-friendly production. I think UTZ certification gives them the framework to start from the ground up, and as their efficiencies and skills grow, hopefully move on from these basic standards to higher levels of certification.

UTZ Certified coffee is not extremely common in the U.S., but it is one of the fastest-growing certification programs in the world. A number of transnational companies use UTZ certification. Some would say corporate coffee companies are using UTZ as a way to exploit the ethical coffee market, and therefore UTZ is enabling greenwashing. I think that’s a valid concern. But very importantly, the chain of custody and traceability requirements of UTZ certification can help eliminate the kinds of sourcing debacles such as coffee purchased by Nestlé and Kraft being grown illegally in a Sumatran national park. In that case, Nestlé admitted it didn’t always know the precise origin of their coffee. Under UTZ certification, that can’t happen.

“Utz” means “good” in the Mayan language. True enough, their environmental standards are not “great,” but a baseline and a good first step up the ladder of sustainability.

Graphic adapted from Standards Map database of sustainability standards, International Trade Centre. — Used with permission.

Coffee Review: Whole Foods (Allegro) Honduras San Marcos

Plainspoken Coffee. A Coffee Review for Ordinary People by Ordinary People, #16.

The two major natural foods markets, at least in our region, are Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods.  There are more TJ’s close to me, but I’ve always been a bit frustrated by their coffees.  Determining origin on most of their self-branded beans is difficult, if not futile.  Some of their offerings are okay (the Organic Bolivian is decent), but even Coffee Review found most to be average (notice also the lack of origin info on most). More on TJ’s in this post.

Whole Foods, on the other hand, is much more transparent. Although they carry several additional brands (varies regionally), including Intelligentsia and Counter Culture’s Sanctuary line of shade coffees, Whole Foods features coffees roasted by Allegro Coffee Company in Colorado. Allegro is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Whole Foods, acquired in 1997.  The Allegro web site has a page where you can download their social responsibility scorecard and coffee sourcing report.

Today’s review is of Allegro’s Organic San Marcos from Honduras. It is a Special Reserve selection. Growers of Special Reserve coffees receive $10,000 to fund community initiatives.  This coffee is from the COCOSAM cooperative in San Marcos de Colon, Choluteca department in southwestern Honduras (red on map). Around half the growers of this nearly 100-farmer co-op grow certified organic coffee.  The varieties grown are bourbon, caturra, and catuai.

This is a light roast (full city). There was no roast date on the bag, but a “best used by” date of 3/23/07 and the healthy bloom when prepared on 16 January indicates a 12/23/06 roasting, or thereabouts.

As a mixed lot from a number of farms, I did not expect it to approach the excellence of the single estate Honduran El Puente from Counter Culture, one of my favorite Central American coffees. The San Marcos is also grown at a lower altitude than the El Puente, a factor that might also argue for points off the flavor profile. But the tasting panel agreed this was a really enjoyable coffee.

Like nearly all Honduran and Guatemalan coffees we’ve sniffed, the San Marcos had a beautiful aroma.  I don’t think I’d ever get tired of smelling beans like this, although the coffee rarely lives up to the (small) room-filling fragrance.  At any rate, the San Marcos had a profile typical of good Central Americans: hints of vanilla, milk chocolate, and caramel.  This coffee was very smooth, almost buttery, with an especially creamy mouthfeel that we thought added a lot to the experience.  This was, unsurprisingly, most pronounced when prepared in a press.  It was also excellent brewed, although I’d skip the paper filter and use a gold filter to preserve some of the creamy smoothness.  We give this 3.75 motmots.

Since they are so accessible to many people, we’ll be reviewing at least two more Whole Foods/Allegro coffees in the future.