Background information

Background information / Fair and Direct Trade

Fair Trade environmental standards

It’s hard to blame consumers for being confused by the number of eco-labels on products these days. “Fair Trade” certified coffee is probably the most familiar to many consumers. Fair Trade (generically and as trademarked by various organizations) is primarily concerned with alleviating poverty through greater equity in international trade. Fair Trade is governed in most of the world by the Fairtrade International (FLO).  In the U.S., Fairtrade America is their member organization. The former member, Fair Trade USA, which resigned from the international system in early 2012 and is now a separate entity.

Many people assume, however, that Fairtrade/Fair Trade certification standards also include robust environmental standards. This assumption is promoted by some organizations themselves.

For example, At one time, the Fair Trade USA environmental benefits web page has stated that “over 80% of the Fair Trade certified coffee in the U.S. is also shade-grown.” Currently, the site says “most” is shade-grown. According to the most recent (2006) statistics I could find, only about 40% of the Fair Trade coffee imported into the U.S.  is also certified by Rainforest Alliance and/or Smithsonian Bird-Friendly [1].  More recently, Fairtrade International’s benefits report (found on their Facts and Figures page), notes 51% of Fairtrade certified producers (of ANY product, not just coffee) also hold organic certification, and 10% have Rainforest Alliance certification. Since neither of those certifications guarantees shade themselves, I am not sure if either organization can claim that the majority of their certified coffee is also shade-grown.

In fact, Fair Trade certification has no criteria related to growing coffee under shade, it does not require organic certification, it contains no guidelines for management of native or non-native species, it does not require any inventory of wildlife or prohibit hunting or trafficking in animals. These are all included in the criteria for shade certification by Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (Bird-Friendly) and/or Rainforest Alliance.

Let’s take a look at the Fairtrade/Fair Trade environmental standards.

Fairtrade International is the association of producer networks and national labeling initiatives, including Fairtrade America, that develops and reviews the Fairtrade standards. There are two sets of standards: overarching generic standards, and standards specific to each type of product. Let’s look at the standards which specifically address preserving and protecting the environment.

Here is a summary of the generic producer standards for small producers (which apply to coffee farmers) that address preserving and protecting the environment:

  • No plant material can be collected from protected areas or propagated illegally.
  • Harvesting of wild products from natural areas must be done sustainably and human impact minimized.
  • Co-ops should have environmental and land use plans and maintain records pertaining to land, water, and chemical use.
  • Co-ops must recognize conservation and buffer areas and not cultivate within them or apply agrochemicals.
  • Virgin forest can’t be cultivated, unless an exception is granted.
  • In areas of low biodiversity or similar degraded areas, co-op members should plant trees or “encourage” regeneration of native flora.
  • Co-ops should promote farm diversity, including reforestation or shade implementation, “as is practical” and “progress should be made over time.”
  • No use of chemicals on a prohibited list.
  • Agrochemicals must be labeled, stored, and used as directed.
  • Use of permitted herbicides must be justified.
  • Producers are expected to seek less toxic alternatives to and try to reduce volumes of agrochemicals to the extent possible.
  • Waste should be reduced, reused, recycled and composted in an appropriate manner.
  • Soil erosion should be managed, soil fertility should be maintained.
  • Water should be managed efficiently and to avoid contamination and depletion of resources.
  • Genetically modified organisms are prohibited.

These are indeed pretty generic. There are few specific criteria and virtually no quantifiable or measurable rules. I expected the product standard for coffee to have more precise restrictions or environmental standards relating to birds and wildlife. Here’s what the 2009 document said:

“There are no additional environmental standards specific to coffee producers.”

Fairtrade International standards can be downloaded from this page.

Fair Trade USA environmental standards are substantially similar and there are no separate documents or guidelines for coffee. Their standards can be downloaded from this page.

There are plenty of worthwhile things about these certifications. The environmental guidelines, however general, are better than none at all and in many cases undoubtedly result in better environmental conditions. I strongly believe that reducing poverty also helps prevent environmental exploitation, and Fair Trade has improved the lives of thousands of farmers. Because Fair Trade coffee is grown by small producers, it is often grown in a sustainable manner.

But just to clarify: Fairtrade/Fair Trade certification alone does not automatically mean or guarantee that rigorous environmental standards were followed, or that the coffee was grown under shade. For that you’ll have to look for an additional seal or seals, or have detailed information about the specific origin to assess growing conditions.

[1] Giovannucci, D., Liu, P. and A. Byers. 2008. Adding value: certified coffee trade in North America. In Pascal Liu (ed.). Value-adding Standards in the North American Food Market – Trade Opportunities in Certified Products for Developing Countries. FAO, Rome. Available online (PDF).

Background information / Corporate coffee

When birders* drink Folger’s

An editorial recently appeared in the scientific journal Conservation Biology. It was titled “When swordfish conservation biologists eat swordfish.” As the title implies, it’s a riff on the hypocrisy of avowed conservationists when their own lifestyles are inconsistent with the messages they voice. It struck a big chord with me, so I am going to borrow on its theme and major points.

One of my biggest frustrations is the resistance among many birders to change their coffee buying habits. Most birders I’ve talked to are aware that shade grown coffee preserves habitat and is very important to birds, and that mass produced coffee and grocery store brands are bad for the environment. But the next thing I often hear is some excuse why they still drink unsustainable coffee: they can’t find shade coffee, it’s too expensive, they don’t understand or trust certifications, they don’t like the shade/organic coffee they’ve tried, or…no excuse at all. Just a shrug and an admission of guilt.

Not only is it time for us — birders — to acknowledge that our consumption is often in conflict with our professed beliefs and passions, it’s time to do something about it.

In an ideal world, corporate conscience or government regulations would see to it that our environment is protected and that habitats are not destroyed needlessly. But in reality corporations and elected officials both respond to the values and actions of public consensus.

For coffee, certifications (such as Fair Trade, organic, or Bird-Friendly) help fill a regulatory vacuum. But since they are voluntary and not legally required, they are market-driven. Market forces will favor the standards that are easiest to meet. Participation by producers and distributors is reliant upon them gaining higher prices, better market access, or positive social benefits. Lack of consumer demand for the certified coffees undermines all of these motivations.

Chestnut-sided Warblers used to winter here, once upon a time.

Lack of demand has also contributed to the scarcity of certified coffees in the market. Consumers need to grow this market segment. Seeking out sources of sustainably-grown coffee, even if it lacks a certification seal, sends a message to producers. But it means doing a lot of homework. So no matter how you look at it, it is our responsibility to become informed, and we are left to make hard choices regarding our coffee buying habits ourselves.

Of all people, aren’t we as birders the ones who should be setting the example for others? Certainly we are far more informed about the habits, natural history, and declines in many migratory birds than the general public. If we can’t translate our love for birds into action in our daily lives, who are we to criticize the “drill, baby, drill” mentality of others?

To not make the effort to drink coffee that sustains the habitats not only of the creatures that bring us joy, but also of an enormous chunk of the biodiversity that sustains our planet, is not being a particularly responsible world citizen. It also indicates a belief that the actions of individuals do not matter.

The ConBio editorial ended with a quote from Mahatma Gandhi that I will repeat here:

“You must be the change you want to see in the world.”

I want to see a world filled with birds and tropical biodiversity. I want to support that, even with the small but powerful gesture of the coffee I choose to drink.

(A follow-up to this post is here.)

~*~

*You may substitute “nature lovers”, “conservationists”, “environmentalists”, or other green type and still get the picture.

Photo of Doka Coffee Estate in Costa Rica by Josh Yellin via Flickr under a Creative Commons license.

Bearzi, G. 2009. When swordfish conservation biologists eat swordfish. Conservation Biology 23:1-2.

Background information / Corporate coffee

Fight poverty: Quit drinking corporate coffee

If you are one of the 160 million coffee drinkers in the U.S., you can make a decisive, positive impact on poverty by refusing to buy coffee from, at least, Nestlè, JM Smucker, and Kraft Heinz. They sell over 30% of the retail volume of coffee in North America. Their brands include Folgers, Maxwell House, Nescafe, Gevalia, and others.

Here is how your grocery store coffee perpetuates poverty

  • Over 25 million people are directly dependent on coffee growing for a living, with another 100 million indirectly involved, including seasonal or temporary workers.
  • The majority of the coffee in the world is grown in 50 developing nations by producers that each farm less than 5 hectares of land [1].
  • Under good conditions, it costs a farmer around 30 cents (for the cheapest robusta in Vietnam) to 80 cents (for ordinary arabica from Central America; both are included in grocery store coffee) to produce a pound of coffee [2,3,4,5].
  • In 2007, even if farmers received the full market price for their coffee (and typically they do not), their profits amounted to 20 to 50 cents a pound [6,7].
  • Another way to look at it, is that only 5 to 10% of the retail price of a pound of coffee goes to the farmer [8,9,10], and the average retail price for a pound of ground coffee is well under $4.00 a pound.
  • Remember, this is a crop grown on a small plot of land harvested once a year that is probably the main source of income for an entire family.

The big multinational coffee companies perpetuate low coffee prices. Under the free market system, these four main buyers pit 25 million sellers against each other, creating a race to the bottom. They have funded and encouraged the expansion of the low-cost, low quality robusta coffee, and have spent millions of dollars developing technologies to make this bitter variety palatable. They use increasing amounts of this coffee in grocery store blends, further fueling deforestation and dragging down prices. A Wall Street journal article quoted officials from both Nestlè and Kraft as saying that they believe increasing consumer demand for coffee is the best way to help farmers, rather than paying above-market prices for their beans.

This situation is beginning to worsen, as production costs for coffee farmers around the world are rising due to the skyrocketing costs of petroleum-based fertilizers, and the global credit crunch.

The International Coffee Organization notes that low bean prices fueling corporate profits cause “entire rural communities to disappear…forcing desperate peasants into everything from crime and illicit crops to illegal migration.” [3]

Why should you care about the incomes of coffee farmers?

When coffee ceases to be profitable, the coffee fields — which for a large number of small holders are a mix of coffee, food and timber trees, and native shade trees — are cleared. They may be replaced with barren cattle pasture, subsistence crops, or some other crop less eco-friendly than coffee.

There is a direct link between environmental degradation and poverty. There is also a substantial overlap between coffee growing areas and biodiversity hotspots. Deforestation in these areas has severe consequences for loss of biodiversity. Tropical forests, even agroforestry systems, sequester many tons of carbon and help buffer against climate change.

Often the only alternative cash crop is drugs. In Latin America, the crop of choice is coca, the raw material for cocaine.

Efforts to eradicate coca in the coffee-growing nations of Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia are funded by your tax dollar, to the tune of $5 billion so far. This effort has been unsuccessful, and coca production continues to rise. All of the cocaine destined for the U.S. is grown in the Andes, with 90% from these three countries. The cost of drug abuse to society impacts every single one of us.

As coffee prices fall, such as during the coffee crisis in the 1990s, some farmers simply abandoned their land. Some were forced to sell their assets, such as cattle. They took their children out of school. Child malnutrition climbed. Communities wrenched apart by the coffee crisis have not fully recovered. Many farmers that stayed in coffee continue to be in debt.

This was and is a humanitarian crisis. Thousands of impoverished coffee farmers made their way north, with many crossing the border into the U.S. to seek employment.

Can switching the coffee I drink really help?

The U.S. is one of the world’s largest coffee consumers. We can make a difference. Quit supporting the poverty and environmental destruction that cheap coffee from these large multinationals perpetuates.

Good coffee for which a fair price is paid is not too expensive for most Americans. In fact, 45% of Folgers and Maxwell House purchasers have incomes greater than $50,000 a year. Even coffee that costs $15 a pound works out to well under a dollar a cup, tastes great, helps preserve biodiversity, and provides a decent living for coffee farmers.

Drink sustainable coffee!

[1] Fitter, R. and R. Kaplinsky. 2001. Can an agricultural ‘commodity’ be de-commodified, and if so, who is to gain? Institute of Development Study Discussion Paper 380, Brighton, Sussex, England.
[2] Jaffee, D. 2007. Brewing Justice: Fair Trade Coffee, Sustainability, and Survival. University of California Press.
[3] Fritsch, P. 2002. An oversupply of coffee beans deepens Latin America’s woes. Wall Street Journal.
[4] Marsh, A. 2007. Diversification by smallholder farmers: Viet Nam Robusta Coffee. Agricultural Management, Marketing, and Finance Working Document No. 19. FAO, United Nations, Rome.
[5] Anon. 2003. Guatemala Coffee Producers Cautiously Optimistic On Price Bounce, Volcafe Newsletter, Jan. 17023, 2003.
[6] International Coffee Organization. 2008. Coffee  Market Report, September 2008.
[7] Johnston, L. A. 2007. Using a value chain approach to empowering the rural poor in Kenya,Tanzania, and Mozambique.  TechnoServe presentation to Making Markets Work for the Poor, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
[8] Talbot, J. M. 1997. Where does your coffee dollar go?: The division of income and surplus along the coffee commodity chain. Studies in Comparative International Development 32: 56-91.
[9] Talbot, J. M. 2004. Grounds for Agreement: The Political Economy of the Coffee Commodity Chain. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
[10] FAO. 2006. Governance, Coordination, and Distribution along Commodity Value Chains. An FAO Commodities and Trade Division workshop, April 4 and 5, 2006, Rome.

Coffee beans by Rogiro, coffee cup by Chris Campbell.