Certifications

Certifications / Coffee awards and competitions / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance Cupping for Quality 2009

As we did last year, Coffee & Conservation attended the Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Coffee Breakfast at the SCAA annual show. The breakfast took place this morning. The winners of the sixth annual “Cupping for Quality” event were announced. These awards recognize Rainforest Alliance (RA) certified coffee farmers dedicated to growing top quality beans, while protecting the environment and the rights of workers.

This year, 80 RA certified farms in 11 countries (Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama) participated. Coffee from 94% of the participating farms received scores of 80 or above, although none scored over 89. The average score for the top 10 farms was 85.08; last year it was 86.39.

Here are the top 10 farms. I’ve provided links and information where available. After the country-based summary, I’ve concluded with some comments.

  1. Hacienda La Esmeralda — Panama (88.99). No surprise here, the Peterson’s farm nearly always grabs the top slot in any contest. Last year it also came in first in this competition, when it scored 89.93.
  2. Santa Elisa Pachup — Guatemala (85.74). In 2007, this farm came in 5th place in the Guatemala Cup of Excellence. From the photo on that site, it looks like the shade is rather sparse — shade monoculture or polyculture. However, 113 ha of the 493 ha total is forest, natural or in the process of being reforested.
  3. La Pampa — Guatemala (84.96). This farm didn’t make the top ten last year, with a score of 84.63.
  4. Finca Santa Anita — Costa Rica (84.92).
  5. Grupo Asociativo San Isidro — Colombia (84.58). A 93-member Fair Trade co-op from Huila. In 2004, researchers found the uncommon endemic Dusky-headed Brush-finch (Atlapetes fuscoolivaceus) in forested land owned by the cooperative.
  6. Sumatra Mandheling Rainforest — Indonesia (84.56).
  7. Fazenda Capoeirinha – Ipanema Coffees — Brazil (84.44). Fazenda Capoeirinha is one of three farms operated under the Ipanema name. This coffee is/was a component in Intelligentsia’s popular Black Cat espresso blend, and Ipanema Coffees are also used by Starbucks. From what I’ve been able to determine, this is not shade coffee but grown in sun like much of Brazil’s coffee.  Brazilian law requires habitat preservation, and the Ipanema web site at one point discussed a reforestation goal of 350 ha by 2014 which will create 68 “micro-reserves.” Although corridors are also mentioned, habitat fragments are not as functional as large parcels of intact forest. Perhaps more promising are the 790 ha of wetlands set aside for biodiversity conservation.
  8. Fazenda Lambari — Brazil (84.31). Another large sun coffee farm, and also undertaking a reforestation project as part of their Rainforest Alliance certification.
  9. Gemadro Coffee Plantation — Ethiopia (84.18).  In 2006, I wrote all about this very large farm, owned by a company belonging to a wealthy Saudi sheik. At the time they weren’t Rainforest Alliance certified and it doesn’t look the web site has been updated, so I don’t know what environmental changes have taken place.
  10. Monte Sion (I think this is the correct name, not Siona) — El Salvador (84.17). A small farm (around 35 ha) in the Apaneca mountains.

Here are how each of the participating countries scored:

  • Guatemala (with six farms participating) 83.83; top 3 –  Santa Elisa Pachup (85.74),  La Pampa (84.96), San Diego Buena Vista (83.75)
  • El Salvador (with six farms participating) 83.30; top 3 – Monte Sion (84.17), Las Mercedes (84.13), San Jose (83.39)
  • Costa Rica (with 10 farms participating) 82.58; top 3 – Finca Santa Anita (84.92), Rincon Socola (83.56), Espiritu Santo Estate Coffee (83.18)
  • Brazil (with 10 farms participating)  82.42; top 3 – Capoeirinha — Ipanema Coffees (84.44), Fazenda Lambari (84.31), Pinheiros — Sete Cachoeiras State Coffee (83.33)
  • Colombia (with 24 farms participating) 82.30; top 3 -Grupo Asociativo San Isidro (84.58), Grupo Aguadas (83.94), Grupo Anserma (83.90)
  • Nicaragua (with six farms participating) 82.13; top 3 –Selva Negra (83.49), Los Placeres (82.97), Finca Organica y Reserva El Jaguar (82.13)
  • Honduras (with 7 farms participating) 80.57; top 3 -El Derrumbo (81.65), La Guama (80.96), El Cascajal (80.83)
  • Mexico (with eight farms participating) 80.25; top 3 – Finca Arroyo Negro (82.87 — they showed a photo of a jaguar taken in the coffee production area at the breakfast — very impressive!), Finca Kassandra (82.64), Oaxacafe (82.61)
  • Panama, Indonesia & Ethiopia each had only one farm participating.

There are some nice farms here, but what is striking is the variety of sizes and levels of shade management represented in these RA certified farms. While RA certification is not wholly concerned with shade or biodiversity, the variation in these farms highlight the differences in RA ecological criteria and that of Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certification. I’ve spoken to a lot of consumers, and their overall impression is that RA certification is an ecological one and they generally believe that it indicates that the coffee is shade grown. This is not always the case (or even the intent). I will echo a sentiment I’ve heard several times from coffee professionals: I wish RA could come out with some sort of tiered or categorical certification scheme that would clarify things for consumers.

That being said, what I love about RA’s Cupping for Quality awards is that they provide extra incentive for producers to move toward sustainable practices. This includes those that preserve biodiversity, even if they are not as rigorous as Smithsonian’s Bird-Friendly requirements. This annual recognition and emphasis on quality (especially with RA’s partnership with the Coffee Quality Institute), is likely to stimulate more price premiums than can be generated by the certification itself. Ultimately, increased profit can be the best motivator for producers to pursue sustainability and certification.

Certifications / Smithsonian Bird-Friendly

Bird-Friendly coffee now available in Europe

I’m back from Nicaragua — and yes, I did see Emerald Toucanets at two different shade coffee farms. I’ll be writing about my trip soon.

Meanwhile, news from the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center. Certified Bird-Friendly coffee is finally available in Europe. Simon-LÁ©velt Coffee and Tea is offering it through its stores in The Netherlands and Belgium. Their web site is in Dutch, but I see that they do offer online ordering, so perhaps folks in other countries will have access as well.

Certifications / Organic coffee

Organic certifiers incorporating shade criteria

At least two organizations providing coffee certification services have incorporated shade criteria into their organic certification standards. Here is a bit about them, and some pros and cons.

Although requirements for organic labeling are usually established by national governments, independent agencies are licensed to provide inspection and certification services to producers. Two such organizations are OCIA International and Certimex (which operates only in Mexico). Both of these certifiers have personnel who are also trained in shade certification, because they are authorized by Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center to perform inspection for their Bird-Friendly certification. (Rainforest Alliance uses Sustainable Farm Certification, Intl., their own subsidiary).

Certimex

Certimex is using shade criteria as a requirement for organic certification.Great idea, except that the criteria is vague and undefined (“should grow under diversified shade” [1]). There is nothing wrong per se about adding in this type of wording, and anything that encourages some sort of shade preservation or restoration is a positive move. However,it offers no concrete assurance that compliance (which isn’t measurable) really does anything to preserve shade or biodiversity. We’ll have to see were Certimex goes with this.

OCIA

OCIA offers a separate certification for organic/shade coffee. The standards are more specific and provide quantifiable benchmarks that are similar to, but not as broad, as Smithsonian Bird-Friendly and Rainforest Alliance. They were, in fact, developed in cooperation with Smithsonian. I was able to obtain the 2008 OCIA International Certification Standards. Here are the ones specific to shade:

  • Rustic or traditional polyculture encouraged.
  • 40% canopy cover required.
  • Not more than 20% of shade trees can be non-native species.
  • Not more than 50% of the canopy can be made up of Inga species.
  • Shade must comprise at least ten tree species that are not Inga, Erythrina, Gliricidia sepium, or Grevillea robusta [Erythrina and Gliricidia are deciduous; they lose
    their leaves during the dry season (our winter), at a time when canopy
    cover is extremely important for both migrant and resident birds.  Grevillea robusta is not native to Latin America].
  • A single species of Inga cannot comprise greater than 50% of the trees in the production are.

These criteria, along with others for vegetation management and the organic criteria themselves, are quantifiable habitat-targeted criteria, not the sort of general or intangible environmental standards used by Fair Trade or Utz Certified.

The future of combined environmental criteria

Integrating shade criteria into existing organic criteria to create an “organic +” category is something that has been discussed for quite some time as an option to help achieve some sort of “environmental seal” for coffee [2,3]. In that sense, the OCIA standards are a positive move.

On the other hand, unless there is coordination among organic certifiers to use uniform (and scientifically sound/biologically relevant) standards, this runs the risk of just adding another label to a bag of coffee, creating consumer confusion, fatigue, or even distrust. In this case, so far as I know, OCIA is not actually adding another label or designation to the coffee. This is problematic to me. A roaster could legitimately market this coffee as shade-grown, but a consumer would have little or no clue as to what standards are being met, since there is no designation or explanation on the OCIA web site.

Ultimately, an “eco-friendly” type of seal that incorporates organic and shade standards will also somehow have to be regionally sensitive. In some regions of Latin America, coffee is grown at high altitudes where clouds provide shade and additional tree cover would be counter-productive, or is grown in areas (like the Brazilian cerrado) that wasn’t forested to begin with. Standards for preservation of native habitat in these areas would be more appropriate. Even in forested areas, different parts of the world will require different shade criteria.

[1] Dietsch, T., and S. M.. Philpott. 2008. Linking consumers to sustainability: incorporating science into eco-friendly certification. Globalizations 5:247-258.

[2] Commission for Environmental Cooperation and TerraChoice Environmental Services. 2004. Environmental and other labeling of coffee, the role of mutual recognition, supporting cooperative action. Sustainable Commodity Initiative, International Institute for Sustainable Development and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

[3] Rice, P. and J. McLean. 1999. Sustainable Coffee at the Crossroads. Consumer’s Choice Council.

Retail and specialty roasters / Smithsonian Bird-Friendly

Birds & Beans now available

The Birds & Beans: The Good Coffee web site is now up and running. Since I posted about this initiative, which offers only Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certified coffee, there have been a few tweaks and changes.

  • The price is a tad higher than first announced: two pounds for $19.25 plus shipping.
  • Looks like you can subscribe from anywhere in the U.S., not just New England (Canadian customers should order from Birds & Beans Canada, which has a wider choice of coffees and no subscription restrictions).
  • Right now, they do not seem to be putting the country of origin on any of the bags, and only mentioning Colombia as the origin of the medium-roast coffee on the web site. This might mean they will source from various Bird-Friendly certified farms and focus on a flavor profile. Personally, I think promoting specific origins is a critical part of educating the public. I also think that birders, to whom this line is targeted, would be especially enthusiastic and receptive to the specific stories behind some of the Bird-Friendly certified farms. So much research has been done at some of them, they could put a bird list and photos on the web site — and birders, of all consumers, would totally get this. Big missed marketing opportunity, in my opinion.

There is an attractive page with photos of eight species of migratory birds. I assume that there will be some sort of text accompanying them at some point, as they aren’t even identified. They are all migratory species that breed in North America and winter in the tropics, but not all species that depend on, or even winter in, coffee farms. There are also nice bios of the bird conservationists that have been supporting this effort.

We have been trying out all three varieties of Birds & Beans coffees this week. I had intended on posting a longer review later, but since I will be in Nicaragua when the trial period expires, it looks like now is the time to fire off our first impressions. I won’t rate them with motmots, since they have not been tasted by as many people yet as usual.

These were all roasted by Wicked Joe. No roast date on the package.

The “Scarlet Tanager” dark roast is really dark. Starbucks fans, line up here. I was told this is currently from Peru, and aside from a few small microlots sometimes offered by other roasters, I have yet to meet a Peruvian coffee I really like. So this was not my cup, but I did find it very smooth for such a dark roast. Folks who liked a darker roast in our office that have tried it so far were happy with it.

The medium roast “Chestnut-sided Warbler” was perhaps a tad on the dark side of medium, with all beans showing an oil sheen and many oil spots. There was evidence on some beans that it had been roasted too rapidly (this creates little divots in the beans where rapid expansion pops a hunk off). I presume the actual origin of this is Mesa de los Santos, which has long been the only Bird-Friendly certified farm in Colombia. We’ve reviewed and commented on this origin previously, so I won’t go into the details here. This coffee garnered the most diverse comments. A few wished it had been just a tad lighter so some of the more sweeter tones would emerge. Others got the sweetness right away, and pegged a cherry-like fruit flavor. It was smooth and quite bright for a medium/dark roast.

The light roast “Wood Thrush” was the winner of the group. As of this writing, it is sourced from Mexico, and had the chocolate sweetness one expects from this origin. It was especially good in a French press, where it had character and some complexity. Brewed, it was just a nice, pleasant classic Latin American cup. Overall, it just had more going on in the cup than the other two.

The primary audience for these coffees is birders. Most birders I know drink a lot of dark, pedestrian coffee. I think they will find the Birds & Beans coffee a real step up, but not too different from the flavor and roast profiles they are accustomed to, or so exotic that they don’t “get it.” The “Wood Thrush” will also please those that have somewhat more refined palates. All the coffees should completely satisfy people who really care about habitat and biodiversity preservation and want it fully represented in their cup.

If you try these coffees, please leave some impressions in the comments — both on the taste and your thoughts on the web site and “theme.” I’m especially interested in what birders think!