Certifications

Intelli on Fair Trade

Geoff Watts of Intelligentsia Coffee wrote a long e-mail lucidly explaining the shortcomings of Fair Trade and Intelli’s strong commitment to farmer relationships, posted at green LA girl. It’s excellent and insightful.

First, he defines sustainable coffee as being profitable to the farmer, enough to enable him to invest, not just subsist; and not damaging to the ecosystem, so the land is preserved for generations.  He goes on to describe

  • the many factors that go into the cost of producing quality coffee, and how the Fair Trade model does not have a mechanism for rewarding quality or taking into account the cost of living and other differentials that occur among farmers of different areas,
  • how much of the FT minimum price actually gets to the farmer, and how the FT minimum also often ends up being the maximum,
  • why Intelligentsia would rather spend ten cents a bag in the producing company, rather than spending it to put a FT sticker on their coffee bags,
  • the depth of Intelli’s relationships with their coffee producers, which dramatically highlights the importance of purchasing coffee from roasters with these types of relationships,
  • and how the FT model is beneficial to and works best with commercial and entry-level specialty coffee.

Many thanks to Geoff for writing and to Siel for posting this.  It really helps consumers (and me!) to understand sustainability issues and make, um, intelligent decisions about the best coffees to drink to support farmers and the environment.  Go give it a read.

Colombia to produce more RA coffee

According to this article in Financial Express, by 2007, ten percent (about 1 million 60 kg bags) of Colombia’s coffee will be certified by social and environmental programs. One of these programs is the Rainforest Alliance sustainable agriculture program (my overview here).  Colombia is one of Latin America’s top producers of sun coffee, so this is a step in the right direction.  Meanwhile, look for Colombia’s Mesa de los Santos coffee, which is certified organic and shade grown (by both Smithsonian and Rainforest Alliance). Review at Coffee Cuppers, and carried by a number of the roasters in the sidebar.

Caribou Coffee and Rainforest Alliance

Caribou Coffee, based in Minneapolis with stores in 15 states, announced last July that it was partnering with Rainforest Alliance (RA) to provide certification for much of their coffee.  They expected 20% of their coffee to be certified by the end of 2006, with a goal of half of all the green beans purchased to be RA certified by 2008.  The phase-in is necessary because Caribou wants to preserve existing relationships.  This has an upside in that new producers will be adhering to certification standards.  Considering that a number of Caribou offerings are from Africa and Asia, which are not eligible for shade certification and which often are grown under shade as a matter of course, this means that well over half of Caribou’s coffees will represent shade coffees, in one shape or form.

(Update: 100% of all Caribou coffees will be 100% Rainforest Alliance certified by 2011. More on this here.)

As the second largest U.S. specialty coffee company, selling over 4 million pounds of coffee annually, the purchase of half their beans from certified sustainable sources is nothing to sneer at, and it makes Caribou one of the only big coffee houses where this kind of sustainable coffee will be readily available.

Caribou has a commitment to responsible coffee sourcing, social responsibility (including work in coffee growing areas) and frequently donates to local communities and charities.

Who evaluates non-certified shade coffee? Part 2

In Part 1 of “Who evaluates non-certified shade coffee?” I pointed out that roasters, importers, and retailers of non-certified shade coffee have assorted means of “verifying” that coffee is shade-grown.  These are usually described as farm visits by roasters, importers, brokers, or independent evaluators.  I pointed out that there isn’t much evidence that these evaluators have experience in actually assessing biodiversity, from a scientific viewpoint.

Why is this important? Can people without a biology background make sound assessments of coffee plantations?

The point of encouraging shade management on farms is not just shade, but functioning ecosystems that are as close as is practical to intact forest.  Looking at a farm and seeing lots of birds and trees does not address ecosystem functioning or biodiversity, the real goals of the shade coffee movement.

Agricultural areas share some of the same biological characteristics of urban areas. They are simplified, homogenized “ecosystems” populated with suites of similar, adaptable organisms.  One might find the same number of species of birds (or trees, or ants, or mammals) in a suburban park and an intact forest, and numerically these two plots would have the same species richness or “biodiversity.”

But there is a huge difference in a park in which the bird species are Rock Pigeon, House Sparrow, European Starling, American Robin, and Northern Cardinal and one which has Scarlet Tanager, Acadian Flycatcher, Red-eyed Vireo, Ovenbird, and Black-and-white Warbler.  The latter group is a suite of forest specialists, which would occur at low abundance. In the first group, we have a suite of common generalists. An inexperienced observer might conclude since each plot has 5 species, they are “equal.” In fact, the  person might conclude that the first plot is “better” because of the large number of starlings and House Sparrows!

Biologists take into consideration more than numbers when defining biodiversity, including relative abundance (which takes rareness into account), genetic diversity, the diversity of habitat types within the landscape, and ecosystem health and functioning.

In order to accurately assess the value of a coffee plantation to biodiversity, if that is truly our goal, an evaluator, at a minimum, must be able to be able to identify many of the major tree and bird species of a region, as well as understand their roles in the local ecosystem (is this bird common or rare? does it represent a forest specialist or a generalist? does this tree provide fruit, pollen, or nesting sites?).

So, it’s not enough to recognize trees and birds.  One has to have some sort of idea of what to look for. It would be great if there were a group of independent biologists who were experienced with the differences in regional biodiversity who could go around to farms and assess the growing practices for their value to biodiversity.

Until that happens, consumers must rely on some background information to try to decide which coffees, advertised as shade grown but not certified, might be best for biodiversity.  This information can include:

  • Knowledge of regional growing practices.  Certain countries and regions grow mostly shade coffee.  I’ll be posting information on growing practices in various regions in the future.
  • Knowledge of which farms and cooperatives have been certified.  If these beans are used in blends with beans from non-certified sources, they cannot be labeled certified, as far as I know.  I’ll be posting lists of certified farms and coops, which may be listed as sources by roasters.
  • Knowledge of botanical varieties.  There are two main coffee species, known commonly as arabica and robusta, and robusta is usually grown in the sun.  But even among arabicas, there are varieties that are less sun-tolerant.  I’ll be posting about the characteristics of the botanical types, which are sometimes mentioned by growers.

Needless to say, I’d always recommend buying from roasters that have close relationships with growers; who favor small farms; whose selections are mainly organic (which are usually shade grown, at least to some degree); and who have made an effort to support sustainability via their business practices and associations.

Photo of a coffee farmer in Colombia by Ashley Aull, under a Creative Commons license.