Certifications

Background information / Certifications

Who evaluates non-certified shade coffee? Part 1

There are pros and cons to the shade certification process, including costs to farmers, and problems with applying one-size-fits-all biodiversity criteria to different regions.

Therefore, some farms may meet or exceed certification criteria — and be excellent sanctuaries for biodiversity — yet not be shade certified.

Coffees from these sources may be labeled by roasters as “shade grown.”  Unfortunately, so are some coffees that are grown under conditions that might not be best for biodiversity, such as shaded monoculture, or conceivably even in full sun, if a retailer or distributor were particularly, um, “shady.”

Who decides whether a coffee can be labeled “shade grown”?  According to an article at Virtual Coffee,

Many importers, roasters and retailers add to the confusion by selling “verified shade” coffee, which comes from plantations that have not been certified by [Rainforest Alliance] or [Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center] but have been visited by someone—often an importer—who, without scientific guidelines, checks to make sure shade trees are present on the farms.

A white paper on sustainable coffee [1] noted:

Most shade coffee sales are coming from uncertified shade coffee introduced by roasters moving..to capture market opportunity…(e.g., Trader Joe’s, Millstone). … Many of these roasters claim to have visited the farms themselves and thereby justify “self-certifying” their shade coffees. …[T]he rapid proliferation of uncertified shade coffee brands is fueling concerns across the industry regarding free-riding and even fraud.

I’ve seen various explanations on who determines whether a coffee is “shade grown.” The Thanksgiving Coffee web site contains this note:

“Thanksgiving Coffee uses verified shade grown coffee. This means that its CEO, Paul Katzeff, or the importer has personally inspected the farm to insure that the plants are properly grown in the shade.”

Several roasters told me that they determine conditions primarily through farm visitation, consulting another roaster, or relying on the word of an importer. Others say they use independent auditors, but I have not yet found out who these auditors are, their training, or their criteria.

Many roasters sport the label of the Northwest Shade Coffee Campaign, but it is a consumer-education organization, not a certifier.  NSCC goes so far as to say on its web site, regarding shade certification, that

“Brokers who actually visit the farms and are trusted in the coffee industry are more reliable than any form of certification.”

Really? I don’t know how many, if any, of these evaluators have experience in actually assessing biodiversity, from a scientific viewpoint. Is this really important? Can people without a biology background make sound assessments of coffee plantations?  I’ll address these questions in Part 2.

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

Certifications

Northwest Shade Coffee Campaign

Update: As of 2013, the NSCC is no longer functioning. This post is informational only.

A number of roasters or retailers advertising shade coffee display the seal of the Northwest Shade Coffee Campaign (NSCC). The NSCC, formed by Seattle Audubon Society in 1996, does not certify whether a coffee is “bird friendly.” It’s mission is as a disseminator of information, and “…to protect habitat for wintering neo-tropical migratory birds in Latin America and the Caribbean by increasing consumer demand for shade-grown coffee.”

This is a terrific idea, and of course the mission of Coffee & Conservation as well.  Consumers do need to be aware, however, that this seal does not mean any of the coffee sold by the member is certified shade grown, that all coffees are shade grown, or that any of the coffees labeled as shade grown are grown under the best biodiversity management.

According to an article in Fresh Cup Magazine, members of NSCC “must identify its exact sources of coffee, work with its vendors to ensure a supply of shade coffee, carry at least one offering that is documented as shade-grown, educate its customers about shade coffee, and contribute yearly dues…”.  There was no indication on the NSCC web site describing the criteria for documentation, but it was noted that some companies certify their own coffee, and others don’t accept certification but take steps to help birds and the environment.  This leaves consumers again wondering what definition of “shade” was used and whether or not the growing methods are really preserving biodiversity.  An examination of the offerings of the majority of the members did not reveal any particular coffees as being designated as the “documented” shade coffees.

The Fresh Cup article goes on to say that, “Beyond these requirements, members are free to promote shade-grown coffee as they see fit.”  This is a little discomforting, as it seems to leave the door open for member greenwashing.

Increasing the demand for shade coffee requires an educated consumer, and NSCC deserves kudos for working towards that goal.  Unfortunately, the lack of definable criteria and rather loose membership requirements muddy the waters and probably do more to confuse rather than enlighten consumers.  It would almost be more worthwhile if NSCC just stuck with the education and didn’t have membership.

Nonetheless, it’s obviously preferable to purchase coffee from NSCC members than from sources who make no claims to have shade coffee.  In future posts, I will provide some guidance for consumers trying to choose a good non-certified shade coffee, including a listing of which countries and regions farm coffee mostly in shade, and individual certified farms and co-ops.

Birds and other biodiversity / Certifications / Research on coffee growing

Research: Biodiversity, yield, and certification

Perfecto, I., J. Vandermeer, A. Mas, and L. Soto Pinto. 2005.  Biodiversity, yield, and shade coffee certification.  Ecological Economics 54:435-446.

The more complex overstory (and thus shade) in a coffee plantation, the higher the diversity.  However, the more shade, the lower the yield (although the relationship is not strictly linear), as coffee grows best in about 35-60% shade.  Therefore, farmers have to be compensated for the lower yields if they preserve shade and biodiversity.  Since a switch to organic farming typically increases yield, while a switch to more shade-dense farming decreases yield, the premiums paid to farmers for growing certified shade coffee must be higher than those for certified organic coffee.

This paper outlines the factors and decisions that have to be taken into account to determine best way to define certification criteria that will effectively preserve biodiversity while keeping yields high enough so that financial premiums paid to farmers are not so high as to discourage consumption. Of course, not all premiums have to be paid by consumers; aid and conservation organizations can absorb some of the costs.  And the authors seem to agree with others that linking shade-grown certification with Fair Trade and organic certification could be effective as long as the premiums are high enough to offset reductions in yield.