Certifications

Climate change / Rainforest Alliance

First Rainforest Alliance climate-friendly coffee farm(s)

(Updated) Finca Platanillo in San Marcos, western Guatemala is the first coffee farm to be verified by Rainforest Alliance (RA) for compliance with the Climate Module of the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN, the standards-setting organization for RA). Less than a week later, it was announced that the well-known Daterra Estate in Minas Gerias, Brazil became the second farm to earn the verification.

I first reported on RA’s plan to develop this module in 2008. It isn’t a certification, but a voluntary add-on to RA certifcation. The module isn’t intended to indicate that a farm is carbon-neutral, or participates in carbon offsets, and doesn’t measure carbon stocks on farms.* The module’s goal is to encourage farmers to assess their climate risks, analyze their greenhouse gas emissions, maintain or increase carbon stocks on their lands (via habitat preservation or restoration), and identify best management practices to help them adapt to future climate change.

Verification occurs if farms comply with 80% of the 15 voluntary criteria of the module. Failure doesn’t effect the compliance score of regular RA certification. Farms can have the Climate Module audit done at the same time as their regular audit for RA certification; thus, it incurs no additional costs.

Finca Platanillo is 350 ha, of which nearly 40 are set aside as a protected area (although the ANACAFE site lists the area as 303 ha, of which 296 are cultivated). The finca grows bourbon, caturra, and catuai varieties at about 1150 to 1450 m; their maragogype is currently being offered by a number of roasters in Europe. In 2007, Finca Platanillo was one of the top-scoring farms in RA’s Cupping for Quality competition.

We reviewed several of Daterra’s coffees and provided background in this post. Daterra was also the first Rainforest Alliance-certified estate in Brazil (it consists of more than one farm). You can read more about the broad range of their long-standing sustainability efforts on their web site.

*RA and its partners have also worked on developing a guide for farmers on how to measure and verify carbon stored on coffee farms to enable producers to receive payments for carbon credits. See this post for details and a link to the guide.

Corporate coffee / Fair and Direct Trade

What’s wrong with cheap coffee, in a nutshell

The Fair Trade USA/FLO break-up and its ramifications is seeping into the mainstream media. Recently, for example, the New York Times published an article on the debate on the future of fair trade, and NPR carried a radio segment. A piece in Mother Jones magazine by Tom Philpott summed up the kerfluffle nicely, but what really resonated with me in that article was the paragraph on what sparked the genesis of the fair trade movement. It neatly summarizes (much of) exactly what is wrong with big, cheap, corporate coffee:

Huge, rich-world companies like Nestle and Folger’s (now owned by JM Smucker) dominate trade and drive prices down, reaping windfalls. Production consolidates onto huge plantations that employ workers (often, children) at poverty wages; small producers get squeezed out. And as these high-production plantations expand their monocrops to meet global demand, they gobble up high-quality farmlands that might otherwise be supporting smallholders who grow food staples for domestic consumption along with foreign-exchange-earning crops like coffee.

…and destroy biodiversity in the process, I might add.  Read more about the practices and impacts of corporate coffee here.

Fair and Direct Trade

Fair Trade USA muddies the waters

When it comes to the world of Fair Trade (FT), Coffee & Conservation tries to stick to providing basic information to consumers on what the certification means, the specific environmental standards in FT certification, and major news. A recent announcement qualifies as major news that changes the meaning of “Fair Trade” certification in the U.S., and which may mean changes to environmental standards for coffee certified as FT by Fair Trade USA.

Background

Fairtrade International (FLO) is the organization that coordinates labeling initiatives around the globe. FLO develops the FT standards for all FT-certified products, including coffee. Member organizations in other countries use the standards to license and promote FT-certified products. In the United States, the member organization is Fair Trade USA (formerly TransFair USA).

One of the strengths of FT certification was that FLO provided global standards for FT-certified products (coffee being just one of many). Whether or not you agreed that the standards were the right ones to achieve the stated goals, at least you knew that FT-certified products all conformed to the same standards — everyone was on the same page. Even if many consumers don’t have a full understanding of the purpose and means of FT, this single system, applied consistently, has built their trust in the certification.

Break up

Last week, Fair Trade USA (FTUSA) announced it is resigning its membership in the FLO system effective December 31, 2011. The main departure point is that FT certification for coffee has been restricted to cooperatives; for other agricultural products such as bananas or tea, larger estates and other producer models have been able to get FT certification. FTUSA wants to expand the availability of FT certification, starting with coffee.

FTUSA noted that it may revise some of the standards currently being used for FT-certified products. The language in FLO’s response was much clearer:

“Fair Trade USA has announced a new initiative under the banner Fair Trade For All.’ We wish to clarify that the proposals it contains regarding major changes on coffee certification are the views of Fair Trade USA alone, and do not constitute a change to the policy or standards of Fairtrade International (FLO).”

Therefore, FLO has stated as of January 1, 2012, they (FLO) will “no longer be able to accept FTUSA’s certification for sales into other Fairtrade markets under the global Certification Mark.” FTUSA will continue to recognize producer organizations who hold FT certification from FLO.  Eventually, then, a product in the U.S. may have FTUSA’s seal, the FLO seal, or both. Consequently, consumers will have to figure out what the standards are for the certifications.

The FLO global certification mark (seal).

Recap of current standards

At least initially, it appears that the major changes will have to do with who qualifies for FT certification. How or if this will effect the environmental standards is not known at this time. Update: Please see the Quick Guide to Coffee Certifications for graphs that  illustrate that FLO has more criteria or requirements related to the environment and biodiversity than FT USA.

FT environmental standards developed by FLO, as I outlined in a previous post, are fairly generic. They cover ( with a very broad brush) pest management;  general soil, water, and waste management; GMO policy; energy use; and very broadly and non-specifically, biodiversity protection.

New FLO standards were rolled out in early 2011, but not much has changed.  The revised generic environmental standards for all small producers (which apply to coffee), while re-worded, expanded, and providing more detailed guidance, did not substantially strengthen biodiversity protection from previous versions. FLO said this upon the revision:

“Revised environmental requirements: Putting people first

The revised environmental requirements in the New Standards Framework keep people at the heart of the Fairtrade system. Strong core criteria protect producers’ health and safety, conserve nature and ban the use of GMOs and dangerous chemicals. Then, through the benefits received through Fairtrade, producers are encouraged to work on development priorities of their choice which lead to even greater sustainability.”

The Fair Trade USA seal.

As before, the standards specific to coffee do not have any additional environmental criteria (e.g., any sort of shade tree, density, species, or pruning requirements).

Here are the links to official statement by FLO and FTUSA. As the coffee industry responds, I’ll add links to especially relevant content.

Updated news links:

Additional links:

Certifications / Organic coffee

Canada now has own certified organic seal

Two years after passing an organic standards law, Canada’s organic certification is now being fully implemented and enforced. It covers all agricultural products labeled as organic in import, export, and inter-provincial trade — thus, coffee is included.

Part of the standards law included a trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada recognizing each other’s standards as equivalent (which they appear largely to be, from my reading). Thus, products meeting organic certification standards in one country may be imported to the other. This summer, Canada entered into an organic equivalency arrangement with the European Union as well.

Like the National Organic Program in the U.S., accredited third-party organizations certify organic products to the standards.The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is the authority over this program in Canada, and the official Organic Canada/Biologique Canada seal is pictured here.

Certifications / Organic coffee

What does “organic” really mean?

Some time ago, I provided posts on pesticides that are commonly used on coffee, and a brief overview of organic coffee. A recent NPR story, Organic pesticides, not an oxymoron, put the topic of the definition of “organic” (at least how it is defined and regulated in the U.S.) back in the news. I thought it would be appropriate to clarify this as it pertains to organic coffee.

First, all organic agricultural products sold in the U.S. are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program. All of these products, whether produced in the U.S. or not, must adhere to NOP standards. The USDA accredits other agencies to certify organic products using the same standards.

The use of the USDA Organic seal indicates a product is at least 95% organic unless 100% organic is specified. However, because coffee is a single ingredient product, a bag of organic coffee is 100% organic beans.  Mixing of organic and non-organic forms of the same ingredient are expressly prohibited. If the coffee had flavoring or some form of secondary processing aid that was not organic, then it couldn’t be labeled 100% organic but that is an exception.

As the NPR piece points out, organic certification does not mean absolutely no chemicals are used in production. Organic certification excludes most manufactured pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. A list of substances that are allowed and prohibited are found in the Code of Federal Regulations. Examples of products that are allowed include soap-based herbicides and pesticides in certain circumstances, and botanically-based insecticides like neem and pyrethrum. It does not mean that any naturally-occurring toxin is okay to use or intrinsically safer just because it is natural. Plenty of natural toxins like arsenic or nicotine are prohibited. Allowable substances are on the list because they are typically less toxic in recommended doses than synthetics, more specific, and break down in the environment faster.

Many of these substances don’t apply to coffee, of course. Most relevant to coffee farming is that various copper- and sulfur-based products are allowed in some situations. This includes copper sulfate and hydrated lime (calcium oxide), the main ingredients in bordeaux mixture which is used as a fungicide, particularly against coffee rust. It is further specified in the rules that copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil.

There are two very important stipulations on the use of allowed substances. One, the producer must demonstrate that natural biological or cultural methods are insufficient to control or remedy whatever problem is to be addressed by an allowed substance.  Only after these methods have proven unsuccessful can producers turn to the allowed substances. The organic standards include practices that should help reduce, minimize, or eliminate the need for pesticides and other agrochemicals — organic agriculture is a whole approach to ecosystem stewardship, not just the absence of artificial chemicals.

Second, the rules state that the use of allowed substances must “not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water.” I’ll also add that most of the allowed substances are only permitted to be used in specific situations or on particular crops (or non-food uses).

I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. I don’t believe the danger of non-organic coffee production is to the people that drink the end product. By the time the coffee cherries are removed from the trees, the beans inside processed, roasted, ground, and brewed, little or no chemical residue is likely to remain. The potential danger of non-organic coffee is harm to people and the environment at origin. Improper storage, inadequate protection, and lack of training routinely expose farm workers to chemicals. Pesticides that are banned in the U.S. or Europe are still being used in many coffee-growing countries, especially older broad-spectrum insecticides which are highly toxic, but relatively inexpensive. Pesticides kill tens of thousands of migratory birds on their wintering grounds. Contamination and mortality of tropical resident wildlife is not well studied. And synthetic fertilizers, particularly nitrogen, not only have a large carbon footprint, but contribute to water contamination.

Organic certification is a commitment to sustainability. It deserves to be rewarded with our coffee-buying dollars.

As a result of researching posts I’ve written here, my thoughts on organic coffee have evolved. I have at times noted that many coffee farms may be considered “passive organic,” but are not certified, and that a lack of certification doesn’t mean the coffee is not sustainably grown. That may be true, but it is more nuanced than that. I’ve come to understand some farms may not use chemicals, but that doesn’t mean that they are following the principals that are encompassed in organic farming (practices that are codified and verified in organic certification standards).

Obtaining certification is a big accomplishment, especially for many farmers in the developing world where technical support and capital may be lacking. There are real barriers, including cost, and in sometimes lower yields.  It requires a lot of increased labor. Organic certification represents much more than not using chemicals — which are unlikely to show up in your coffee cup anyway. Organic certification is a commitment to sustainability. It deserves to be rewarded with our dollars.

Coffee bag photo by Chris and Jenni, used under a Creative Commons license.

Smithsonian Bird-Friendly

Bird-Friendly certifies coffees in Nicaragua

Approximate locations of Bird-Friendly certified producers in Nicaragua.

From my accounts of previous trips, readers know I have a soft spot for Nicaragua. So I’m happy to report that the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center has now has three Bird-Friendly certified coffee producers in the country.

Selva Negra — Selva Negra, near Jinotega, is 450 ha that consists of an ecolodge, organic gardens, ponds, 150 ha of preserved cloud forest, and a coffee farm (actually named Finca La Hammonia, although usually referred to as Selva Negra).  About 120 to 150 ha are in shade coffee production, much of it organic; 87 ha is now certified Bird-Friendly. Finca La Hammonia grows bourbon and caturra between 1200 and 1300 m.  The sustainability efforts of Selva Negra are extensive and well-known, the farm has long been Rainforest Alliance certified, and the coffee has been well-represented in the U.S. by multiple roasters, including Allegro/Whole Foods.

The forested area has numerous trails (I have been there twice), hosts over 500 tree species, 130 species of orchids, and at least 280 species of birds. A number of restricted-range, rare bird species that are hard to find elsewhere are common at Selva Negra, including Three-wattled Bellbird (conservation status “Vulnerable”) and Resplendent Quetzal (Near Threatened).

Read more at their excellent web site.

UniÁ³n de Cooperativas Agropecuarias San Juan del Rio Coco — This cooperative is located in the northern department of Madriz, near the towns of San Juan del Rio Coco and Telpaneca. The certified area covers 709 ha and 128 growers, and the co-op is also certified Fair Trade and Utz Certified.

Gaia Estate (Finca Bosques de Gaia) – This small, 18-ha farm owned by Jefferson Shriver and Gabriela Navarez is located outside the familiar central highlands of Nicaragua, south of the capital Managua near Diriamba, Carazo department.

Birds & Beans has contracted with all of these producers and will incorporate the beans in two of their coffees this fall.  They purchased all of Gaia’s current crop, and it will appear in the Wood Thrush variety, and Selva Negra’s coffee will be in the Chestnut-sided Warbler variety.  San Juan del Rio Coco should show up next year.

A list of all current Bird-Friendly certified farms can be found here.

Fair and Direct Trade

Sips: Fair Trade debate

There are so many great voices in the fair/Fair trade movement, I keep out of it aside from environmental aspects of certification and occasional links. Here are a few of those links to some posts I have found most thought-provoking lately. Fair Trade is having growing pains, and recent high market prices for coffee have added to the turmoil.

The Stanford Social Innovation Review is a publication of the Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society at Stanford University. They recently ran two pieces on Fair Trade. The first, is The Problem with Fair Trade Coffee, by Colleen Haight, an assistant professor at San Jose State University. About a third of the way down is a good illustration of the author’s interpretation of why Fair Trade coffee has a “quality problem.” Lots of history and stats in the piece, and excellent comments, as well.

They followed up with a rebuttal from Fair Trade USA head Paul Rice, Fair Trade: A Model for Sustainable Development.

Meanwhile, Small Farmers. Big Change the blog of Equal Exchange, an alternative trade organization, also put out two pieces. Fair Trade is NOT the End Goal: Part I and Part II. Part I explained the pressures on co-ops during periods of uncertain high market prices, and the choices they face when it is time to deliver on pre-negotiated contracts which will pay less than the market price. One passage struck me,

When the coffee starts coming in, the competition (in the form of multi-national businesses) is knocking at the farm gates offering farmers more money for their beans than the price the co-op has promised them.

I added the emphasis. I suppose anybody could come along and offer higher prices at the farm gate, but look who is specifically singled out* as the entity who is trying to get  farmers to break their contracts with their co-ops: corporate coffee. As the post explains, this far-reaching problems. And those multinationals won’t be at the farm gate when prices drop again.

Part II is a view of the future of Fair Trade by Santiago Paz, co-manager, CEPICAFE, a co-op in Peru.

Food for thought.

*Update: A Wall Street Journal article, “Battle brewing over coffee” published on 17 July confirmed it is the “cash flush” multinationals tempting the farmers. The first sentence reads, “Rising prices have upended the coffee trade, as multinational brokers increasingly woo farmers away from local cooperatives in the world-wide scramble for beans.” It specifically mentioned these are representatives from  Nestlé SA,  ED&F Man Holdings Ltd.,  and Ecom Agroindustrial Corp. Ltd. The latter two are very large organizations that include coffee divisions (ED&F Man’s is Volcafe) that buy coffee for multinational roasters. These companies say that it’s up to the farmers who to sell to.

That’s true, and I can’t really blame the farmers, who need the cash. But these multinationals won’t be providing loans and support when coffee prices drop, and if the cooperatives go under, nobody will.

Maybe these high prices wouldn’t be as tempting if we’d been paying the real cost of coffee all along, providing a price that reflects all the work that goes into growing coffee, and enough for farmers to cover their costs of production and feed their families, send their kids to school, and invest in their farms and communities.

There is no such thing as cheap coffee.

Update #2: Fairtrade International (FLO) has been holding workshops on risk management and contract negotiation for cooperative managers to help them with the problems surrounding defaults on their contracts. FLO reports that Bolivia, Peru and Indonesia were the countries hit hardest by co-op member defaults. Read more here.

Photo by Ian Murchison under a Creative Commons license.

Certifications / Data summary tables

Eco-certified coffee: How much is there?

Latest update March 2021

When sales and market shares of various certified coffees come out, I try to put them together in a post. Each certification scheme tends to announce them at different times of the year, and provides slightly different data. I’ve decided to put the most salient data together in a table for four of the main coffee certifications with environmental criteria, plus Starbucks CAFE Standards (a third-party verified set of supplier standards), with past data for reference. I’ve standardized the unit to metric tons for easy comparison. Links on the year go to source information, which usually has more detail.

For a little perspective, world production in 2018 was about 10.4 million metric tons, and the U.S. imports around 1.5 to 1.6 million metric tons of coffee a year.  With the recent lowering of the environmental standards of Rainforest Alliance (merged with Utz as of 2018), only the only real benchmark we have of certified truly eco-friendly coffee is Smithsonian Bird-Friendly; this coffee must also be certified organic. Certified organic coffee comprises less than 10% of the global market (see note 3).

Hectares
certified		 Production
(metric tons)		 Sales in metric tons
(% of production)1
Smithsonian
Bird-Friendly		 2008: 5000
2010: 7600
2012: 8650
2014: 5544
2018: 12,800		 2006: 3600
2008: 2700
2010: 4400
2012: 4735
2014: 3524
2018: 8620		 2006: 200 (5.5%)
2010: 206 (4.7%)
2014: ~325 (9.0%)
Rainforest Alliance2 2007: 200,000
2009: 305,383
2012: 323,500
2014: 360,000
2016: 387,000
2017: 411,519
2018: 470,841
2019: 470,611		 2006: 27,152
2007: 41,494
2008: 123,766
2009: 168,114
2010: 219,337
2011: 245,000
2012: 375,000
2013: 454,962
2014: 458,058
2016: 509,000
2017: 557,911
2018: 655,314
2019: 669,698		 2008: 62,296 (50%)
2009: 67,583 (40%)
2010: 114,884 (52%)
2011: 129,864 (53%)
2013: 133,000 (37%)
2017: 289,485 (52%)
2018: 328,082 (50%)
2019: 393,550 (59%)
Organic3 2007: 546,541
2008: 463,500
2009: 560,368
2010: 642,833
2011: 534,392
2014: 762,916
2016: 882,000
2017: 849,675		 2008: 195,782
2009: 204,606
2010: 230,819
2011: 248,767
2013: 248,000
2016: 447,000
2017: 370,000		 2006: 30,000
2007: 38,000
2008: 117,560 (60%)
2009: 112,900 (55%)
2010: 117,960 (51%)
2011: 133,163 (53%)
2013: 133,000 (53%)
2017: 160,000 (43%)
Starbucks CAFE Practices4 20105: ~435,000 Same as sales,
see note 4		 2007: 103,000
2008: 134,000
2009: 136,000
2010: 103,000
2011: 166,468
2012: 230,878
2013: 171,004
2014: 199,696
2015: 249,929
2017: 285,000
2018: ~294,000
2019: 310,000
UTZ Certified6 2006: 163,300
2010: 320,308
2011: 348,086
2012: 508,661
2013:473,953
2014: 473,953
2015: 476,953
2017: 592,977
2018: 770,423
2019: 720,250		 2006: 108,500
2007: 218,358
2008: 308,464
2009: 365,010
2010: 394,003
2011: 476,903
2012: 715,648
2013: 726,591
2014: 729,918
2015: 821,399
2017: 857,803
2018: 1,102,826
2019: 1,083,649		 2006: 36,000 (33%)
2007: 53,000 (24%)
2008: 77,478 (25%)
2009: 81,367 (22%)
2010: 120,994 (31%)
2011: 136,752 (28%)
2012: 188,096 (26%)
2013: 224,028 (31%)
2014: 258,867 (35%)
2015: 238,394 (29%)
2017: 365,091 (42%)
2018: 518,807 (47%)
2019: 589,522 (54%)

1 Not all coffee produced under certification criteria is sold as certified. For example, for convenience producers may sell their certified coffee “at the farm gate” to local traders rather than transport it through the supply chain per certification rules. The coffee can’t be sold as certified.

2 Generally, Rainforest Alliance figures come from their press releases.  2017-2019 data came from their Coffee Certification Data Report 2019. Hectares certified is for production area certified, not the total area of certified farms, which can include buildings, etc. and  is often a much larger figure. For example, in 2016, RA stated that coffee farmers safeguarded the health of 945,000 hectares, but showed production hectares as approximately 360,000.

3 Organic coffee statistics are not centrally aggregated and notoriously hard to parse. Figures on total land in organic coffee often come from The World of Organic Agriculture yearbooks based on research by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL). 2017 data from State of Sustainable Markets 2019.

4 Starbucks regularly publishes updates to their ethical coffee sourcing program on their web site. The figures here for production and sales are identical as they include only CAFE Practices sourced coffee.

5 Land area is extrapolated from data in 2011 Ethical Sourcing Factsheet stating that at least 102,000 ha are set aside for conservation on Starbucks’ suppliers farms, and that represents about 23% of total area verified under CAFE Practices. Figures for sales for Starbucks are actually purchases by the company under this program.

6 UTZ and Rainforest Alliance agreed to merge in 2017 and retain the Rainforest Alliance name. 2017-2019 data came from the Coffee Certification Data Report 2019 which retained figures from both certifications. After 2021 data should reflect coffee all under one umbrella. Older UTZ accomplishments and data are gleaned from past annual reports. Prior to 2017, at least, UTZ figures for sales are actually the amount of certified coffee purchased by the first buyer. The amount of coffee sold as UTZ certified is slightly lower.  UTZ and Rainforest Alliance merged in 2018.

Certifications / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance to require upping the ante

A frequently heard complaint about Rainforest Alliance is that they allow their seal on coffee that contains as little as 30% RA-certified beans. I understand RA’s rationale: that for a very large roaster to source 30% of many tons of coffee has an arguably larger impact than a small company sourcing 100% of a half ton, and allowing less-than-total content gets big corporations to the table. But while the percentage of certified content has to be specified on the label, many consumers, roasters, and coffee professionals I’ve talked to think that the ”30% rule” tarnishes a great certification, confuses or misleads consumers, and indicates too much concession to corporate interests.

The mantra from RA has always been that these “30 percenters” must continue to increase the amount they source. For instance, the RA blog says, “We are committed to ensuring that companies scale up their commitments… If a mainstream brand begins … by sourcing, say, 40 percent of its coffee from certified farms, that brand must agree to source increasing quantities from certified farms as they become available.”

Alas, that does not seem to have happened in practice, with the most glaring example being Kraft’s Yuban coffee, still at 30% since it began using RA beans in 2006. (A very notable exception is Caribou Coffee, which has increased the number of offerings that include RA certified beans and the percentage in those offerings. In 2006, their stated goal was having every one of their coffees 100% RA certified by the end of 2011; they are currently on track to meet the goal.)

The problem has been, apparently, that the actual rules do not seem to be specific enough. RA’s “Use of Seal” Guidelines dated December 2007 states that “Companies requesting to use the RAC seal on single-ingredient products with less than 90% certified content should also agree to a SmartSourceTM plan: a step-wise approach to scaling up the percentage of certified content over time with specific benchmarks and timelines along the path of sustainability.”

This is due to change with the next update of the Use of Seal Guidelines. Any company that offers a coffee that does not contain 100% certified beans will be required to scale up the amount at least 15% a year until the content reaches 100% certified beans. I thought this might mean 15% of the current certified content per year (e.g., from 30% to 34.5% to 39.7%, etc.), at which rate Yuban would not be 100% until I was past retirement age in 2020 or so. However, I confirmed with Alex Morgan, RA’s U.S. Manager of Sustainable Agriculture, that this meant 15% of 100 (30% to 45%, etc.).  This is a significant, meaningful, and important milestone, in my opinion.

This rule will apply not just to coffee, but other products using the seal, such as cocoa. Thus it is taking awhile to implement to accommodate varying production methods associated with different products, but the update should take place sooner rather than later. It’s my understanding not every partner is thrilled with this change, and it will be interesting to see if anybody drops the certification. My guess is that it would be pretty awkward for a player like Kraft to quit Rainforest Alliance after touting their involvement for years. We will see which big companies are actually committed to sustainable sourcing, and which may have been using RA certification to greenwash via token sourcing.

Coffee awards and competitions / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance Cupping for Quality – April 2011

As promised in the last post, here are the winners of the Rainforest Alliance Cupping for Quality awards from the April 2011 cuppings, which covers countries in Latin America, Ethiopia, and India. The award is designed to recognize exceptional coffees carrying the Rainforest Alliance seal and to highlight the linkage between sustainable farm management practices and cup quality.

In the April cupping, 76 coffees from 10 origins competed. Aside from the origins of the top ten winners noted below, the other competing countries were Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic.

  1. Aguadas Rainforest Group (Alegrias, El Diamante, Villahermosa), Colombia (89.00). Located in the Andean rainforest in northern Colombia, the group has over 1800 ha under certification, at 2100 m.
  2. Sidama Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union, Ethiopia (86.79). Also Fair Trade.
  3. El Diviso, Colombia (86.46). Near TimanÁ¡, Huila at 1550 to 1700 m.
  4. COMICAOL, Honduras (86.07). A cooperative out of El ParaÁ­so, growing at 900 tp 1500 m.
  5. Santa Teresa, El Salvador (85.71). A rather well known estate located in the Apaneca-Ilamatepec region, near Ahuachapan, part of the Cofinanzas Estates. Also produces Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certified coffee from its certified organic crop.
  6. Jumboor Estate, Tata Coffee Ltd., India (85.50). Tata is a very large company running multiple farms. Jumboor is in northern Coorg (which is in southern India), growing S795 (which has Kents variety in its background) and HDT x catuai on 370 ha at 915 m.
  7. Finca Kassandra, Mexico (85.46). In central Veracruz, at 1200 to 1500 m.
  8. El Guayabito, Catalina, Los Naranjos, San Antonio, Colombia (85.36).
  9. Finca el Zapote, Guatemala (85.35).
  10. ADESC, Guatemala (85.29).

Congratulations to all the participating certified farms.

Coffee awards and competitions / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance Cupping for Quality – Dec 2010

The Rainforest Alliance Cupping for Quality award breakfast at the Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA) annual trade show is always the first function we attend each year at this event. The award is designed to recognize exceptional coffees carrying the Rainforest Alliance seal and to highlight the linkage between sustainable farm management practices and cup quality.

The number of farms that are RA certified, and thus participating in the award program, has grown a lot since the awards began in 2003. Last year, RA sought to manage this growth by having two annual cuppings and awards, divided by geography. In December, coffees from the southern hemisphere — including Brazil, Peru, Kenya, Tanzania and Indonesia — compete. These are the results of the December 2010 cupping, which included coffee from 35 competitors. In my next post, I’ll give the most recent winners, announced this morning at the breakfast.

  1. Quecha, Peru (85.88). A brand of the CECOVASA farmer cooperatives, the Quecha coffees are grown at 1400 to 1750 meters in the Sandia valleys region of the Andes. CECOVASA is Fair Trade certified, and about half the members grow organic-certified coffee. Since 1998, CECOVASA has worked with Conservation International, and two years ago was recognized for its work preserving biodiversity by the Peruvian ministry of the environment. Last year, another CECOVASA coffee, Tunki, placed second in this competition (it also won best of origin in the SCAA Coffee of the Year competition), and Quecha came in 5th. Congrats to this hard-working federation for the excellent coffees they are producing, in a really sustainable manner!
  2. Wahana Grahamakmur (exporter), Indonesia (83.65).
  3. Fairview Estate, Kenya (83.23). Managed by Coffee Management Services. Growing the SL28 variety on 121 ha at 1750 m. Natural forest on the property is preserved, reforestation efforts have taken place, as has the planting of shade trees. Also UTZ certified.
  4. Thiriku Farmers Co-op Society, Kenya (83.02). Nyeri – SL28 and SL34 at 1700 m.
  5. Ipanema Agricola, Brazil (82.96). An enormous enterprise, often considered the largest single producer in the world, at 2600+ ha. They do produce single-farm brands, but no information on the particular source of this coffee was given.
  6. Ibonia Estate, Kenya (82.81). Managed by Coffee Management Services.
  7. Fazenda Itaoca, Brazil (82.75). 215 ha total, of which 30% is reserve land, in Mantiqueira region, southern Minas Gerais.
  8. Korona Enterprise Ltd, Papua New Guinea (82.67). Female owned from near Aiyura in the Eastern Highlands.
  9. Yandini Estate, Kenya (82.46). Managed by Coffee Management Services. Also UTZ Certified.
  10. Baragwi Farmers Co-op Society, Kenya and Kandara Farmers Co-op Society, Kenya (tie, 82.17). Baragwi has 1200 members, and is in Kirinyaga district and grows both SL28 and SL34 at 1600 m. Kandara grows SL28 and Ruiru 11 varieties at 1600 to 1800 m in the Kandara area, and this was one of the first producer organizations in Kenya to get RA certification.

Previous results reported on here:

Certifications

How much does eco-certification cost?

Introduction

Third-party certifications are great aids to consumers who want to know their coffee was produced under specific standards. Coffee produced under various certification schemes is still a pretty small fraction of total global production. One frequent question I get is why more coffee isn’t certified (Bird-Friendly, organic, etc.), or why the coffee costs more for the consumer. Part of the answer is that certification is expensive for farmers, and often for other players further up the supply chain. If farmers cannot make up these additional expenses in the sale price of their coffee (and, they frequently are not), the added expenses are not worth it.

A number of different types of expenses are involved in obtaining and maintaining certified status. Most producers will have to take steps to conform to the criteria outlined in the standards of the certification they are seeking. This can involve capital outlay, increased labor, etc. Then the farm or production unit has to pass an inspection by an auditor from an authorized certifying agency; these agencies typically charge a per diem fee plus transportation and other costs. There is usually a fee for the certification itself —  to the certifying agency and/or to the organization that developed the standards (i.e., Rainforest Alliance, Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center). Finally, all certifications require periodic audits and renewals which incur costs.

Because coffee production systems vary so widely, and certifying agencies all have their own fee schedules, it’s difficult to pin a precise dollar amount on how much it costs a given farm (or unit of production) to get one of the major certifications. Below, I’ll present some guidelines, fees, and variables that give a sense of the cost of obtaining and maintaining certification. I’ve only included the three certifications that are most concerned with ecological standards, and therefore incur costs related to growing methods.

Costs that influence any coffee certification

Costs to meet the standard. The major coffee certifications have a whole suite of rules and standards that must be met. Some are elaborate and complex, especially the standards set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for products sold as organic in this country. Few farms will be able to meet all these standards without some adjustments.

  • Meeting the various standards could include a wide variety of time, labor, and material outlay. Examples might be starting up a major organic composting program, planting native trees, constructing wastewater treatment facilities, or soil testing.
  • For organic certification, there is a three-year conversion period after the farmer stops using prohibited materials. During those three years, the producer farms organically, but cannot sell his crop as organic or receive any price premiums.
  • Costs to bring a farm into compliance with ecological criteria such as shade cover, riparian buffers, etc. can be significant. For example, Rainforest Alliance has criteria relating to setting aside or enhancing natural habitat. In one study (CI 2005), two estates in Brazil reported this cost was $10,000 to $50,000 for consulting fees, seed and plant material, planting, and management of these areas. In addition, there was the opportunity cost of losing this land from production. Another study in El Salvador (Romanoff 2010) found the average cost of on-farm investment to achieve Rainforest Alliance or Starbucks CAFE Practices conservation and environmental standards only was  $58/ha ($42/ha for farms larger than 100 ha, $61/ha for smaller farms, 43 farms surveyed). Total costs to meet all the standards, plus needed technical assistance, was $111/ha for larger farms, $156/ha for smaller ones.
  • Even if a farm produces coffee in a manner that complies with many, most, or all of the requirements set forth by a particular certification, it’s up to the farmer to prove it. This involves forms and paperwork. On the plus side, this typically improves farm management by forcing a fair amount of organization and administrative streamlining. On the downside, literacy levels of many producers can make this challenging.

Auditing expenses. An auditor has to come and inspect the farm, check all the paperwork, and make sure the farm is in complete compliance with the standards. Each certification scheme authorizes various certification agencies around the world to perform this work (e.g., OCIA International, Biolatina). Usually, one agency can perform audits for multiple certifications, if needed. Factors influencing the price of this audit include:

  • The number of certification organizations/bodies available in the producer’s area (a higher number leads to more competition and therefore lowers prices).
  • The speed with which an auditor works and the size of the operation being audited (most charge a per diem rate, so the longer they are on site, the more it costs to perform the audit).
  • Distance to travel to the audit location, as well as they condition of the roads (transportation costs and time add to the cost of the audit).

Continuing indirect costs. Once certification standards are met and the certification is awarded, there are usually on-going costs in addition to annual inspections.  All certifications have some sort restrictions that require segregation of coffee and chain of custody documentation, and  internal controls and compliance. For organic (and therefore Bird-Friendly) and standards that include environmental criteria, there are the added labor costs of weeding, pruning, pest control, and production of organic compost. Losses in yield are common in both shade and organic production systems after the transition from conventional farming, and may increase as time goes on.

Specific costs for major coffee certifications

Again, I’ve only included the three certifications that are most concerned with ecological standards, and therefore incur costs related to growing methods.

ORGANIC

Direct costs to producer: Organic certification fees vary, since each agency sets its own fee schedule. They are based on the size of the production unit, previous years’ sales, and which or how many different countries (and therefore different standards) the crop will be certified to sell to. In addition, a fee ranging from $150 to $300/day is charged is charged for the inspection itself, plus transportation and other costs. Conversion to organic takes three years once a producer complies with the standards. Initially, there are annual audits the first two years, with a certification audit in year three.

Potential annual direct costs: Annual audits are required. Random audits also occur. As one example, for a single producer with about 20 ha of coffee, the cost was over $3,000 per year (pers. comm.). To help control costs, there is a provision in the National Organic Program (which regulates products sold as organic in the U.S.) that every single producer in a cooperative with many small holders do not need to be inspected every year. Only a percentage of producers are inspected annually on a rotating basis (this ruling has come under fire, as recently as 2007). Thus, total costs are spread over all members, which reduces the cost for each member. In one Mexico case study, the cost was $1300 to $1550 per annum per producer organization (Potts et al. 2010).

Costs further up supply chain: Other players up the supply chain who handle organic coffee must also be certified. As they do with producers, costs to other parties vary depending on the certification agency and size of the operation being certified. This has been estimated at $700 to $3000 a year [SCAA 2010].

RAINFOREST ALLIANCE

Direct costs to producer: In October 2010, Rainforest Alliance changed how it levied fees. The coffee importer is now primarily responsible (see Costs further up the supply chain, below). Previously, RA charged a fee to producers for certification at the rate of $5/ha for group certification and $7.50/ha for individual farms.

Costs of audits are still paid by the producer, although sometimes buyers help with costs. A study from Brazil(CI 2005) for larger producers (Ipanema Coffees was one, and is one of the largest producers in the world) stated that annual audit costs were between $1000 and $5000. A study in El Salvador (Romanoff 2010) found Rainforest Alliance audits cost up to $3.61/ha, but varied depending on the efficiency of the auditor.

Costs further up supply chain: The first buyer of the green coffee pays a Participation Fee of $0.015/lb of green coffee sold.

SMITHSONIAN BIRD-FRIENDLY

Direct costs to producer: BF-certified coffee must be certified organic, so those costs apply. Many organic certification bodies are also accredited to audit for BF certification. There is a “symbolic” fee for the BF certificate.

Potential annual direct costs: Re-certification audits for BF every three years, but are combined with organic audits.

Costs further up supply chain: Importers pay $100 a year to use the BF logo, and roasters pay $0.10/pound to do so (down from $0.25/lb) [SCAA 2010]. Fees go to Smithsonian to support program costs and bird conservation research.

Parting thoughts

Due to the wide range of variables, these guidelines only give a sense of the costs involved in environmental certifications, but nonetheless may be eye-opening to the average consumer. Of course, some context is necessary, and the topic of whether the costs of eco-certification is worth it to a “typical” producer is the subject of another post. Still — it’s worth a quick example. We’ll take some statistics from a paper examining this issue (Valkila 2009):

80% of the farmers in in Nicaragua have less than 3.5 ha of coffee. The average yields of organic small farmers are 329 kg/ha. Thus, the “typical” organic small-holder produces 2539 pounds of coffee. Let’s give that farmer a very good price, reflecting current high prices and assuming it goes right to the farmer: $2/lb. That gives the farmer $5078 gross income for the year to provide for his family, pay for farm inputs and improvements, etc., etc. The cost of the annual audit alone for organic certification puts a pretty big dent in that.

Of course, the variation in yields, farm size, production costs and so on, added to multiple factors in certification costs, make these calculations merely illustrative, but at least provide a bit of context.

Sources and more information

[CI] Consumers International. 2005. From Bean to Cup: How Consumer Choice Impacts upon Coffee Producers and the Environment. Consumers International and International Institute for Environment and Development, London. 64 pp.

Millard, E. 2011. Incorporating agroforestry approaches into commodity value chains. Environmental Management 48:365-377.

Potts, J., J. van der Meer, and J. Daitchman. 2010. The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review 2010: Sustainability and Transparency. International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Romanoff, S. 2010. Shade coffee in biological corridors: potential results at the landscape level in El Salvador. Culture and Agriculture 32:27-41.

[SCAA] Specialty Coffee Association of America, Sustainability Council. 2010. Sustainable coffee certifications comparison matrix.

Valkila, J. 2009. Fair Trade organic coffee  production in Nicaragua — sustainable development or a poverty trap? Ecological Economics 68:3018-3025.

Photo from iStockphoto, used under license.

Certifications / Fair and Direct Trade

What’s happening with Fair Trade?

Big kerfluffle, well explained in the following posts; make sure to read the comments. My thoughts on how this relates to other certifications follow.

These posts bring up a two-pronged issue that is not only at the crux of the discontent with TransFair USA/Fair Trade USA, but could apply to other certifications. It’s akin to “mission creep,” though arguably with worse consequences. It’s a veering away or dilution of the mission. First is the incorrect notion that the Fair Trade movement is about alleviating poverty, rather than creating a viable alternative market that addresses global trade systems that are unfair to small producers (and providing the resources needed to empower these producers). The Small Farmers, Big Change post has a great example regarding tea and plantation certification.

Which brings us to the second prong, and the heart of the matter, which is that the contention that TransFair USA/Fair Trade USA is more concerned with growing the “brand” than advancing the mission. Small Farmers, Big Change quotes a coffee cooperative rep from Peru:

“They are so concerned with growing the system, advancing at all costs, that they will only end with the extinction of small farmers.”

By shifting away from the small producers and trying to get as many products and players into the Fair Trade system as possible, the argument goes, the standards are being weakened. Creating a second set of modified standards to bring large (often corporate) producers into the fold allows them to “green” a small portion of their sourcing, and offer these goods at a price that can undercut that of cooperatives and smaller producers. If nothing else, this “corporatization” of Fair Trade is creating real anger and alienation, which is beginning to lead to public confusion and distrust of Fair Trade certifications in general.

This has an unsettling parallel in the eco-certification world: the rapid growth and expansion of Rainforest Alliance certified farms, forests, and products. It’s old news that many people are unhappy with Rainforest Alliance working with corporations that seem largely at odds with the spirit of the certification (you can read my post “Discontent with certifications” from more on this topic)., although it certainly hasn’t reached the revolt stage we seem to be approaching with Fair Trade. Many people are watching how the Fair Trade issue plays out, and it may shape the progress and strategies of other certification schemes in the future.

Certifications / Corporate coffee

Certified coffee: current market share, part 2

(Update: I now regularly update the post Corporate coffee: How much is eco-certified? as new information becomes available.)

I often point out that the amount of sustainably-grown coffee that various large corporate coffee roasters purchase is a very small proportion of their total coffee purchases. In a previous post, I looked at the current market share of certified sustainably-grown coffee broken down by certification. Here, we’ll look at which of the world’s major coffee buyers/roasters are purchasing this coffee.

The source of this data is the Tropical Commodity Coalition, a group of ten NGOs that puts out annual reports on various aspects of the coffee, tea, and cocoa industries.  The Coffee Barometer 2009 presents market developments in the certified coffee sector.

Among the interesting data included is a summary of the green (unroasted) coffee purchases by each of the world’s top ten coffee buyers for 2008. It highlights how much “certified” coffee each buyer purchased, including Rainforest Alliance, Utz Certified, organic, Fair Trade, 4c, and the private initiatives of Starbucks (CAFE Practices) and Nestlè (Nespresso AAA Sustainable Quality Coffee Program).

In this post, I’ll disregard coffee purchased under Fair Trade (which does not have strong environmental standards) and the 4C Code (see this post on Nestlè and deforestation for information on this bottom-rung system, which does not include environmental criteria any of us would consider as being meaningfully “eco-friendly”). I’ll leave in the Starbucks and Nespresso programs and comment on them below.

So, how much eco-friendly, sustainably-grown coffee is purchased by the big buyers?

Nestlè. Owns Nescafè, Nespresso, Taster’s Choice, Clasico. Purchased 780,000 tons of green coffee in 2008.

  • 13,000 tons under their Nespresso AAA Sustainable Quality Coffee Program, or 1.7% of total purchases –but read on. The standards used by Nestlè in this program are not publicly available. Nestlè is working with Rainforest Alliance for guidance, but currently source farms are not certified by Rainforest Alliance. From what I have been able to gather, this program probably has fewer meaningful requirements for environmental protection than Fair Trade or Utz Certified, so pegging them at 1.7% is being generous.

Kraft. Yuban, Maxwell House, General Foods International Coffee, Gevalia, Kenco, Maxim, Tassimo, Nabob, and Sanka. 740,000 tons.

  • 29,500 tons Rainforest Alliance, 4% of total.

Sara Lee. Senseo, Java Coast, various foodservice, Merrild, Kanis & Gunnink, Cafe Pilao, Cafitesse, Harris, Piazza d’Oro; Douwe Egberts is its coffee subsidiary, under which many of these brands appear. 450,000 tons.

  • 20,000 tons Utz Certified (4.4%). The Utz focus is more on traceability and the business end of the spectrum, not environmental standards.

Smuckers. Folgers and Millstone (acquired from Procter & Gamble), Kava, Dunkin Donuts grocery store coffee. 280,000 tons.

  • 1,500 tons Rainforest Alliance/Fair Trade/organic (0.5%). This is a combination of the three, rather than the total amount being triple-certified. There are few organic coffees in their line, one RA coffee (discontinued as of 2011), so the amount is heavily weighted toward Fair Trade. Because of the relatively weak environmental standards of Fair Trade, this means the percentage of eco-friendly coffee is even lower.

Starbucks. 175,000 tons.

  • 4,500 tons organic (2.6%).
  • 120,500 tons under their CAFE Practices (68.8%, for a combined total of 71.4%). I recently took a look at the environmental standards of Starbucks CAFE Practices, and found they  address many more relevant ecological issues than either Fair Trade or UTZ Certified, and they are certainly much stronger than the Nespresso program. What does this mean?

Starbucks buys nearly twice as much coffee grown under meaningful environmental standards than the four largest coffee buyers in the world combined.

Perhaps more than all nine other big buyers. And they have developed these standards, worked with farmers to meet them, and use third-party verification as part of their own corporate initiative. Say what you want about the Mermaid, they do good work on the ground.

Tchibo. 170,000 tons.

  • 5,500 tons Rainforest Alliance/Fair Trade/organic (3.2%). See note under Smuckers about this combined total.

Aldi. Purchases for their private label store brands Beaumont, Alcafe, and Grandessa Signature. 145,000 tons. Percentages not disclosed.

Melitta. Melitta, World Harvest Estate. 145,000tons. Percentages not disclosed.

Lavazza. 140,000 tons.

  • 1,400 tons Rainforest Alliance (1%).

Segafredo. Segrafredo is a brand division of Massimo Zanetti, Beverage Group, which also owns Chock Full o’Nuts, Chase and Sanborn, MJB, and Hills Bros. They grow all their own coffee on plantations in Brazil (said to be the largest plantation in the world) and Costa Rica. Presumably, the 120,000 tons quoted in the report apparently is their production, not actually purchased. None is certified.

So, not counting Aldi and Melitta, since they did not disclose how much (or if) they bought any certified coffee, the big buyers purchased 2,855,000 tons of coffee, of which less than 7% was grown under verifiable sustainable environmental standards.

As mentioned in the last post, I’ve often heard that the reason big roasters do not purchase more sustainable coffee is because there isn’t enough available. This report also gives data on the amount of certified coffee produced, versus the amount purchased. There were 124,000 tons of Rainforest Alliance certified coffee produced in 2008, a surplus of 62,000 tons that was not purchased as certified. The surplus of Utz Certified coffee was 230,500 tons. Had all this been bought, then the percentage of certified coffee purchased by these buyers would have risen to around 17%.

Certifications / Rainforest Alliance

Certified coffee: current market share, part 1

(Update: I now regularly update the post Eco-certified coffee: How much is there? when new information is available.)

The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review 2010: Sustainability and Transparency was issued by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in conjunction with other partners and collaborators. It compares characteristics and provides market trends for ten “voluntary sustainability initiatives” in the forestry, coffee, tea, cocoa and banana sectors. These include the familiar coffee certification schemes of Rainforest Alliance, Utz Certified, organic, and Fair Trade. Also included is 4C Code of Conduct compliant coffee, the bottom rung of coffee production standards (you can read more about them in this post).

The Review reports that as of 2009, there were 457,756 metric tons of sustainable coffee sold in the world, or about 8% of global exports. Below this is depicted graphically. The “private sustainability initiatives” are Starbucks CAFE Practices and the Nespresso AAA Sustainable Quality Program.

The document goes on to note, however, that the supply of sustainable coffee is actually 17% of global production (1,243,257 metric tons).

Due to a variety of factors related to variations in quality, the timing of demand, and the additional licensing, marketing and product costs associated with carrying compliant or certified coffee through the supply chain as sustainable coffee, more sustainable coffee is produced than is actually sold as sustainable.

This situation is not new, and has puzzled me for some time, at least in the context of why large corporate coffee roasters, like Kraft and Nestlé, don’t increase the amount of sustainably-grown coffee they buy.  A perennial sore spot among many sustainable coffee proponents and Rainforest Alliance, for instance, is that there doesn’t seem to be any increase in the proportion of certified beans in corporate-owned coffee brands; they sit at the minimum of 30% certified beans. The explanation I usually hear is that there isn’t enough supply for that proportion to grow, yet it appears that there is (see more here). Perhaps I’m missing something.

Although, as the report points out, just the act of producing coffee in a sustainable manner has positive impacts in growing communities, without the added benefits of enhanced income and/or access to markets, there is less incentive for farmers to utilize these methods.  Presumably, a chunk of the onus is on the consumer to be willing to seek out and pay more for this coffee. I’ve flogged that pony before (here for example).

Market share information was provided for the past five years, although not every scheme has been around that long. For those in coffee that have existed at least four years, Rainforest Alliance had the highest annual growth rate at 64%, with both Utz and Fair Trade at 30%.

Speaking of Rainforest Alliance, there was this graph breaking down certified area by country. There were similar graphs for Utz Certified (top three producers were Brazil, Vietnam, and Colombia) and Fair Trade (Peru, Colombia, and Brazil); organic and 4C coffees were only broken down regionally. It would be interesting to see these reconfigured as percent of each country’s production.

There was also a wealth of data on other aspects such as certification costs and premiums to growers. There were detailed comparisons of and various characteristics including income sources, chain of custody methods, and governance (the charts on page 39 showing board representation by stakeholder and geographic region was quite an eye-opener).

In an upcoming post I’ll look at similar data from another perspective: how much of this sustainably-grown, certified coffee is purchased by the each of the world’s top ten major coffee buyers.