Certifications

Africa / Coffee reviews / Organic coffee

Review: PT’s Kenya Kia Ora

Plainspoken Coffee. A Coffee Review for Ordinary People by Ordinary People, #45.

In my exploration of coffee growing in Kenya, I discussed how little organic coffee was produced in the county.  At least two factors account for this. First is that there is little governmental support or official policies regarding organic agriculture in the country [1].  Another factor is the prevalence of various diseases and pests, including coffee berry disease (Colletotrichum coffeanum), coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix), and coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei).  The severity of these problems has been blamed, at times, on the lack of integrated pest and farm management, and has resulted in very heavy use of pesticides and fungicides. In particular, the overuse of copper fungicides has exacerbated pest problems (although some copper solutions are actually permitted under organic standards) and contaminated the environment [2].

According to interviews with coffee-growing small holders in the vicinity of Nyeri [3], farmers have little knowledge of what products are considered eco-friendly, even though they acknowledge more birds and wildlife are present when they do not spray their crops. They also indicated that the mills to which they sell their coffee have strict regulations that include spraying regimes and prohibitions on intercropping with shade trees.  Without institutional support, organic farming may never gain momentum in the country.

Although Kenya currently exports around 50,000 tons of coffee annually, only about 400 tons are organic (2008 figures, [1]). So when I saw that PT’s Coffee Roasting had an organic coffee from Kenya, I knew this was a coffee with a story that I wanted to review.

PT’s Coffee Roasting Co.: Kenya Kia-Ora Organic

Background

There was little to be found online about Kia-Ora Farm. PT’s Jeff Taylor put me in contact with the importer, InterAmerican Coffee. Their information was roughly the same as was being reported on various roaster web sites: the coffee was intercropped with macadamia nut trees at 1600 to 1900 m in Kirinyaga. Not much to go by. The InterAmerican bean bio had one tidbit that helped me track down the source: it was certified organic by one of the handful of agencies working in Kenya, Soil Association Certification Ltd. out of the UK. A dig through documents on their site revealed that Kia-Ora Farm was owned by Kenya Nut Company (KNC).

KNC is one of the world’s top five macadamia processors. Macadamias are native to Australia, and were introduced into Kenya in the 1940s. In the early 1970s, the Kenyan government tasked KNC to develop the industry. KNC is a Kenyan/Japanese joint venture; the chair is Pius Ngugi, one of Kenya’s most wealthy businessmen. KNC has now expanded into cashews, tea packing, wine production, and arabica coffee. Overall, the company operates seven farms on over 8,000 acres, and is also supplied with raw product by thousands of smallholders.

Coffee supplied to KNC is processed in the Thika Coffee Mills (one of the handful of “factories” that handle coffee in the country), a KNC company, for both export and the local market. KNC also roasts and packages its own blends of coffee under its trademark “Out of Africa”.

The specifics about Kia-Ora — size of the farm, organic history — remain elusive.  One roaster indicated the farm grew French Mission (Bourbon) and SL varietals. If anybody has further details, please drop me a line or leave them in the comments.

Coffee review

PT’s treatment of this coffee was a light roast, no oils on the surface of the beans. A lot of people tried this coffee, and some were new to the wine-like Kenyan profile. That can spell trouble for some distinctive coffees, but everybody but one panelist enjoyed it.

Surprising was the malt flavor a couple of people detected on the front end when very hot out of the French press; this was not found in samples brewed on the Technivorm. Either way, the coffee had a resonant, tart, wine-like acidity so often admired in Kenyan coffees. Grapefruit overlain with honey seemed to be a dominant player, but one taster noticed a hint of savory on the palate, reminiscent of tomato (that’s a flavor I’ve seen in coffee descriptions, but never connected with until now; it’s way better than it sounds!).

More than one person thought that the Kia-Ora’s tartness was starting to veer off into sour territory, especially when made at concentrations at or above 1 gr coffee to 15 gr water*.  I like this characteristic acidity, but it was this sharp forwardness that unsettled some panelists that weren’t familiar with it.  Thus, the overall rating worked out to just over 3.5 motmots,  but there were many people who scored it higher (one gave it a 4), and those that preferred a heavier bodied, lower acid coffee dragged down the average. Experimentation with the ratio of coffee to water should help people find their sweet spot (low concentrations stripped it of character, however) and Kenyan coffee aficionados should really enjoy it.

We also tried this coffee provided to us by Strongtree Organic Coffee Roasters (although they didn’t know we’d be reviewing it). They took the roast just a tiny tad farther. This seemed to take the edge of the sour note, and steadied the acidity. Importantly, the coffee consistently maintained all it’s good qualities between the two roasters.

Noble Coffee Roasting‘s Kia-Ora offering is a finalist in the Good Food Awards for coffee.

Parting thoughts

Much, perhaps most, of Kenya’s coffee is grown in the sun using (a lot) of chemicals. The fact that a major company is investing in and exporting high-quality organic coffee (and nuts), probably on a relatively large scale, is encouraging. It was particularly impressive to me after reading about the struggles in both the Kenyan coffee and macadamia sectors.

Some coffee varieties that have fungal-disease resistance are being developed, which would help farmers maintain their yields, and farms, as well as support organic production. However, if these varietals are viable, the question remains — can they produce the same cup quality as heirloom varietals? Historically, that hasn’t been the case, and a lowering of quality may equate to lower prices to farmers, and subsequent abandonment of coffee as a crop, as has happened in the past.

When coffee prices declined in the 1990s, some farmers switched from coffee to macadamia. In fact, KNC has worked to encourage small farmers to grow macadamias to decease overall dependence on coffee and tea. Now, the nut crops are threatened by major fungal outbreaks. Integrated pest management and good cultural techniques can help minimize these outbreaks [4], but should farmers again turn to certain fungicides, organic certification could be jeopardized on coffee farms that also have macadamia.

These struggles have helped fuel a sell-off of agricultural land to developers in Kenya. For instance, the 1,000-ha Tatu City, is slated for a former coffee farm outside the town of Thika, about 40 km north of Nairobi.

With Kia-Ora, KNC has proven that good quality, organic coffee can be a commercial success, even as a specialty coffee export. Let’s hope this achievement is recognized and built upon in the years to come.

[1] Kledal , P. R. , H. F. Oyiera , J. W. Njoroge, and E. Kiarii . 2009. Organic food and farming in Kenya. In: Willer, H. and Kilcher, L. (eds.) The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2009, FiBL, IFOAM, ITC.
[2] Nyambo, B. T., D. M. Masaba, and G. J. Hakiza. 1996. Integrated pest management of coffee for small-scale farmers in East Africa: needs and limitations. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 1:125-132.
[3] Lamond, G. 2007. Local knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services in smallholder coffee farms in Central Province, Kenya. MSc thesis. University of Wales, Bangor. UK.
[4] Mbaka, J. N., L. S. Wamocho, L. Turoop, and M. M. Waiganjo. 2009. The incident and distribution of Phytophthora cinnamomi Rands on macadamia in Kenya. Jrl. Animal and Plant Sciences 4:289-297.
*As ordinary people, we try not to aim for precision in these reviews, striving to make coffee without adherence to measurements as would most people. But I do try to mix it up a little, and when I’m considering a review coffee on my own, I will often make more careful experiments.

Coffee awards and competitions / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Cupping for Quality 2010, round 2

For the past several years, I’ve covered the Rainforest Alliance (RA) Cupping for Quality awards, a competition for RA-certified farms. In its first year, 2003, eight countries submitted 40 coffees for consideration. There is now so much participation, and to accommodate the variable seasonality of the world’s coffees, that two cuppings are held each year: May for Central America and India, and December for the southern hemisphere including Brazil, Peru, East Africa, and Indonesia.

My last report was for the December 2009 cupping, and just recently RA announced the winners of the May 2010 cupping.  There were 68 coffees submitted, mostly from Central America, but with India and the Dominican Republic competing for the first time.

Here are the top ten winners and their scores.

  1. El Injerto (Guatemala) — 89.73. Four time winner of the Guatemalan Cup of Excellence. 470 of the 720 ha of this farm in Huehuetenango (15.564794, -91.941574) is forested.
  2. El Cashal (El Salvador)  — 86.95  Located in AhuachapÁ¡n in the western part of El Salvador (map here).
  3. Coopranaranjo R.L. (Costa Rica)* —  86.45. A cooperative/mill in Naranjo, Central Valley. Markets coffee under five different brands. There isn’t any mention of which/how many producers are RA certified.
  4. La BendiciÁ³n (Guatemala)  —  86.38. Located in Chimaltenango (14.486317, -91.004567). An allied farm, Santa Elisa Pachup, came in second place a couple of years ago.
  5. San Diego Buena Vista (Guatemala) —  86.37. Acatenango, Chimaltenango (14.543416, -90.975137).
  6. Coopedota R.L. (Costa Rica) —  86.20.  A large cooperative and mill, marketing at least eight brands. One, Cafe Hermosa, is marketed as RA certified. The mill also has facilities for separating micro-lots from individual producers.
  7. La Hilda (Costa Rica) —  85.95. A single estate. A look at this video, which I believe to be the correct place, shows that the production area is primarily sun coffee, as is typical in much of Costa Rica. You can look at it in Google Earth as well (10.093514, -84.216667). It looks like the production area is sun, but that there is adjacent forest. Portland Roasting works directly with this farm more info at their site.
  8. El Zapote (Guatemala) —   85.78. There are multiple farms with this name in Guatemala, but I am pretty sure this is the finca in Acatenango, Chimaltenango (14.547683, -90.968283).
  9. Cafetalera TirrÁ¡, S.A. (Costa Rica)  —   85.13. Processes and markets the coffee grown in Poas and Alajuela.
  10. Jesus MarÁ­a (Nicaragua)  —   85.13. I think this is near Matagalpa.

*Aside from #7, the Costa Rican winners are cooperatives and/or mills.  Coffee from Costa Rica is often named or branded by the mill, which processes coffee from farms in the surrounding region, so farm source can sometimes be difficult to determine. These are pretty large entities, and Rainforest Alliance explained to me that while not all members/suppliers of the named winner are certified, the mill or co-op submits a representative sample of 100% certified coffee from a RA-certified farm or farms. RA requires segregation and traceability of their certified coffee from the rest of the coffee moving through the supply chain.

Certifications / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance updates standards

Rainforest Alliance promotes standards for sustainable production of a variety of agriculture crops through standards set by the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN). In order for a farm to be Rainforest Alliance certified, they must comply with an overarching set of standards, with some crops requiring additional or specific standards. Evaluation of compliance audits are done by Sustainable Farm Certification, International.

In July 2010, the SAN Sustainable Agriculture Standard was revised and updated from the previous version dated April 2009. Several criteria were added. The ones dealing with the environment are:

  • Farms must know the sources of their energy, how much they use, and have an energy efficiency plan.
  • Farms must implement a plan to maintain or restore connectivity of natural ecosystems within their boundaries.
  • Farms must implement measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon dioxide sequestration.

None of these are critical (required), but are rather novel and worthwhile additions to coffee certification schemes in particular.

The following criteria having to do with the environment were modified:

  • The criteria regarding farms not destroying any natural ecosystem, a critical criterion, is now more detailed and specific. It now also says that any natural ecosystems purposefully destroyed since late 1999 need to undergo analysis and mitigation.
  • The criteria regarding the prohibition on harvesting of endangered or threatened plants now includes the language “or other taking” of these plants. A statement banning certification of farms that have deforested in the two years prior to the start of the certification process has been deleted.

It appears that farms that underwent deforestation within two years of the start of the certification process can now be certified, but have to implement some sort of mitigation process. I’m not sure if this is a net gain or not.

You can read through these now-current standards in this PDF document.

As far as I know, there have been no revisions to the coffee standard; the last version I have is November 2005.

Certifications / Retail and specialty roasters / Starbucks

Starbucks CAFE Practices

I have provided information on the five major certifications applied to coffee: organic, Fair Trade, Smithsonian Bird-Friendly, Rainforest Alliance, and Utz Certified.

Starbucks does sell certified organic and Fair Trade coffees. You can see how much coffee they (and other major companies) purchase and how much is eco-certified in this data table, which is kept updated.

Starbucks also has its own green coffee sourcing standard, known as CAFE (Coffee and Farm Equity) Practices.  It was developed in partnership with the non-profit environmental group Conservation International and SCS Global Services. (SCS), an independent evaluation and verification company. The CAFE Practices program covers four categories. Two, product quality and economic accountability, are criteria that are required by all Starbucks suppliers. The other two categories are social responsibility and environmental leadership. I’ll focus on the environmental criteria.

How it works

Like some other certifications, CAFE Practices operates on a point system. The social responsibility and environmental leadership categories are divided into sections. A least 60% of possible points are needed for preferred supplier status, and 80% for strategic supplier status. These suppliers get enhanced pricing and contract terms. [Update: the average score was 80%, and 60% of supplies were preferred or strategic; these data were for all new and renewing farms in the year 2012.]

A point is awarded for compliance with individual “indicators.” In the current version, there are 185 total indicators for large suppliers (greater than 12 ha) and 124 for smallholders, including those who are part of a cooperative.

In the section “Coffee Growing — Environmental Leadership” 45 points are possible (42 for smallholders).  Many of the individual indicators are actually multiple variations on the same criteria; only one of them can be counted for a point. For instance, the indicators dealing with organic mulch award a point for either 25% of the production area being covered by organic matter, 50%, or 100% — three indicators but only one point possible.

What kinds of environmental criteria are included?

The “Coffee Growing — Environmental Leadership” section covers water body protection, including criteria for width and type of vegetated buffer zones along permanent and seasonal water bodies, and use of chemicals or waste storage near water bodies; protection of soil resources, including measures to control and prevent erosion and use of organic mulches and cover crops; conserving biodiversity, including maintaining a shade canopy, protecting wildlife, and establishment of conservation areas; and environmental management, including pest and disease control.

There is an additional section that deals with environmental issues having to do with coffee processing, specific to either wet processing or dry processing, which includes indicators on water conservation, waste management, and energy use.

A closer look at Conserving Biodiversity

This particular subsection has three indicators that are mandatory: 1) native trees are only removed if they are a hazard to people or “significantly” compete with coffee plants, 2) hunting or commercial collecting of flora or fauna is prohibited, and 3) no conversion of natural forest to agricultural production.

Indicators specific to maintaining shade cover include percent cover, canopy tree diversity and native species benchmarks, and preservation of epiphytes and vines.

How does this stack up?

The Starbucks CAFE Practices environmental criteria address many more relevant ecological issues than either Fair Trade certification standards or UTZ Certified Good Inside standards. Although there is some lack of specificity (e.g., what constitutes native trees being in “significant” competition with coffee plants?), they are far less generic and more comprehensive than Fair Trade or UTZ standards. While the large number of indicators from which to garner points seems to make it easy for suppliers to attain favored status, I think that their division into sections and subsections covering a wide range of ecological issues is more valuable and should result in more eco-friendly farms than fewer, weaker, or more vague “requirements.”

To compare Starbucks CAFE Practices environmental criteria with those of Rainforest Alliance would probably take sitting down and mock-scoring some imaginary farms. I suspect that a farm meeting Rainforest Alliance’s minimum environmental standards would turn out to be using more sustainable growing methods than the typical Starbucks preferred supplier — although a lack of standardization among the standards might make that assessment difficult (Rainforest Alliance uses 99 criteria in 10 principals, with percentage thresholds for certification). It also wouldn’t surprise me that a Starbucks strategic supplier that scored highly in the Environmental Leadership sections could beat out a Rainforest Alliance-certified farm.

Because the Smithsonian Bird-Friendly biodiversity criteria are so well-developed and targeted, and since their certification also requires organic certification, their environmental standards are the strongest.

Overall, I’m generally impressed with the scope and level of detail of Starbucks CAFE Practices environmental standards, and find them superior to those of some highly-regarded certifications.

Criticisms and more resources

There have been accusations that the reality on the ground with some Starbucks suppliers is inconsistent with CAFE Practices standards. In some cases at least, that is true, but it is also true with other certifications; Starbucks tends to receive a lot of scrutiny. Third party verification systems are subject to the same corruption and deceit whether they are certifying organic products or Starbucks coffee. There are plenty of places where compliance can break down, and that’s the topic of a separate investigation.

To examine all of the Starbucks CAFE Practices criteria yourself, download the standards documents which are available online at the SCS web site. You can also download current and past Global Responsibility reports at the Starbucks website.

Updates:

  • This post discusses how the CAFE Practices program is assessed and its impacts.
  • In May 2015, I wrote an overview and update on Starbucks CAFE Practices for Daily Coffee News — read it here.
  • Starbucks has initiated other coffee sustainability projects, including farmer support centers, tree planting, coffee community support of several kinds, farmer loans, and co-founding the Sustainable Coffee Initiative. A summary about these efforts is at their website.

Starbucks coffee cup by Rudolf Schuba under a Creative Commons license.

Certifications / Organic coffee

New organic and eco-friendly coffee market data

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

The North American Organic Coffee Industry Report 2010 by Daniele Giovannucci shows that the North American organic coffee market topped $1.4 billion dollars in 2009. This represents 93 million pounds (around 42,000 metric tons) of organic coffee imported into the United States and Canada, a 4.1% growth since last year.

Meanwhile, Rainforest Alliance reports that it sold 193 million (87,583 metric tons) of certified coffee in 2009 (worldwide), up 41%. They estimate this as 1.5% of the international export market

In its 2009 annual report (PDF), UTZ Certified announced the amount of coffee it certified was up over 18% to whopping 804 million pounds (365,000 metric tons), produced in 21 countries. The report also noted that UTZ Certified arabica coffee provided an average premium of 5.7 cents/lb.

2009 figures are not yet available for Smithsonian’s Bird-Friendly certified coffee (which is also certified organic), but their 2008 figures are in this post, when I last provided market share data on eco-friendly coffees.

For a little perspective, world production in 2009 was about 7.4 million metric tons, and the U.S. imported 1.4 million metric tons of coffee. Sustainably-grown coffees are still a small slice of the pie.

Photo by Joe McCarthy under a Creative Commons license.

Certifications

New quick guide to certifications

There’s a new item on the main menu bar called “Certifications” where I’ve put together a quick guide to the five most common coffee certifications. It summarizes the goal of each, outlines their standards related to shade management or habitat protection, fees and price premiums involved, and links to more information.

I also added this reminder to the end of the guide, and I think it’s worth repeating here:

These certifications cost the producers money — both in fees and in changes to their methods to achieve the standards. Yet certifications don’t add intrinsic value to coffee. The extra money the farmer receives for the coffee is often entirely dependent on what the consumer is willing to pay for the social or environmental benefits of the product. Don’t expect people in the developing world to shoulder the cost of keeping your world green, safe, and prosperous. Be willing to pay more for these certifications!

Coffee news and miscellany / Fair and Direct Trade

Counter Culture Coffee transparency report

Counter Culture Coffee has just released its first annual Transparency Report, covering 2009. Simple, straightforward, five pages describing each of CCC’s Direct Trade coffees, including the date of the last farm visit by a CCC employee and how much they paid for each coffee in 2009. This, IMHO, is the future of coffee: roasters providing all the information a consumer could want or need to choose their coffee wisely and with a clear conscience.

Caribou Coffee / Certifications / Rainforest Alliance / Retail and specialty roasters

Caribou Coffee: All Rainforest Alliance by 2011

Caribou Coffee recently announced that it will be sourcing all of its beans from Rainforest Alliance certified farms by the end of 2011.

Caribou has been working towards this goal since mid-2006. Many of its coffees contain varying levels of Rainforest Alliance certified beans; Rainforest Alliance allows use of their seal on packages containing a minimum of 30% certified beans, so long as the percentage is displayed on the seal. That made me wonder if this announcement meant that every variety of coffee at Caribou would have RA-certified beans, or that every variety would consist of 100% RA-certified beans.

At the recent Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA) event, I verified that every variety of coffee at Caribou would consist of 100% RA-certified beans. This certification doesn’t necessarily mean it is shade-grown coffee, but meets a variety of environmental and social criteria.

Caribou Coffee is the second largest coffeeshop operation, behind Starbucks, with over 530 stores in 16 states as well as outside the U.S. It currently has seven varieties which are 100%  RA-certified: Colombia TimanÁ¡ (my personal favorite), Guatemala El ParaÁ­so, Sumatra Samosir Batak, La Minita Peaberry, Costa Rica Sombra del Poro, Lacuna (a blend of Guatemala, El Salvador and Ethiopia), and Lakeshore Blend (Guatemala, Costa Rica and Ethiopia). Including other coffee offerings which are at least 30% RA-certified, Caribou currently sources about 17 million pounds of coffee a year from RA-certified farms.

Certifications / Coffee awards and competitions / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance Cupping for Quality 2010 winners

The first set of 2010 winners of the Cupping for Quality competition, featuring Rainforest Alliance-certified coffees, was just announced at the annual Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA) meeting. RA now certifies 2% of world coffee exports.

This year, there will be two rounds of awards in order to better accommodate coffees from around the world, since coffee is a seasonal crop. The results below are from a cupping held in December, which included submissions from Brazil (11 samples), Peru (10), Hawaii (2, first time for this origin), Indonesia (6), Kenya (4, first time), and Tanzania, Uganda (first time) and Zambia (first time) with one sample each.

Here are the top ten coffees, with their scores, variety of coffee grown, farm size, altitude, processing method, and any details I’ve uncovered. The average score for the top ten coffees was 84.26.

  1. Kigutha Estate — Kenya. 86.54. Growing the bourbon (“French mission”) variety on 122.76 ha at 1700 m. Washed. Kigutha is in the Kiambu region, an area dominated by large privately-owned estates and plantations. It’s managed by Tropical Farm Management, part of the Neumann Kaffee Gruppe. TFM manages over 40 coffee estates and operates coffee projects for over 30,000 smallholder farmers. Many of their worldwide operations also have Rainforest Alliance certification.Environmental-related initiatives at Kigutha include integrated pest management, water conservation (including a dam that provides habitat for hippos), and soil erosion management. One of the bigger challenges for the farm was how to incorporate shade, since most coffee in Kenya is typically grown in the sun. The farm nursery is now cultivating 12 native tree species for use on the property, and they are aiming for 30% shade cover.
  2. Tunki — Peru (Puno, Tunkimayo sector). 86.00. Typica and bourbon on 3 ha at 1650 m. Washed. This coffee comes from members of CECOVASA (Central de Cooperativas Agrarias Cafetaleras de los Valles de. Sandia), a group of Fair Trade cooperatives totaling nearly 5000 members. CECOVASA has also been working with Conservation International. CECOVASA has won coffee quality awards before, as well as an award for their work preserving biodiversity.  Tunki is one of the eight cooperatives/brands (two others also placed in the top ten — see 5 and 6 below), and is also organic. “Tunki” is the local name for the national bird of Peru, the spectacular Andean Cock-of-the-Rock. Equal Exchange has a good article on a visit to CECOVASA. (Update: here’s an interview with the farmer. He has a quality tip: no sweaty mules.)
  3. Machare / Uru Estates — Tanzania (on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro). 85.71. KP and N39 on 300 ha at 1400 m. Washed. There are shade trees on the farm (many photos on the estate web site indicate something of a shade monoculture), and 30% has been left uncultivated. There is a nursery of indigenous trees used to plant in the protected area. The farm uses integrated pest management. The owners are involved in much community work, including coordinating hydro-electric generators to provide power and irrigation for nearby villages. Marchare was the first Utz Certified farm in Tanzania.
  4. Ipanema Coffees — Brazil (Alfenas – Sul de Minas). 84.50. Bourbon, catuai, and Mundo Novo on 2800 ha at 1000 m. Semi-washed.
  5. Quechua — Peru (Puno, Alfonso Ugarte sector). 84.06. Typica and caturra on 2 ha at 1700 m. Washed. Another coffee from CECOVASA members (see #2).
  6. Tambopata — Peru (Puno, Belen sector). 83.46. Typica and caturra on 2 ha at 1500 m. Washed. Another coffee from CECOVASA members (see #2).
  7. PT Olam Indonesia — Indonesia (North Sumatra). 83.4. Crowned Garuda Mandheling Grade 1 on 127.9 ha at 1000 m. Semi-washed. Small farmer group.
  8. Terranova Estate — Zambia. 83.33. SL28 and bourbon on 1000 ha at 1250 m. Dry process. I wrote about Terranova when it was one of Starbucks Black Apron coffees, and it includes a lengthy comment from the owners.
  9. Mirante da Boa Vista — Brazil (Minas Gerais, cerrado region). 82.79 (tie). Bourbon, Catuai, and Mundo Novo on 190 ha at 1000 m. Semi-washed.
  10. Nchengo Estate — Kenya  (Central Province). 82.79 (tie). SL28 on 135 ha at 1550 m. Washed.

The next round of cuppings will take place May in New York City. It will include primarily Central American origins, along with Colombia, Ethiopia, and India.

Coffee & Conservation covered previous Cupping for Quality winners in 2008 and 2009.

Certifications / Smithsonian Bird-Friendly

Bird-Friendly certified coffee at more Smithsonian units

In December, the Smithsonian Institution’s National Zoo began serving Bird-Friendly certified coffee. The certification standards for this coffee were, of course, developed by the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, making this an obvious move. Now more Smithsonian locations — the Natural History Museum, the National Museum of the
American Indian, the National Museum of American History, the Smithsonian
Castle, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, and the National Portrait
Gallery — will serve Bird-Friendly coffee.

This amounts to around 1,200 pounds of coffee brewed each month. An equal amount has been served each month in
the House of Representatives’ cafeterias since January.

The National Zoo coffee is roasted by Golden Valley Farms Coffee Roasters, which also offers retail sales online to consumers. The coffee provided in the other Smithsonian locations is roasted by S&D Coffee [now Westrock Coffee], one of the suppliers of coffee to McDonald’s.

Certifications / Coffee regions / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance certifies coffee in Vietnam

An oversupply of coffee was one of the catalysts of the world coffee crisis in the 1990s, and most of it came from Vietnam. Vietnam increased production 1100% that decade, assisted by development agencies and large multinational coffee roasters. Nearly all the coffee grown in this country is robusta (Coffea canephora), generally low quality beans historically used as filler in blends or in cheap coffee.

The planting of hundreds of thousands of hectares of robusta coffee in the 1990s alone, with its associated destruction of forest, caused significant environmental problems. The Buon Ma Thuot region Vietnam’s Central Highlands was at the center of the coffee boom, and it is also the focus of Rainforest Alliance’s (RA) efforts in promoting sustainable coffee production in the country.

RA began holding workshops in Vietnam several years ago, and two large coffee export companies (Dakman Vietnam, part of Volcafe; and ECOM Group) were especially responsive. These companies buy coffee from farmers who typically grow coffee on small farms less than 2 ha (5 ac) in size. By the end of 2008, over 600 farms (1000 ha) were RA certified. Now over 1000 farms are certified, covering 1600 ha (nearly 4000 ac). This is still a very small percentage of the area in coffee production, but encouraging as this is generally commodity coffee used by multinational roasters (I believe Kraft is a major purchaser).

Robusta coffee is typically grown in the sun, so the RA certification does not mean the coffee is shade grown. Instead, the certification emphasizes reduced agrochemical use, better waste management, and water conservation. Environmental and wildlife education efforts are also increasing.

Update: In 2019, the chapter, PGI Buon Ma Thuot Coffee in Vietnam, was published in the book Sustainability of European Food Quality Schemes, and is open access.

Robusta coffee farm in Vietnam’s Central Highlands by amasc under a Creative Commons license.

 

Certifications / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance announces growth in certified coffee

In December, I reported on the 2008 global market statistics for Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (SMBC)  Bird-Friendly-certified coffee. For the 2007-2008 crop year, 2700 metric tons (6 million pounds) of Bird-Friendly certified coffee was produced. This certification is at the farm level, with 1400 farms and 5000 ha (12,000 acres) under certification.

At the time, comparable numbers for Rainforest Alliance (RA)-certified coffee for 2008 totaled 62,296 metric tons (137 million pounds), up from around 40,000 metric tons (89 million pounds) in late 2007. As of late 2007, RA had 200,000 ha of coffee on nearly 17,000 farms.

Farmers typically receive a price premium of 5 to 10 cents per pound of Bird-Friendly-certified coffee on top of the premium they receive from their organic certification (a requirement for Bird-Friendly certification).

RA has announced figures for 2009. Production of RA-certified coffee was 168,114 metric tones (370 million pounds), an increase of 36% from 2008.  As of December 2009, there were 27,610 Rainforest Alliance Certified coffee farms around the world with 305,383 ha (754,618 acres) of land under certification (not all in production…this represents all the land on certified farms). I believe this represents 22 countries. Nine were added this year including India, Kenya, Uganda, the United States, Vietnam and Zambia.

Note that production volumes do not mean all the coffee grown under certified conditions was sold as such. Certified coffee may be blended with non-certified coffee, or the buyer may be interested in other attributes besides the certification and purchases it without intending to market it as certified, to give just a couple of examples.

However, RA indicated that their sales of certified beans grew by 41% in 2009, and that since 2003, the supply of RA-certified coffee has grown by an average of 64% annually with sales increasing by an average of 77% a year over the same period.

RA states that farmers receive an average price premium of $0.11 per pound of coffee.

Certifications / Retail and specialty roasters / Smithsonian Bird-Friendly

Certified Bird-Friendly coffee

I have a rotating list of recommended coffee roasters and retailers at the bottom of this page. They are all sources of sustainably-grown coffee, with online ordering available. These roasters have been chosen based on criteria which I’ve outlined in this post. Many of them carry certified organic, Rainforest Alliance, or Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (SMBC) Bird-Friendly® (BF) coffee, some do not. There are many reasons why coffee from farms with excellent environmental practices are not certified, and why many coffee roasters cannot afford to carry only certified coffees.

However, I understand some consumers prefer to buy only certified coffee. SMBC has the strongest shade/biodiversity criteria by far, so I have compiled this list of online sources of Bird Friendly® (BF)-certified coffee. I tried to find sources that regularly offered at least two varieties of BF-certified coffee, but remember that coffee is seasonal and there are not many certified farms, so availability may fluctuate. Be sure to check that the offering says it is BF-certified.

You can search for a retailer on the SMBC web site, and you can also verify that the source/farm listed is really a BF-certified farm with a look-up on the SMBC web site.

Certifications / Organic coffee

Organic coffee and yield

My recent post “Farmers are abandoning organic coffee — and it’s your fault” generated several interesting comments. The message — that despite increasing demand for organic coffee, the prices buyers are willing to pay are not enough to cover the added cost of organic production — is not new and has been fairly well researched. A couple of people commented that lost yields (less coffee produced per unit of land) under organic methods are often overlooked when discussing overall organic production costs.

How much yield is lost under organic coffee farming methods, and what causes it? I looked at several peer-reviewed papers that examined the costs of organic versus conventional coffee production that included information on the difference in yield in the two systems.

The difference in yields
A paper comparing 10 paired organic and conventional farms in Costa Rica [1], found that five of the organic farms met or exceeded production of their conventional counterparts over a three-year period, but that the average mean yield of the organic farms combined was 22% lower than that of the conventional farms. They calculated average organic yield as 1080 kg/ha of green coffee, versus 1386 kg/ ha for conventional.

Two studies from Mexico [2,3] indicated yields 28 and 44% lower for organic farms versus conventional. In Nicaragua, the organic yields were 33% lower than conventional (789 kg/kg versus 1183) [4]. Yields for organic coffee were calculated at 43% lower for Costa Rica, but equal in Guatemala, and only 2% lower for Honduras [5].

In the latter study, this discrepancy between countries was attributed to variations in technification levels. The majority of Costa Rican coffee is conventional, high-input and high-yield, bolstered by years of industry support for higher-yielding varieties and technification. Yields for organic coffee are much lower in contrast. On the other hand, there is less organizational,financial, and logistical support for farmers in countries like Honduras. Their conventional coffee is not as technified and it’s yields are lower, and not much better than organic.

What causes lower yield?
Whether organic or conventional, coffee yield depends on many factors, including annual climatic factors and varying densities of both coffee and shade trees. While some loss in productivity comes in organic production is related into increased use of shade (which can result in fewer flowers, and therefore fruit, per plant), the main culprit is the difficulty in obtaining enough organic fertilizer.

Coffee requires very high amounts of nutrients. For instance, it takes about 2000 kg of organic fertilizer to supply 40 kg of nitrogen to a hectare of land, versus 87 to 267 kg of inorganic fertilizer [4].  Many farmers simply do not have the ability to produce or acquire the additional compost, manures, and other organic matter needed to sustain yields. This is especially true for smallholders with limited resources and limited means of assessing soil health and formulating the right corrective measures [6].

That is, it’s not just the cost of the raw organic materials, but also the labor involved. The Costa Rican study [1], for example, found that although more labor was expended for harvesting (those larger yields) on conventional farms, the organic farms spent more on labor in management. So much more added labor that the cost of collecting, preparing, and application of organic fertilizers ended up being as much as the conventional farms spent on all their non-organic chemicals.

The added expense of certification
The Costa Rican study [1] also found that net income between organic and conventional farms was similar if the cost of certification fees were not included. If they were, the organic price premium would have to be about 38% above the price of conventional coffee to generate similar net income as conventional producers, nearly double what was being received.

Lack of reliable price premium
In theory, the extra price per pound received by farmers for organic coffee compensates them for lower yields and added costs. In practice, this is often not the case.

It’s not unusual for organic farms to get no premiums. They have to sell their coffee as conventionally-grown because an organic processing mill is not available to them — one of the requirements for organic certification is segregation from conventional coffee throughout the supply chain. In Nicaragua, for instance, organic trade channels for small producers outside the cooperative membership were nearly non-existent [4].

These studies noted that price premiums for organic coffee were closely related to coffee quality. In Costa Rica, where overall coffee quality is high, both conventional and organic coffee received good prices on the market. No matter the origin, the higher the coffee quality, the less important price premiums for certification (whether organic, Fair Trade, etc.) become — the extra money paid to farmers for high quality, specialty coffee is a higher percentage of the total cost than the certification premium [5].

One analysis of the economic sustainability of organic coffee [7] summed things up:

“…there appears to be considerable injustice between the extreme preconditions demanded for organics’ by the largely urban consumer of the industrialized world and the modest rewards received by the organic coffee growers for their strenuous efforts. From an agronomic point of view, there is also considerable ground for criticism on the principles of organic farming when applied to coffee. … It is concluded that the concept of organic farming in its strict sense, when applied to coffee, is not sustainable and also not serving the interests of the producer and consumer as much as the proponents would like us to believe.”

What’s the solution?
The prohibition against any use of inorganic fertilizers prevents taking advantage of the many methods of efficient nutrient management developed in coffee production [7], and creates a barrier to farmers wanting to produce organic coffee. Frankly, as ecologist, I am far more concerned with pesticide application than fertilizer application.  I hate the idea of any more additions to the many certification schemes already available, but it would be helpful if there were some distinction in organic certification (e.g., “completely chemical free” and “pesticide free”). A best-case scenario would provide price premiums to farmers that used no pesticides, and mostly organic fertilizers supplemented with some synthetic nutrients. It would allow farmers to grow coffee in a far more environmentally-sensitive manner — including increased shade that could also provide further income from crop diversification — and still compete in the marketplace.

Another new certification isn’t going to happen, at least anytime soon. This brings us back to square one: know where your coffee comes from, how it is grown, and be willing to pay more to reward farmers for their efforts to make your world a little better place. If you are buying your coffee from a specialty roaster that has good relationships with their importers and/or farmers, information on how your coffee is grown is available if you make the effort to look or ask. Plus, you will be drinking better coffee and supporting farmers that are paid a quality premium.

[1] Lyngbk, A. E., R. G. Muschler, and F. L. Sinclair. 2001. Productivity and profitability of multistrata organic versus conventional coffee farms in Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems 53: 205—213.

[2] Nigh, R. (1997). Organic agriculture and globalization: a Maya associative corporation in Chiapas, Mexico. Human Organization 56:427—436.

[3] Pulschen, L., and Lutzeyer, H.-J. 1993. Ecological and economic conditions of organic coffee  production in Latin America and Papua New Guinea. Angewandte Botanik 67: 204—208 (cited and summarized in [7].)

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

[5] Kilian., B., C. Jones, L. Pratt, and A. Villalobos. 2006. Is sustainable agriculture a viable strategy to improve farm income in Central America? A case study on coffee. Journal of Business Research 59:322-330.

[6] Grossman, J. M. 2003. Exploring farmer knowledge of soil processes in organic coffee systems of Chiapas, Mexico. Geoderma 111:267-287.

[7] Van der Vossen, H. A. M. 2005. A critical analysis of the agronomic and economic sustainability of organic coffee production. Experimental Agriculture 41:449-473.

Photo by Leigh Wolf under a Creative Commons license.

See also:

Calo, M. and T. A. Wise. 2005. Revaluing Peasant Coffee Production: Organic  and Fair Trade Markets in Mexico.Global Development and Environment Institute. Tufts Univ., Medford, MA. PDF.

Rice, R. 2001. Noble Goals and Challenging Terrain: Organic and Fair Trade Coffee Movements in the Global Marketplace. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 14: 39-66.

Photo by Leigh Wolf under a Creative Commons license.