Certifications

Certifications

UTZ Certified: revised Code of Conduct

UTZ-new-logo[Note: As of 2020, UTZ merged with Rainforest Alliance and created a new standard, which you can read about here. This post is for historical reference only.]

I don’t consider UTZ Certified an “eco-certification.” The emphasis is on traceability and transparency in the supply chain, offering substantial support to farmers of several agricultural products on improving their production and business practices. The environmental criteria in their Code of Conduct are fairly generic and lack much in the way of meaningful, quantifiable ecological goals. Being the first step up the certification ladder (from the ground floor of 4C compliance), it is popular with large commodity coffee companies. To their credit, UTZ has made several revisions to their standards over the past decade, the last being in 2014.

The revision did not strengthen their environmental criteria. Thus, UTZ will still not be included among the certifications I include as eco-certifications. But let’s take a look at what changed in the environmental criteria of the last revision.

Brief overview: How it works

UTZ has a general Code of Conduct (one for groups, one for individual producers) made up of criteria that they refer to as “Control Points” (CPs). Most are mandatory within a set time period of one to four years. Some (which ones are up to the producer) are “additional” or optional. By the end of the fourth year, certificate holders have to be in compliance with a certain number of mandatory and additional points.

General changes in the 2014 revision

The CPs were grouped in similar categories. They have now been reformulated into four “blocks” representing the four pillars of sustainable agriculture: Management (35 CPS, 0 additional allowed by year 4), Farming Practices (42 CPs, 3 are additional), Working Conditions (30 CPs, 1 is additional), and Environment (13 CPs, of which 3 are additional). In the 2010 Code, under the Natural Resources and Biodiversity category, there were 19 CPs, of which 15 were mandatory by the fourth year, and 4 were additional. The environmental criteria, then, have been reduced and are still the least emphasized, with the fewest number of mandatory CPs, around 9% of the total number.

Many of the CPs seem to have been simplified and consolidated, or moved from one category to another. This kind of streamlining has been going on with other certification standards and is okay so long as it doesn’t water down the criteria. However, when standards undergo a substantial overhaul it can be hard to make direct comparisons between versions.

Less encouragement for shade

The biggest disappointment was the elimination of the one CP that mentioned use of shade trees in coffee production. In previous versions, there was a mandatory CP that read: The producer uses shade trees whenever this is compatible with the local coffee production practices and takes into consideration the productivity.

That CP is now gone. Instead, “shaded agroforestry systems” are among several options that can fulfill an additional (and thus optional) CP on protecting ecological biodiversity by “enhancing habitats and ecosystems”. Other options that can also be used to fulfill this CP (arguably easier and cheaper than planting shade trees) include planting flowers and preserving hedges.

However, with the revision, there are now also several crop-specific additional sets of CPs, including one for coffee. The Coffee Module has one CP under “Farm Maintenance” that reads:

“An adequate number per hectare of suitable shade trees are planed and/or maintained on coffee plots.”

This is not required until year 3. I think you’ll agree that this is extremely subjective and vague, and that in terms of habitat quality disqualifies UTZ as an eco-certification — especially because initial certification can occur with no shade (or, at best, an “inadequate” amount of shade).

The Code of Conduct, Coffee Module, and other documents can be downloaded here.  UTZ recognizes that there are pros and cons of the existence of multiple sustainability initiatives, and that each has its strengths and weaknesses. While I can’t endorse it as a label to look for if ecological issues are important to you, I do believe UTZ encourage farmers to move towards more sustainable farming practices, and is especially worthwhile if producers use it as a stepping stone to more robust programs that really promote ecological sustainability.

 

Certifications / Corporate coffee

4C-certified coffee: miniscule amount under minimum standards

In order to provide context and perspective, I update a table on this site to reflect the amount of coffee out there that is produced and/or sold under some sort of eco-sustainability standard. The amount of coffee produced under these standards (Bird-Friendly, Rainforest Alliance, organic, plus Starbucks CAFE Practices and UTZ Certified) has grown substantially over the last decade.

One standard/certification scheme I leave off is 4C certification. This is the “entry level” set of standards often used by large commodity coffee companies.  To the unsuspecting consumer: this certification really only verifies that the coffee was produced under conditions weren’t illegal (violating basic human rights, environmental laws, and business ethics). Overall, 4C standards are very basic.  You can read all about what 4C certification is and isn’t right here.

It’s a (needed) starting point, but frankly hardly something to brag about or (worse) convey to consumers as being a meaningful sustainability certification. Nonetheless, the growth in 4C certified coffee is driven by big players like Nestlé and Mondelez International. Mondelez, for instance, is using 4C certified coffee to reach it’s 2015 goal to  “sustainably source” all its coffee for western Europe.

Last year, Daily Coffee News reported that the amount of 4C certified coffee tripled, to 7.5 million bags in 2012-2013 (at 60 kg a bag, that’s 450,000 metric tons).

That sounds like a lot, until you look at 2013 world coffee production: nearly 147 million bags (or 8.8 million metric tons).

Bottom line: 5.1% of world coffee production is sold as 4C certified, the weakest, lowest-bar standard available. On the bright side (?) the amount of 4C certified coffee produced is 2.28 million metric tons, or about 26% of world production. I’m not sure what it says about large coffee buyers that the supply of “sustainably” grown 4C coffee so widely outstrips demand, with less than 20% of 4C coffee being sold as such.

The 4C Code of Conduct is in the process of being reviewed and revised. We’ll see what that brings.

 

Certifications / Rainforest Alliance

The (de)evolution of Rainforest Alliance shade criteria

[Update: Newest 2020 standard discussed here.]

Periodically, the standards criteria of coffee (and other) certifications undergo an overhaul, as they should. The criteria used for Rainforest Alliance certification (the Sustainable Agriculture Network standards) are now being worked on.

Coffee is a major and perhaps the best known RA-certified crop, and one of nine ”agroforestry crops” certified by RA (those that can be grown with a shade tree canopy). However, RA now certifies over 100 crops. This is likely a major reason why the SAN Standard has been modified over time to be more simple and generic — completely understandable.

The proposed Standard, which will replace the current 2010 Standard, continues the trend in this direction. This is the main component (or generic standard), but actually the overall standards and development process is fairly complex. You can read more on the SAN web site.

I am going to try to focus here on the ”shade criteria” which is very important for coffee, especially as it relates to birds. This is the criteria many people have in mind when they are looking for “shade coffee” that is eco-friendly and provides habitat for birds and other biodiversity.

In 2005, the SAN standard did have critical criteria that required a conservation program that included establishment and maintenance of shade trees for traditional agroforestry crops. There was no specific canopy, tree, or shade requirements. Those were included in a separate coffee standard. Here is the original 2005 shade standard included in this separate document; it is criteria #2.8:

2.8 Farms located in areas where the original natural vegetative cover is forest must establish and maintain, as part of the conservation program, permanent shade distributed homogenously throughout the plantations; the shade must meet the following requirements:

a.  A minimum of 70 individual trees per hectare that must include at least 12 native species per hectare.

b.  A shade density of at least 40% at all times.

c.  The tree crowns must comprise at least two strata or stories.

A farm without shade can be certified once it has a shade establishment or expansion plan and shade established in at least 25% of the production area. Shade must be established in the remaining 75% of the production area within five years. Farms in areas where the original natural vegetation is not forest must dedicate at least 30% of the farm area for conservation or recovery of the area’s typical ecosystems. These farms can be certified once they have a plan to establishment or recover natural vegetation within ten years. Vegetation must be re-established or recovered in an equivalent of 10% of the total farm area (one-third of the 30%) during the first three years of the plan.

The separate coffee standard seems to have disappeared by the time the 2008 generic standard was issued. The new 2008 generic standard included the #2.8 shade criteria. The introductory wording slightly changed to “Farms with Agroforestry Crops located in areas where the original natural vegetative cover…” but that was minor.

In the 2009 standard, the language relevant to shade was watered down. The three bullet points changed to:

a.  The tree community on the cultivated land consists of minimum 12 native species per hectare on average.
b.  The tree canopy comprises at least two strata or stories.
c.  The overall canopy density on the cultivated land is at least 40%.

Importantly, the requirement for a minimum of 70 individual trees per hectare was deleted. 

This language was kept in the (latest) 2010 standards.

While not as strong as the original 2005 coffee standard, criteria #2.8 at least sets out some sort of shade and tree diversity requirements. Some of this language change probably occurred to accommodate all nine agroforestry crops. Meanwhile (I said this was complex!) in order to have more specific coffee requirements, SAN had individual countries put together “interpretation guidelines” [now gone from the website] that are used for specific crops. I think this is actually a great approach — coffee growing conditions are different in many regions (perhaps not in every country) and a customized standard might be good from a conservation viewpoint as well as a practical matter for farmers. However, there are only nine countries that have them for coffee. In Latin America, they are Brazil, Colombia, Peru, El Salvador, and Honduras. None are in English, but translations reveal they vary widely in their guidance, and they are not binding for certification. Further, countries such as Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and West Indian producers, do not have such guidelines. Do they just default to the generic standards? If so, we must again be concerned with the changes that have taken place with “shade” criteria #2.8.

And alas, criteria #2.8 is no longer included in the proposed standard in its present form. It has been replaced by two new criteria:

2.4  A five-year plan shall be documented and implemented to conserve or restore a tree cover of:
a.  At least 20% of the total farm area for farms where the majority of the production plots are occupied by shade-tolerant crops.
b.  At least 10% of the total farm area for farms where the majority of the production plots are occupied by non-shade-tolerant crops.

Such areas may consist of any combination of:

“¢  Area set-aside for conservation of existing natural ecosystems or areas under restoration, including movement and dispersal corridors for animal and plant species;
“¢  Tree-covered agroforestry or silvopastoral production plots, gardens, live fences, or border plantings with native plant species; or
“¢  Off-site compensation areas located outside of the farm.

2.5. The shade density of shade tolerant crop production plots shall be managed to reach optimal levels depending on local production systems, climate, altitude, soil characteristics, and slope levels. The tree canopy of these production plots shall be composed of 12 different native shade tree species.

Obvious shortcomings jump out:
  • Requirement has gone from 40% canopy density to 20% tree cover, reduction of shade to a level that is far less beneficial to birds and other taxa. While 2.5 indicates shade density should be managed to optimal levels, it defers to local guidance, presumably given in the interpretation documents mentioned above, which are lacking for many countries, vary widely, and are not binding for certification.
  • ”Tree cover” is not the same as ”canopy density” or “overall canopy density.” Conceivably, a farm could have a limited number of scattered trees and come up with 20% tree cover. Ecologically speaking, these terms are very different.
  • The requirement is to conserve or restore a tree cover of at least 20%. What if there is already 60% cover, for example? Does this give the farm room to REDUCE tree cover (perhaps in the name of higher yield)?
  • There are no strata requirements. These strata are the various “layers” of trees, seen in the shade diagram here. This type of structure is critical to biodiversity in ecosystems; the more the better.
  • ”12 different native tree species” is not the same as ”minimum 12 native tree species per hectare on average.”

That’s just a start — many of the other criteria being proposed trouble me greatly. But already you can see that there are real problems here just pertaining to the shade criteria applicable to coffee.

The criteria for shade for agroforestry crops has been weakened.

There are no over-arching coffee-specific shade standards.

Only a few coffee producing countries even have non-binding coffee growing guidance documents. These are quite variable, and they are not easily accessible by English-speaking consumers.

And perhaps most of all:

This is all very confusing to coffee consumers!

This generic, diluted, convoluted, piecemeal approach has the potential to make the Rainforest Alliance seal useless for consumers looking for “shade coffee” that is eco-friendly to birds and other diversity. It will be truly difficult for me to recommend Rainforest Alliance certified coffee under these circumstances — am I supposed to tell people to check the country of origin then look up, translate, and evaluate the coffee guidelines for that country (if they exist) and see if they exceed the insufficient generic standard?

There are some good additions to the proposed standard. Overall, I applaud the work of Rainforest Alliance and their efforts to bring so many producers of so many products under sustainability guidelines, as well as their excellent public education campaigns. But these changes are truly disappointing to me.

On the bright side, this is not yet a done deal. I will be making many comments online, and you should, too, if only on some of the criteria. Or you can write to SAN at standards@san.ag. The deadline is only a few days away, but I am hopeful further comments will be accepted. I’ve always found RA to be responsive to my inquiries and concerns, so even after the deadline I think it’s worthwhile to give them your thoughts at agriculture@ra.org.

 

Certifications / Rainforest Alliance

Certification improves access to credit for farmers

ra-sealRainforest Alliance recently announced the release of an important study outlining an overlooked benefit for farmers of achieving certification: the ability to get larger and more frequent small loans. The study, Farmer Bankability and Sustainable Finance: Farm-Level Metrics that Matter, focused on Rainforest Alliance certified coffee and cacao producers, but results are likely to apply to other types of certification.

The study found that loans provided to certified farmers averaged 25% more than those to non-certified producers; the average dollar amount was over $2200 greater. Certified producers were also able to obtain more frequent loans than non-certified producers (1.36 loans annually, versus 0.66).

There is a fairly common group of metrics that lenders require from farmers on loan applications, including information on cash flow, crop volume and production figures, etc. What we as coffee consumers tend to forget is that many coffee farmers have limited literacy and keep very minimal records. For instance, in this study fewer than half of non-certified producers kept revenue records, and not even a third kept expense records. For certified farmers, 90% or more maintained these data.

Certification organizations (in this case Rainforest Alliance and its partners) provide training and technical assistance to farmers to help them achieve certification, as well as to perform the monitoring necessary to continue to renew certification. These improved record-keeping skills are very transferable: with them, the farmer has the ability to not only successfully apply for credit, but show the lender their needs and outcomes. While producers belonging to cooperatives can often obtain this kind of assistance from their organizations, fewer than 10% of small producers (less than 10 hectares) belongs to such an organization. Even so, lenders indicated that these types of records kept at the farm level enhanced the credit-worthiness of cooperatives and improved their access to financing as well.

These types of short-term loans are critical for producers to purchase organic fertilizers, farm equipment, replacement seed and plant stock, and so forth.  Since coffee is a once-a-year crop that is so dependent on weather and market prices, coffee farmers can be particularly handicapped without access to credit. Finally, the more detailed records kept by farmers to maintain certification and obtain loans is really essential for them to improve their sustainable farming methods. Win-win for all!

The study compared Rainforest Alliance certified (63) and non-certified producers (57) in Colombia and Peru growing coffee (84) and cacao (26). Various lenders and finance organizations were also interviewed. The report has a lot of interesting information in it, including recommendations for standardization of records kept by producers and required by lenders. You can download the PDF here.