Certifications

Certifications / Organic coffee

Farmers are abandoning organic coffee — and it’s your fault

A recent article in the Christian Science Monitor reports that at least 10% of organic coffee farmers in northern Latin America alone have given up and are returning to producing coffee with chemicals.

Why? Despite increasing demand for organic coffee, the prices buyers are willing to pay are not enough to cover the added cost of organic production.

Buyers aren’t willing to pay adequate prices because consumers apparently are not willing to, either. The U.S. is largest importer of organic coffee in the world. The buck, as they say, stops here.

A typical conventional coffee farm, the piece notes, uses up to 250 pounds of chemical fertilizers (usually petroleum-based) on every acre. I presume this does not include the substantial amount of herbicides and pesticides that are also used in conventional coffee growing.

Still, if farmers are not obtaining an adequate price premium for their organic coffee, the chemicals are still cheaper than the cost of composts (more volume needed than synthetic fertilizers), certification and audit fees, and significant additional labor costs, especially combined with typically-lower yields.

An FAO report cited three other studies that confirmed that the price premium for organic coffee is highly correlated with quality [1]. Thus, producers of organic, high-quality specialty coffee are more likely to cover their costs and make a profit, and continue to grow coffee organically. Producers of low-quality organic coffee sell their coffee at a low or no premium (often to purveyors of cheap organic coffee, e.g., Millstone, Yuban), realize no benefit to the added work and costs of organic production, and either bail out and go back to chemicals or rip out their coffee entirely and go with another crop.

What can you do?

  • Pay more for organic (and shade-grown) coffees. Don’t expect the poor farmers in the developing world to subsidize a healthier world for you. It’s ridiculous.
  • Don’t be completely wedded to certified coffee. The costs and complications involved in certification are formidable if not insurmountable for perhaps the majority of small farmers [2], even though many grow coffee with few or no chemicals. Take the time to research your coffee — virtually all of the roasters I recommend in the footer provide details on where their coffees come from and how they are grown. Be willing to pay for these sustainably-grown beans, as well.

When you take into account the fact that the soil and coffee trees on chemical-dependent farms become depleted many years sooner than on organic farms, or the costs involved in environmental and human health due to exposure to chemicals, primarily pesticides [3], “cheap” coffee is no longer cheap for anybody.

[1] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2009. The market for organic and Fair Trade coffee. Study prepared in the framework of FAO project GCP/RAP/404/GER. Available online (PDF).

[2] From the ground up: organic coffee certification, production, and processing. Coffee Talk Magazine, November 2009 (PDF).

[3] See the section on The Environmental Dimensions of Coffee Production in the report, Coffee, Conservation, and Commerce in the Western Hemisphere, by the National Resources Defense Council.

See also:

How much is organic certification worth? Harvest Public Media.

Gaia Estate, a Bird-Friendly coffee grower’s perspective. Birds & Beans Canada blog.

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

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.

Photo by Urvish Joshi under a Creative Commons license.

Coffee and the environment / Organic coffee

EPA bans pesticide carbofuran on coffee imports

In May, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its decision to ban any residue of the pesticide carbofuran on food. The rule becomes effective December 31, 2009.

Carbofuran (sold under the name Furadan) causes neurological damage in humans, is extremely deadly to birds and fish, and is highly toxic through ingestion and inhalation. It is used on numerous crops, including coffee. It tends to be used on various types of mealy bugs that infest the roots of coffee plants, coffee root nematodes, and on the coffee leaf miner (Leucoptera coffeella). Coffee leaf miners have natural enemies in Latin America, so carbofuran is used against them mainly in Africa.

Earlier in the process of reviewing carbofuran uses, the EPA rules allowed the importation of rice, coffee, bananas, and sugarcane with carbofuran residues. This final decision reverses that, and countries exporting coffee into the U.S. must stop using carbofuran on their crops. While little pesticide residue remains on green or roasted coffee, the direct threats to coffee workers, wildlife, and the millions of migratory and resident birds from the application of carbofuran to coffee make its use dangerous.

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for enforcing EPA regulations on food imports. Carbofuran residue on food has been banned in the EU for some time, so testing protocols are established. Exporting countries, and coffee exporters and importers, often engage testing and certification labs to insure there are no violations that could lead to rejected shipments or, worse, a ban on imports.

FMC Corporation, the Pennsylvania-based company that manufactures Furadan, recently announced that they are challenging the EPA’s decision on some technical and administrative grounds. They have contended that the chemical is safe, despite well-documented impacts on birds, lions, hippos, other wildlife, and humans. Reports are still surfacing about illegal use of Furadan by poachers to kill vultures (which attract attention to illegal kills) and small birds which are then sold for human consumption.

Improper pesticide usage (whether unwitting or purposeful), export of domestically banned pesticides to other countries, and the fact that we are just beginning to understand the dangers of cumulative and synergistic effects of multiple pesticides in the environment to wildlife and humans, all argue for support of non-chemical-based pest management. And that includes growing coffee under diverse shade with its biodiversity-based pest control benefits.

Update: In 2010, courts ruled the EPA had to once again establish residue tolerances for imported foods, including coffee.

Certifications

Update on eco-friendly coffee market share

UPDATE: A thorough report with detailed breakdowns of producing and consuming countries, certified roasters and importers, major retailers, and other information is now available on the SMBC web site.

The Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center announced that sales of Bird-Friendly coffee in 2008 were $3.5 million, with 61% being sold in the U.S.[1]

For the 2007-2008 crop year, 6 million pounds (2700 metric tons) 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 [2].

Nearly all Bird-Friendly certified farms are in Latin America, since the research that led to the launching of the certification took place there and was developed for Neotropical habitats. Peru, Guatemala, and Mexico account for 77% of Bird-Friendly coffee, with Peru producing 39% of the total.

More recently, Bird-Friendly standards have been adopted for Africa, and now about 5% of Bird-Friendly certified coffee comes from Ethiopia. Efforts are continuing to expand criteria and certification to other areas, including other African countries, Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia (certified coffee from Sumatra should be available within the next year, according to the report).

You can find a current list of certified farms on the SMBC site.

Growth in other certification schemes
All Bird-Friendly coffee is certified organic, and organic coffee market share has also been growing. North American sales of organic coffee reached $1.3 billion in 2008, up from $1 billion in 2007.  This represents 89 million pounds (40,000 metric tons) versus 84 million (38,000 MT) in 2007.

Rainforest Alliance reports that their certified coffee sales in 2008 totaled 62,296 metric tons (137 million pounds), up from around 40,000 metric tons 89 million pounds) in late 2007. I’ve not found corresponding figures for the number of Rainforest Alliance certified farms/acreage, but when I last reported these figures they were 200,000 ha of coffee on nearly 17,000 farms as of late 2007.

Despite the growth in eco-friendly coffee certifications and sales, this is still a very niche market. Total world production in 2008 was 7.6 million metric tons, making these certified coffees only about 1% of the total produced. U.S. imports of coffee in the first quarter of 2008 were 387,000 metric tons, which means organic coffee imports were under 10% of the U.S. market.

[1] This figure represents coffee actually sold as certified but not all coffee produced under any given certification gets sold as such. Some may be blended with non-certified coffee, the buyer may be interested in other attributes besides the certification and purchases it without intending to market it as certified, or other reasons. In 2006, only about 6% of coffee produced on Bird-Friendly certified farms was sold as such. This situation also occurs with organic, Fair Trade, and other certifications.

[2] When I calculated these figures from the SMBC web site in May 2008, I came up with 28 producers growing on 7200 ha, with production of approximately 3100 metric tons.

Certifications / Coffee news and miscellany

Shade-grown coffees at Coffee Review

For August 2009, Ken Davids’ Coffee Review takes a look at shade grown coffee. First he describes the definition of the term “shade grown” and goes on to provide reviews of 12 coffees that scored 89 or over. Three were Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certified coffees, others were not certified, but grown under various levels of shade.

There were four coffees earning the highest mark of 92 points:

  • Counter Culture’s Finca Nueva Armenia (Guatemala). Certified organic and Bird-Friendly, this is one of my all-time favorite coffees. I reviewed last year’s crop, and this year it tastes even better. Ken describes a “slight hint of fruit ferment” that I find gives this year’s crop an extremely interesting, deep-toned, subtle wine-like complexity — it’s fantastic! I can be accused of giving a lot of love to Counter Culture, but I can assure you I recommend them and their coffees simply because they just do a bang-up job. Go buy this coffee!
  • Arbor Day Specialty Coffee Mexico ISMAM Co-op. Certified organic and Fair Trade. Coffee is traditionally grown under mixed shade in this region, and one or more of the many farms in this co-op (but not all) is or has been Bird-Friendly certified. I reviewed the Arbor Day Blend, which is sourced either from this co-op, or Nubes de Oro (which scored 91 points in this issue of Coffee Review). I wasn’t as enthused about either of these coffees as Ken, but suspect it was due to the crop I sampled being a little long in the tooth. I don’t see any way on their web site to order either of these Mexican coffees as a single origin, but you can go to the Arbor Day coffee web site and browse around.
  • Ecco Cafe Brazil Santa Terezinha. Organic. Santa Terezinha is indeed one of the only Brazilian farms that makes much use of shade; you can read more about the farming techniques at the blog of the importer, Sustainable Harvest. All the coffees I’ve had from Ecco Cafe have been excellent. I’ll be grabbing a bag of the Santa Terezinha with my next coffee order.
  • Flying Goat, Siberia, El Salvador. Certified organic, typically grown under shade in this region.  A classic, sweet Central from one of my favorite origin coffees.

There are other very nice sustainably-grown coffees in the list, many of which I’ve had and enjoyed. Go take a look at the reviews, the article, and while you’re there, the rest of Ken’s informative and authoritative site.

Certifications / Rainforest Alliance

More on the purity of certified coffees

My post, “When is 100% not 100%“? — regarding the amount of non-certified beans allowed in 100% Rainforest Alliance certified coffee — generated a lot of interest. Rainforest Alliance posted a comment, to which I replied. RA responded to my questions, and a Fair Trade representative (from TransFair USA) also chimed in, clarifying their position.

Now I’d like to post the comments of Robert Rice from the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (SMBC), the developer and guardian of Bird-Friendly certified coffee:

There seem to be two issues here regarding product purity: one with purity at origin and in manufacturing; the other with reduced percentages for marketing purposes that are stated on the package or end product.

I can certainly appreciate Abby’s statement about wanting to be honest with respect to the consumers. And I agree that there are situations or organizations with which the 100% stipulation could be difficult to meet. But this, to me, instead of accepting and allowing a more relaxed standard for product purity, is all the more reason to insist upon 100% purity along with a strictly controlled audit trail.

No one I know necessarily expects fraud along the chain, but history is a stern teacher. We know from recent years that cooperatives (and estate farms, too, most likely) have sent off quantities of “certified” organic coffee that far exceeded the production capabilities of the organization. The rule for organic was 100% purity–at least at the farm gate–and there are cases in which a coop lost its organic certification and the director lost all credibility with the coffee industry. A more notorious and egregious case occurred at the consumption end with “Kona” coffee in California, where Panamanian beans were re-packed as Hawaiian. Someone went to jail on that. Where money is concerned, it’s a challenge that we all confront with certified coffees. But there are also ways to address such behavior, such as sanctions, suspensions or expulsion.

Like organic and fair trade, SMBC has a audit trail and rules about separation of BF product that get addressed via inspection. While no one would claim such systems are fool-proof, a stated purity of 100% works to encourage the best efforts at keeping the “all or nothing” standard intact for all concerned, and realizing it as best as possible at the consumption end.

Stating up front that you’re going to allow 90% purity to leave the farm and allow that to be considered 100% can only work against you in the long run. If you’re expecting 10% “leakage”, then you may well get that much leakage on your 90% rule–and perhaps even more, given that those at origin know you’re not expecting 100%. It simply puts you in a difficult position from the start.

RA’s allowance for different percentages of the final product (i.e., Holiday Inn’s coffee carafes with the 30% RA certified labeling) is altogether another matter and is understandable from the marketing and getting-the-word-out perspective. SMBC doesn’t allow it, but we understand the reasoning behind it. But such statements on end-consumer packaging–where assumptions by consumers are made about what a certification mark implies–are distinct from the leakage allowance at origin/manufacturing/packaging.

As Julie stated in her blog, if only 90% is the purity level at origin and then again at manufacturing, a consumer could well be drinking a “certified” product that is only 81% pure. And if that is then used to create an acknowledged 30% certified coffee, you’re down to less than a quarter of the product being certified.

Our feeling is that if a certification mark is going to represent whatever it is that it states it represents, then strict standards and enforcement need to in place. In discussing this issue with many people, I’ve found that those who are concerned about environmental and/or social issues and look for such seals expect nothing short of 100% purity. We would all do well to work toward that high-water mark. By holding everyone along the commodity chain to the highest standards possible can we create reliable, credible coffee products that we can truly say link conservation to the market place.

Certifications / Rainforest Alliance

When is 100% not 100%?

[Note: as of 2020, Rainforest Alliance has updated its labeling requirements and now requires 90% certified beans in order to carry the seal.]

Non-certified beans allowed in coffee labeled as 100% Rainforest Alliance certified.

Product labels are a tricky thing. Marketers use all sorts of colorful language to entice consumers to buy their products. The extent of regulations governing the truthfulness of product labeling depend on the product and the country.

A fine example, the one I harp on here all the time, is the label “shade-grown coffee.” There is no legal definition of the term “shade-grown.” Therefore, this label can be slapped on any coffee, including coffee grown in the sun, or from farms with only a few shade trees This might be done out of either ignorance or a desire to capture the market (see more on this here), because these coffees usually carry a price premium.

Enter third-party certifications, which are designed to reassure buyers that the coffee they purchase is grown under particular standards and conditions, verified by an outside organization. The two “eco-certifications” for coffee which include shade criteria are Smithsonian Bird-Friendly and Rainforest Alliance. Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certification deals exclusively with shade growing methods (it also requires organic certification), while Rainforest Alliance certification includes less rigorous shade criteria (quick comparison here), as well as standards relating to other aspects of farm management.

Smithsonian Bird-Friendly: What’s in the bag
When you buy coffee with the Smithsonian Bird-Friendly (BF) seal on it, 100% of the beans in the bag came from a BF-certified farm, or certified portion of the farm. Period.

Rainforest Alliance: What’s in the bag
When you buy coffee that carries the Rainforest Alliance seal, it may contain as little as 30% certified beans. The amount should be specified on the bag; an example from Caribou’s house blend is shown here. The mere fact that this is allowed (especially for large roasters like Kraft) is disconcerting to many people, consumers and roasters alike. But at least the amount is disclosed on the packaging.

If there is no minimum content indicated on a package of coffee that carries the Rainforest Alliance seal, that is intended to mean that all the beans in the bag come from Rainforest Alliance certified farms. Sometimes the package or advertising even reiterates that the contents are 100% certified beans. However, there is a little problem with this.

Rainforest Alliance: When 100% might actually equal 81%
I learned at the Coffee Conference I attended last fall that packages labeled 100% Rainforest Alliance certified can actually contain much less than that without disclosure to the consumer. This is because players at both ends of the coffee supply chain are allowed to mix in up to 10% non-certified beans without penalty.

This information came directly from a Rainforest Alliance representative. It was in response to a question from a Rainforest Alliance certified coffee farmer who attended the conference. He asked if producers could mix in a percentage of beans from non-certified parts of their farms, and if so, how much. The Rainforest Alliance rep responded that she thought it would be up to 10%, the same amount of non-certified beans roasters and retailers are allowed to mix in their products.

Therefore, a package of Rainforest Alliance certified coffee, marketed as and believed by the consumer to contain 100% RA-certified beans could conceivably only contain 81% certified beans (if the roaster/retailer mixed in 10% non-certified beans into a shipment from a producer that only contained 90% certified beans, 90% * .90 = 81%).

I hate to rip on Rainforest Alliance, as I think they’ve done some great things for sustainable coffee. This, however, is not one of them. Many roasters 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. Although most coffee people I’ve discussed this with don’t agree with them, Rainforest Alliance at least has their rationale for doing this. The additional 10% “slop” allowance, though, seems to defy explanation. It’s not permitted for coffee labeled 100% organic or 100% Bird-Friendly. If a coffee carries a 100% seal, it should contain 100% certified contents. That seems pretty simple to me.

(UPDATE: Please read the comment section — it includes a reply from Rainforest Alliance as well as my response and that of a TransFair representative — and my follow up-post which in there is a lengthy reply from the Smithsonian Bird-Friendly folks.)

 

Birds and other biodiversity / Certifications

Cerulean Warbler Reserve coffee certified

A coffee farm that is part of the ProAves Cerulean Warbler Reserve in Santander, Colombia was recently certified by Rainforest Alliance (under the cooperative Asociacion de Café Sostenibles de Santander). The 15 ha farm was acquired in 2006 by ProAves, the Colombian partner of the American Bird Conservancy (ABC). These two organizations worked together to secure funding to establish the 220 ha Reserve in 2005. In 2008, the farm covered 18% of the Reserve’s operating costs, and the goal is to cover all operating costs by 2011 through the sales of coffee.

As part of the Save the Cerulean Warbler effort, ABC has also marketed a Cerulean Warbler Coffee, roasted and distributed by Thanksgiving Coffee Company, which we have reviewed here.

Just to avoid confusion, the ABC/Thanksgiving Cerulean Warbler coffee is from a different part of Colombia, not from farms adjacent to or near the Reserve. The Thanksgiving Coffee Company’s Cerulean Warbler Coffee is not Rainforest Alliance or Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certified. According to ABC, the plans are for Thanksgiving to source coffee from these farms in the future. Currently, coffee from farms near the Reserve are being sold to wholesalers and are not being marketed as conservation coffees.

Certifications / Climate change / Coffee and the environment / Rainforest Alliance

Coffee, climate change, and Rainforest Alliance

At the Specialty Coffee Association of America expo, we attended a lecture on climate change and coffee. Several speakers discussed this topic, but I’ll focus on the climate module that Rainforest Alliance is adding to its certification. This was announced at last year’s SCAA meeting (my post here), and RA’s Jeff Hayward provided more details on the program.

Coffee, especially shade coffee, is a global crop that has a relatively lower impact on greenhouse gas emissions and a more positive impact on carbon sequestration than many other crops.There is potential for shade coffee farms to contribute to the mitigation of climate change and generate income for farmers at the same time; I have a previous post that outlines the basics.

Rainforest Alliance has developed around 100 different criteria used to certify farms. A small number are considered required critical standards. Beyond that, certification is awarded once a particular percentage of the remaining criteria are met. RA is evaluating which criteria represent practices that improve carbon storage and mitigate climate change. If those particular criteria are among those that are met by a farm, they would be eligible to receive a ”Rainforest Alliance Plus” or "Climate Friendly" certification. RA is currently testing some assumptions and developing these criteria in Guatemala.

This will help buyers choose coffee that is climate friendly, but depending on what consumers are willing to pay won’t necessarily generate additional income for producers. A second part of RA’s climate program is to work to develop a mechanism for producers to receive payments for carbon credits within existing carbon markets. Since these must be beyond ”business as usual,” existing shade coffee farms might not be able to greatly increase their amount of carbon sequestration. But this holds promise for farms that are growing sun coffee or shade monoculture as they can gain credits for planting shade trees or for reforestation — the more the better. It could also help discourage the conversion of coffee to pasture or less eco-friendly crops. RA is working on pilot carbon credit projects now in Mexico and Nicaragua.

Certifications / Coffee awards and competitions / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance Cupping for Quality 2009

As we did last year, Coffee & Conservation attended the Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Coffee Breakfast at the SCAA annual show. The breakfast took place this morning. The winners of the sixth annual “Cupping for Quality” event were announced. These awards recognize Rainforest Alliance (RA) certified coffee farmers dedicated to growing top quality beans, while protecting the environment and the rights of workers.

This year, 80 RA certified farms in 11 countries (Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Panama) participated. Coffee from 94% of the participating farms received scores of 80 or above, although none scored over 89. The average score for the top 10 farms was 85.08; last year it was 86.39.

Here are the top 10 farms. I’ve provided links and information where available. After the country-based summary, I’ve concluded with some comments.

  1. Hacienda La Esmeralda — Panama (88.99). No surprise here, the Peterson’s farm nearly always grabs the top slot in any contest. Last year it also came in first in this competition, when it scored 89.93.
  2. Santa Elisa Pachup — Guatemala (85.74). In 2007, this farm came in 5th place in the Guatemala Cup of Excellence. From the photo on that site, it looks like the shade is rather sparse — shade monoculture or polyculture. However, 113 ha of the 493 ha total is forest, natural or in the process of being reforested.
  3. La Pampa — Guatemala (84.96). This farm didn’t make the top ten last year, with a score of 84.63.
  4. Finca Santa Anita — Costa Rica (84.92).
  5. Grupo Asociativo San Isidro — Colombia (84.58). A 93-member Fair Trade co-op from Huila. In 2004, researchers found the uncommon endemic Dusky-headed Brush-finch (Atlapetes fuscoolivaceus) in forested land owned by the cooperative.
  6. Sumatra Mandheling Rainforest — Indonesia (84.56).
  7. Fazenda Capoeirinha – Ipanema Coffees — Brazil (84.44). Fazenda Capoeirinha is one of three farms operated under the Ipanema name. This coffee is/was a component in Intelligentsia’s popular Black Cat espresso blend, and Ipanema Coffees are also used by Starbucks. From what I’ve been able to determine, this is not shade coffee but grown in sun like much of Brazil’s coffee.  Brazilian law requires habitat preservation, and the Ipanema web site at one point discussed a reforestation goal of 350 ha by 2014 which will create 68 “micro-reserves.” Although corridors are also mentioned, habitat fragments are not as functional as large parcels of intact forest. Perhaps more promising are the 790 ha of wetlands set aside for biodiversity conservation.
  8. Fazenda Lambari — Brazil (84.31). Another large sun coffee farm, and also undertaking a reforestation project as part of their Rainforest Alliance certification.
  9. Gemadro Coffee Plantation — Ethiopia (84.18).  In 2006, I wrote all about this very large farm, owned by a company belonging to a wealthy Saudi sheik. At the time they weren’t Rainforest Alliance certified and it doesn’t look the web site has been updated, so I don’t know what environmental changes have taken place.
  10. Monte Sion (I think this is the correct name, not Siona) — El Salvador (84.17). A small farm (around 35 ha) in the Apaneca mountains.

Here are how each of the participating countries scored:

  • Guatemala (with six farms participating) 83.83; top 3 –  Santa Elisa Pachup (85.74),  La Pampa (84.96), San Diego Buena Vista (83.75)
  • El Salvador (with six farms participating) 83.30; top 3 – Monte Sion (84.17), Las Mercedes (84.13), San Jose (83.39)
  • Costa Rica (with 10 farms participating) 82.58; top 3 – Finca Santa Anita (84.92), Rincon Socola (83.56), Espiritu Santo Estate Coffee (83.18)
  • Brazil (with 10 farms participating)  82.42; top 3 – Capoeirinha — Ipanema Coffees (84.44), Fazenda Lambari (84.31), Pinheiros — Sete Cachoeiras State Coffee (83.33)
  • Colombia (with 24 farms participating) 82.30; top 3 -Grupo Asociativo San Isidro (84.58), Grupo Aguadas (83.94), Grupo Anserma (83.90)
  • Nicaragua (with six farms participating) 82.13; top 3 –Selva Negra (83.49), Los Placeres (82.97), Finca Organica y Reserva El Jaguar (82.13)
  • Honduras (with 7 farms participating) 80.57; top 3 -El Derrumbo (81.65), La Guama (80.96), El Cascajal (80.83)
  • Mexico (with eight farms participating) 80.25; top 3 – Finca Arroyo Negro (82.87 — they showed a photo of a jaguar taken in the coffee production area at the breakfast — very impressive!), Finca Kassandra (82.64), Oaxacafe (82.61)
  • Panama, Indonesia & Ethiopia each had only one farm participating.

There are some nice farms here, but what is striking is the variety of sizes and levels of shade management represented in these RA certified farms. While RA certification is not wholly concerned with shade or biodiversity, the variation in these farms highlight the differences in RA ecological criteria and that of Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certification. I’ve spoken to a lot of consumers, and their overall impression is that RA certification is an ecological one and they generally believe that it indicates that the coffee is shade grown. This is not always the case (or even the intent). I will echo a sentiment I’ve heard several times from coffee professionals: I wish RA could come out with some sort of tiered or categorical certification scheme that would clarify things for consumers.

That being said, what I love about RA’s Cupping for Quality awards is that they provide extra incentive for producers to move toward sustainable practices. This includes those that preserve biodiversity, even if they are not as rigorous as Smithsonian’s Bird-Friendly requirements. This annual recognition and emphasis on quality (especially with RA’s partnership with the Coffee Quality Institute), is likely to stimulate more price premiums than can be generated by the certification itself. Ultimately, increased profit can be the best motivator for producers to pursue sustainability and certification.

Certifications / Smithsonian Bird-Friendly

Bird-Friendly coffee now available in Europe

I’m back from Nicaragua — and yes, I did see Emerald Toucanets at two different shade coffee farms. I’ll be writing about my trip soon.

Meanwhile, news from the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center. Certified Bird-Friendly coffee is finally available in Europe. Simon-LÁ©velt Coffee and Tea is offering it through its stores in The Netherlands and Belgium. Their web site is in Dutch, but I see that they do offer online ordering, so perhaps folks in other countries will have access as well.

Certifications / Organic coffee

Organic certifiers incorporating shade criteria

At least two organizations providing coffee certification services have incorporated shade criteria into their organic certification standards. Here is a bit about them, and some pros and cons.

Although requirements for organic labeling are usually established by national governments, independent agencies are licensed to provide inspection and certification services to producers. Two such organizations are OCIA International and Certimex (which operates only in Mexico). Both of these certifiers have personnel who are also trained in shade certification, because they are authorized by Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center to perform inspection for their Bird-Friendly certification. (Rainforest Alliance uses Sustainable Farm Certification, Intl., their own subsidiary).

Certimex

Certimex is using shade criteria as a requirement for organic certification.Great idea, except that the criteria is vague and undefined (“should grow under diversified shade” [1]). There is nothing wrong per se about adding in this type of wording, and anything that encourages some sort of shade preservation or restoration is a positive move. However,it offers no concrete assurance that compliance (which isn’t measurable) really does anything to preserve shade or biodiversity. We’ll have to see were Certimex goes with this.

OCIA

OCIA offers a separate certification for organic/shade coffee. The standards are more specific and provide quantifiable benchmarks that are similar to, but not as broad, as Smithsonian Bird-Friendly and Rainforest Alliance. They were, in fact, developed in cooperation with Smithsonian. I was able to obtain the 2008 OCIA International Certification Standards. Here are the ones specific to shade:

  • Rustic or traditional polyculture encouraged.
  • 40% canopy cover required.
  • Not more than 20% of shade trees can be non-native species.
  • Not more than 50% of the canopy can be made up of Inga species.
  • Shade must comprise at least ten tree species that are not Inga, Erythrina, Gliricidia sepium, or Grevillea robusta [Erythrina and Gliricidia are deciduous; they lose
    their leaves during the dry season (our winter), at a time when canopy
    cover is extremely important for both migrant and resident birds.  Grevillea robusta is not native to Latin America].
  • A single species of Inga cannot comprise greater than 50% of the trees in the production are.

These criteria, along with others for vegetation management and the organic criteria themselves, are quantifiable habitat-targeted criteria, not the sort of general or intangible environmental standards used by Fair Trade or Utz Certified.

The future of combined environmental criteria

Integrating shade criteria into existing organic criteria to create an “organic +” category is something that has been discussed for quite some time as an option to help achieve some sort of “environmental seal” for coffee [2,3]. In that sense, the OCIA standards are a positive move.

On the other hand, unless there is coordination among organic certifiers to use uniform (and scientifically sound/biologically relevant) standards, this runs the risk of just adding another label to a bag of coffee, creating consumer confusion, fatigue, or even distrust. In this case, so far as I know, OCIA is not actually adding another label or designation to the coffee. This is problematic to me. A roaster could legitimately market this coffee as shade-grown, but a consumer would have little or no clue as to what standards are being met, since there is no designation or explanation on the OCIA web site.

Ultimately, an “eco-friendly” type of seal that incorporates organic and shade standards will also somehow have to be regionally sensitive. In some regions of Latin America, coffee is grown at high altitudes where clouds provide shade and additional tree cover would be counter-productive, or is grown in areas (like the Brazilian cerrado) that wasn’t forested to begin with. Standards for preservation of native habitat in these areas would be more appropriate. Even in forested areas, different parts of the world will require different shade criteria.

[1] Dietsch, T., and S. M.. Philpott. 2008. Linking consumers to sustainability: incorporating science into eco-friendly certification. Globalizations 5:247-258.

[2] Commission for Environmental Cooperation and TerraChoice Environmental Services. 2004. Environmental and other labeling of coffee, the role of mutual recognition, supporting cooperative action. Sustainable Commodity Initiative, International Institute for Sustainable Development and United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

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

Retail and specialty roasters / Smithsonian Bird-Friendly

Birds & Beans now available

The Birds & Beans: The Good Coffee web site is now up and running. Since I posted about this initiative, which offers only Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certified coffee, there have been a few tweaks and changes.

  • The price is a tad higher than first announced: two pounds for $19.25 plus shipping.
  • Looks like you can subscribe from anywhere in the U.S., not just New England (Canadian customers should order from Birds & Beans Canada, which has a wider choice of coffees and no subscription restrictions).
  • Right now, they do not seem to be putting the country of origin on any of the bags, and only mentioning Colombia as the origin of the medium-roast coffee on the web site. This might mean they will source from various Bird-Friendly certified farms and focus on a flavor profile. Personally, I think promoting specific origins is a critical part of educating the public. I also think that birders, to whom this line is targeted, would be especially enthusiastic and receptive to the specific stories behind some of the Bird-Friendly certified farms. So much research has been done at some of them, they could put a bird list and photos on the web site — and birders, of all consumers, would totally get this. Big missed marketing opportunity, in my opinion.

There is an attractive page with photos of eight species of migratory birds. I assume that there will be some sort of text accompanying them at some point, as they aren’t even identified. They are all migratory species that breed in North America and winter in the tropics, but not all species that depend on, or even winter in, coffee farms. There are also nice bios of the bird conservationists that have been supporting this effort.

We have been trying out all three varieties of Birds & Beans coffees this week. I had intended on posting a longer review later, but since I will be in Nicaragua when the trial period expires, it looks like now is the time to fire off our first impressions. I won’t rate them with motmots, since they have not been tasted by as many people yet as usual.

These were all roasted by Wicked Joe. No roast date on the package.

The “Scarlet Tanager” dark roast is really dark. Starbucks fans, line up here. I was told this is currently from Peru, and aside from a few small microlots sometimes offered by other roasters, I have yet to meet a Peruvian coffee I really like. So this was not my cup, but I did find it very smooth for such a dark roast. Folks who liked a darker roast in our office that have tried it so far were happy with it.

The medium roast “Chestnut-sided Warbler” was perhaps a tad on the dark side of medium, with all beans showing an oil sheen and many oil spots. There was evidence on some beans that it had been roasted too rapidly (this creates little divots in the beans where rapid expansion pops a hunk off). I presume the actual origin of this is Mesa de los Santos, which has long been the only Bird-Friendly certified farm in Colombia. We’ve reviewed and commented on this origin previously, so I won’t go into the details here. This coffee garnered the most diverse comments. A few wished it had been just a tad lighter so some of the more sweeter tones would emerge. Others got the sweetness right away, and pegged a cherry-like fruit flavor. It was smooth and quite bright for a medium/dark roast.

The light roast “Wood Thrush” was the winner of the group. As of this writing, it is sourced from Mexico, and had the chocolate sweetness one expects from this origin. It was especially good in a French press, where it had character and some complexity. Brewed, it was just a nice, pleasant classic Latin American cup. Overall, it just had more going on in the cup than the other two.

The primary audience for these coffees is birders. Most birders I know drink a lot of dark, pedestrian coffee. I think they will find the Birds & Beans coffee a real step up, but not too different from the flavor and roast profiles they are accustomed to, or so exotic that they don’t “get it.” The “Wood Thrush” will also please those that have somewhat more refined palates. All the coffees should completely satisfy people who really care about habitat and biodiversity preservation and want it fully represented in their cup.

If you try these coffees, please leave some impressions in the comments — both on the taste and your thoughts on the web site and “theme.” I’m especially interested in what birders think!

Background information / Fair and Direct Trade

Fair Trade environmental standards

It’s hard to blame consumers for being confused by the number of eco-labels on products these days. “Fair Trade” certified coffee is probably the most familiar to many consumers. Fair Trade (generically and as trademarked by various organizations) is primarily concerned with alleviating poverty through greater equity in international trade. Fair Trade is governed in most of the world by the Fairtrade International (FLO).  In the U.S., Fairtrade America is their member organization. The former member, Fair Trade USA, which resigned from the international system in early 2012 and is now a separate entity.

Many people assume, however, that Fairtrade/Fair Trade certification standards also include robust environmental standards. This assumption is promoted by some organizations themselves.

For example, At one time, the Fair Trade USA environmental benefits web page has stated that “over 80% of the Fair Trade certified coffee in the U.S. is also shade-grown.” Currently, the site says “most” is shade-grown. According to the most recent (2006) statistics I could find, only about 40% of the Fair Trade coffee imported into the U.S.  is also certified by Rainforest Alliance and/or Smithsonian Bird-Friendly [1].  More recently, Fairtrade International’s benefits report (found on their Facts and Figures page), notes 51% of Fairtrade certified producers (of ANY product, not just coffee) also hold organic certification, and 10% have Rainforest Alliance certification. Since neither of those certifications guarantees shade themselves, I am not sure if either organization can claim that the majority of their certified coffee is also shade-grown.

In fact, Fair Trade certification has no criteria related to growing coffee under shade, it does not require organic certification, it contains no guidelines for management of native or non-native species, it does not require any inventory of wildlife or prohibit hunting or trafficking in animals. These are all included in the criteria for shade certification by Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (Bird-Friendly) and/or Rainforest Alliance.

Let’s take a look at the Fairtrade/Fair Trade environmental standards.

Fairtrade International is the association of producer networks and national labeling initiatives, including Fairtrade America, that develops and reviews the Fairtrade standards. There are two sets of standards: overarching generic standards, and standards specific to each type of product. Let’s look at the standards which specifically address preserving and protecting the environment.

Here is a summary of the generic producer standards for small producers (which apply to coffee farmers) that address preserving and protecting the environment:

  • No plant material can be collected from protected areas or propagated illegally.
  • Harvesting of wild products from natural areas must be done sustainably and human impact minimized.
  • Co-ops should have environmental and land use plans and maintain records pertaining to land, water, and chemical use.
  • Co-ops must recognize conservation and buffer areas and not cultivate within them or apply agrochemicals.
  • Virgin forest can’t be cultivated, unless an exception is granted.
  • In areas of low biodiversity or similar degraded areas, co-op members should plant trees or “encourage” regeneration of native flora.
  • Co-ops should promote farm diversity, including reforestation or shade implementation, “as is practical” and “progress should be made over time.”
  • No use of chemicals on a prohibited list.
  • Agrochemicals must be labeled, stored, and used as directed.
  • Use of permitted herbicides must be justified.
  • Producers are expected to seek less toxic alternatives to and try to reduce volumes of agrochemicals to the extent possible.
  • Waste should be reduced, reused, recycled and composted in an appropriate manner.
  • Soil erosion should be managed, soil fertility should be maintained.
  • Water should be managed efficiently and to avoid contamination and depletion of resources.
  • Genetically modified organisms are prohibited.

These are indeed pretty generic. There are few specific criteria and virtually no quantifiable or measurable rules. I expected the product standard for coffee to have more precise restrictions or environmental standards relating to birds and wildlife. Here’s what the 2009 document said:

“There are no additional environmental standards specific to coffee producers.”

Fairtrade International standards can be downloaded from this page.

Fair Trade USA environmental standards are substantially similar and there are no separate documents or guidelines for coffee. Their standards can be downloaded from this page.

There are plenty of worthwhile things about these certifications. The environmental guidelines, however general, are better than none at all and in many cases undoubtedly result in better environmental conditions. I strongly believe that reducing poverty also helps prevent environmental exploitation, and Fair Trade has improved the lives of thousands of farmers. Because Fair Trade coffee is grown by small producers, it is often grown in a sustainable manner.

But just to clarify: Fairtrade/Fair Trade certification alone does not automatically mean or guarantee that rigorous environmental standards were followed, or that the coffee was grown under shade. For that you’ll have to look for an additional seal or seals, or have detailed information about the specific origin to assess growing conditions.

[1] Giovannucci, D., Liu, P. and A. Byers. 2008. Adding value: certified coffee trade in North America. In Pascal Liu (ed.). Value-adding Standards in the North American Food Market – Trade Opportunities in Certified Products for Developing Countries. FAO, Rome. Available online (PDF).

Retail and specialty roasters / Smithsonian Bird-Friendly

Birds&Beans: a new Bird-Friendly coffee initiative

A new initiative to featuring Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certified coffee is being launched next week in the New England and New York area. “Birds&Beans: the good coffee” will be sold by subscription, and promoted via “Voices for the Birds” talks by several leading names in bird conservation.

The coffees, all Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certified (and therefore also certified organic) will be available in three varieties:

  • Scarlet Tanager will be the dark/bold roast from Peru, and will also be Fair Trade certified.
  • Chestnut-sided Warbler will be a medium roast Colombian (also Rainforest Alliance certified).
  • Wood Thrush will be the light/mild roast Mexican, also be Fair Trade certified.

The coffee will be roasted and distributed by Capitol Grounds Café and Roastery in Montpelier, VT and Wicked Joe in Brunswick, ME. The standard subscription will run $18.50 for two pounds, plus shipping and handling.  Initially, orders will only be taken from customers in New England and New York; there are also plans to have it available in regional food cooperatives. The hope is to expand nationwide.

(Canadian consumers can get Smithsonian Bird-Friendly certified coffee through the Toronto cafe and roastery Birds & Beans — which has actively promoted and sold Bird-Friendly coffee in Canada for years. In fact, the roaster/owner there, David Pritchard, has licensed the Birds & Beans name to the U.S. initiative and is cooperating to help raise the profile of Bird-Friendly coffee. I have visied Birds & Beans in Toronto and can attest to David’s skill as a roaster and dedication to Bird-Friendly coffee and migratory birds.)

Three very well known bird conservationists and experts in migratory birds will be promoting Birds&Beans coffee by giving talks to educate consumers about the bird and coffee connection. “Voices for the Birds” lectures will discuss the birds that nest in New England — in particular the three species featured on the Birds&Beans packages — and the importance of shade coffee farms to their survival. Kenn Kaufman is an artist, naturalist, and the author of a number of bird books, including Kingbird Highway and the Kaufman Field Guide series. Scott Weidensaul is a prolific natural history writer often focusing on birds; his excellent book on migratory birds, Living on the Wind, was a Pulitzer Prize finalist. Bridget Stutchbury is a professor of biology and Canada Research Chair in Ecology and Conservation Biology at York University in Toronto. In addition to a large body of scientific work, her book Silence of the Songbirds explained threats faced by songbirds, including loss of winter habitat due to the proliferation of sun coffee. Russ Greenberg, head of the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, will also be participating. A number of regional organizations will help support and promote the talks and the coffee, including Audubon Vermont, New Hampshire Audubon, Audubon Connecticut, the Vermont Center for Ecostudies, Vermont’s North Branch Nature Center, and Audubon chapters in New York.

The Birds&Beans web site (www.birdsandbeans.com) is scheduled to go live early next week. That’s where you’ll be able to find details on the coffee and subscriptions, as well as a list of events and talks. As a certification program run by a scientific research center, the Bird-Friendly certification generally lacks marketing, so this is a really positive step in raising awareness of sustainable, shade coffee in general and the strength and benefits Bird-Friendly certification in particular.

If you are in the New England/New York area, I encourage you to check out the coffee and the talks, and send me some feedback.

Certifications / Smithsonian Bird-Friendly

Bird-Friendly fees: where do they go?

Roasters that sell Bird-Friendly coffee, certified by the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, pay a per-pound fee to Smithsonian (around US$0.25, I believe). These fees go to support bird conservation research and education, with an emphasis on coffee as bird habitat. In 2015, the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center summarized the research supported by the fees paid by roasters for Bird-Friendly certified coffee, and they have a page where you can read about some of these projects. Let me take this one step further and tell you why this is so important, because they didn’t take the opportunity to really drive this point home.

Most people don’t understand how research is paid for. I’m a working scientist. I can tell you from direct experience that this type of research relies heavily — if not totally — on outside funding (e.g., it’s not part of the budget of the sponsoring institution, whether a university, non-profit, or government agency). Grants are the typical funding mechanism, and often they only fund very specific aspects of particular research projects, such as field equipment and supplies. It’s hard to find money for the mundane things that allow these research programs to continue functioning, and unrestricted funds such as these royalties are very helpful in that regard.

I know that roasters have business decisions to make, and consumers (who ultimately pay these premiums) have budgets as well. Roasters and the public need to understand that at least in the case of Bird-Friendly fees, they don’t just go to fund the annual office party or expensive haircuts for the boss. Virtually all that we know about the importance of coffee to biodiversity comes from this research. Smithsonian pioneered it and continues this work today. That’s what you’re paying extra for when you buy Bird-Friendly coffee. It’s totally worth it.

Photo by Scott Feldstein.