Certifications

Certifications / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance to certify 10% of coffee exports

Rainforest Alliance (RA) received a seven-year, $12 million grant to increase the number of certified farms in six Latin American countries: El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, Peru, and Brazil. By the project’s end, RA will have certified 10% of the world’s coffee (they currently certify less than 1%).  The grant comes from the Global Environmental Facility, an independent financial organization established in 1990 by the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Program, and the United Nations Development Program. These entities manage projects that benefit the global environment and promote sustainable livelihoods in local communities.

Grant funds will go towards increasing production and demand of RA coffees. On the production side, RA indicates it will “provide farmers with the information and tools necessary to improve their management practices and make them more responsible with regards to the environment, workers and communities.”  Plans for increasing demand include encouraging companies to buy and promote RA certified coffee, and arranging media tours of RA certified farms so that consumers realize “their potential roles in fostering the conservation of habitats and quality of life for millions of third-world workers.”

The press release (PDF) as well as a separate project summary put the emphasis on the marketing side.  Elsewhere, there was mention of a research or monitoring component, noting that the “project also plans to monitor and document the impact of coffee plantations on biodiversity.”

Obviously there is no incentive for farmers to produce coffee which is sustainable (under any certification scheme) without sufficient demand. I think it will be very important for third parties to make sure that consumers are clearly educated about what they are supporting when they purchase RA certified coffee — especially versus other certification programs.

Certifications / Coffee regions / Rainforest Alliance

RA certifies in Africa

Rainforest Alliance has announced its first certification for coffee outside Latin America, certifying a group of 678 farms in the Djimmah region of Ethiopia, according to a report in Tea & Coffee Trade Journal.

RA’s certification requirements are not focused on, but do include, environmental criteria.  They are not as stringent as the Smithsonian’s Bird Friendly criteria when it comes to preserving biodiversity.  But as the only sustainability certification available (aside from organic certification) outside of the Americas, this is a welcome development.

Djimmah is in the southwest part of Ethiopia, and its beans are not as well known as Harrar, Sidamo, and Yirgacheffe (which is in the Sidamo region).  Djimmah beans tend to be of mixed varieties, and are sometimes low grade (different sizes, a lot of defects) and thus hard to roast evenly.  These beans can be wild or gamey, are most often used in blends, and quality varies. I’ve heard it called the most lowly of Ethiopian coffees.  There are certified organic coops and farms in the other, more popular, growing regions, so perhaps this RA certification will give the Djimmah a needed boost in visibility, a marketing point, and that may lead to an increase in quality as well.

Certifications / Retail and specialty roasters

Northwest Shade Coffee Campaign update

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

In March 2006, I posted about the Northwest Shade Coffee Campaign, a Seattle Audubon Society project whose mission is “to protect habitat for wintering neo-tropical migratory birds in Latin America and the Caribbean by increasing consumer demand for shade-grown coffee,”  pretty much the same thing C&C is here to do (although the C&C scope is broader, birds, biodiversity, and coffee worldwide). In addition to their own educational activities, member roasters display the NSCC seal on their coffee.

My only reservation at the time was that the membership criteria were a little unclear (basically “carry at least one offering that is documented as shade-grown, educate its customers about shade coffee, and contribute yearly dues…”) and the seal did not mean any of the coffee sold by the member is certified shade grown, or that all coffees by the members are shade grown.  I felt this could lead to consumer confusion.

NSCC has revamped their whole web site, and clarified these points. Members have to agree to the Conservation Principles for Coffee Production, which are now provided on the site. The member application(PDF) is also on the site, and criteria are now clearly outlined.

As of late 2007, NSCC has discontinued its membership program.

The last newsletter was produced in mid-2009, although the site doesn’t say they have stopped publishing them.

As of early 2010, NSCC no longer updates its news room (but refers people here to Coffee & Conservation).

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

Fair and Direct Trade

Intelli on Fair Trade

Geoff Watts of Intelligentsia Coffee wrote a long e-mail lucidly explaining the shortcomings of Fair Trade and Intelli’s strong commitment to farmer relationships, posted at green LA girl. It’s excellent and insightful.

First, he defines sustainable coffee as being profitable to the farmer, enough to enable him to invest, not just subsist; and not damaging to the ecosystem, so the land is preserved for generations.  He goes on to describe

  • the many factors that go into the cost of producing quality coffee, and how the Fair Trade model does not have a mechanism for rewarding quality or taking into account the cost of living and other differentials that occur among farmers of different areas,
  • how much of the FT minimum price actually gets to the farmer, and how the FT minimum also often ends up being the maximum,
  • why Intelligentsia would rather spend ten cents a bag in the producing company, rather than spending it to put a FT sticker on their coffee bags,
  • the depth of Intelli’s relationships with their coffee producers, which dramatically highlights the importance of purchasing coffee from roasters with these types of relationships,
  • and how the FT model is beneficial to and works best with commercial and entry-level specialty coffee.

Many thanks to Geoff for writing and to Siel for posting this.  It really helps consumers (and me!) to understand sustainability issues and make, um, intelligent decisions about the best coffees to drink to support farmers and the environment.  Go give it a read.

Certifications / Coffee regions / Rainforest Alliance

Colombia to produce more RA coffee

According to this article in Financial Express, by 2007, ten percent (about 1 million 60 kg bags) of Colombia’s coffee will be certified by social and environmental programs. One of these programs is the Rainforest Alliance sustainable agriculture program (my overview here).  Colombia is one of Latin America’s top producers of sun coffee, so this is a step in the right direction.  Meanwhile, look for Colombia’s Mesa de los Santos coffee, which is certified organic and shade grown (by both Smithsonian and Rainforest Alliance). Review at Coffee Cuppers, and carried by a number of the roasters in the sidebar.

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

Caribou Coffee and Rainforest Alliance

Caribou Coffee, based in Minneapolis with stores in 15 states, announced last July that it was partnering with Rainforest Alliance (RA) to provide certification for much of their coffee.  They expected 20% of their coffee to be certified by the end of 2006, with a goal of half of all the green beans purchased to be RA certified by 2008.  The phase-in is necessary because Caribou wants to preserve existing relationships.  This has an upside in that new producers will be adhering to certification standards.  Considering that a number of Caribou offerings are from Africa and Asia, which are not eligible for shade certification and which often are grown under shade as a matter of course, this means that well over half of Caribou’s coffees will represent shade coffees, in one shape or form.

(Update: 100% of all Caribou coffees will be 100% Rainforest Alliance certified by 2011. More on this here.)

As the second largest U.S. specialty coffee company, selling over 4 million pounds of coffee annually, the purchase of half their beans from certified sustainable sources is nothing to sneer at, and it makes Caribou one of the only big coffee houses where this kind of sustainable coffee will be readily available.

Caribou has a commitment to responsible coffee sourcing, social responsibility (including work in coffee growing areas) and frequently donates to local communities and charities.

Background information / Certifications

Who evaluates non-certified shade coffee? Part 2

In Part 1 of “Who evaluates non-certified shade coffee?” I pointed out that roasters, importers, and retailers of non-certified shade coffee have assorted means of “verifying” that coffee is shade-grown.  These are usually described as farm visits by roasters, importers, brokers, or independent evaluators.  I pointed out that there isn’t much evidence that these evaluators have experience in actually assessing biodiversity, from a scientific viewpoint.

Why is this important? Can people without a biology background make sound assessments of coffee plantations?

The point of encouraging shade management on farms is not just shade, but functioning ecosystems that are as close as is practical to intact forest.  Looking at a farm and seeing lots of birds and trees does not address ecosystem functioning or biodiversity, the real goals of the shade coffee movement.

Agricultural areas share some of the same biological characteristics of urban areas. They are simplified, homogenized “ecosystems” populated with suites of similar, adaptable organisms.  One might find the same number of species of birds (or trees, or ants, or mammals) in a suburban park and an intact forest, and numerically these two plots would have the same species richness or “biodiversity.”

But there is a huge difference in a park in which the bird species are Rock Pigeon, House Sparrow, European Starling, American Robin, and Northern Cardinal and one which has Scarlet Tanager, Acadian Flycatcher, Red-eyed Vireo, Ovenbird, and Black-and-white Warbler.  The latter group is a suite of forest specialists, which would occur at low abundance. In the first group, we have a suite of common generalists. An inexperienced observer might conclude since each plot has 5 species, they are “equal.” In fact, the  person might conclude that the first plot is “better” because of the large number of starlings and House Sparrows!

Biologists take into consideration more than numbers when defining biodiversity, including relative abundance (which takes rareness into account), genetic diversity, the diversity of habitat types within the landscape, and ecosystem health and functioning.

In order to accurately assess the value of a coffee plantation to biodiversity, if that is truly our goal, an evaluator, at a minimum, must be able to be able to identify many of the major tree and bird species of a region, as well as understand their roles in the local ecosystem (is this bird common or rare? does it represent a forest specialist or a generalist? does this tree provide fruit, pollen, or nesting sites?).

So, it’s not enough to recognize trees and birds.  One has to have some sort of idea of what to look for. It would be great if there were a group of independent biologists who were experienced with the differences in regional biodiversity who could go around to farms and assess the growing practices for their value to biodiversity.

Until that happens, consumers must rely on some background information to try to decide which coffees, advertised as shade grown but not certified, might be best for biodiversity.  This information can include:

  • Knowledge of regional growing practices.  Certain countries and regions grow mostly shade coffee.  I’ll be posting information on growing practices in various regions in the future.
  • Knowledge of which farms and cooperatives have been certified.  If these beans are used in blends with beans from non-certified sources, they cannot be labeled certified, as far as I know.  I’ll be posting lists of certified farms and coops, which may be listed as sources by roasters.
  • Knowledge of botanical varieties.  There are two main coffee species, known commonly as arabica and robusta, and robusta is usually grown in the sun.  But even among arabicas, there are varieties that are less sun-tolerant.  I’ll be posting about the characteristics of the botanical types, which are sometimes mentioned by growers.

Needless to say, I’d always recommend buying from roasters that have close relationships with growers; who favor small farms; whose selections are mainly organic (which are usually shade grown, at least to some degree); and who have made an effort to support sustainability via their business practices and associations.

Photo of a coffee farmer in Colombia by Ashley Aull, under a Creative Commons license.

Background information / Certifications

Who evaluates non-certified shade coffee? Part 1

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

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

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

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

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

A white paper on sustainable coffee [1] noted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certifications

Northwest Shade Coffee Campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birds and other biodiversity / Certifications / Research on coffee growing

Research: Biodiversity, yield, and certification

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

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

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

Certifications / Coffee and the environment

Is promoting shade-grown coffee really a good conservation strategy?

In 2003, a number of important researchers debated the conservation value of promoting shade-grown coffee in the pages of the journal Conservation Biology.

First Rappole et al. [1] wrote that if the result of promoting shade coffee resulted in the conversion of sun coffee to shade coffee, they would have no qualms about the whole shade coffee campaign.  However, they felt that the more likely outcome of the added incentives and profit of an increased demand for shade coffee would be

  • that farmers considering converting from shade to sun coffee would decide not to do so (a good thing),
  • and/or more primary forest would be converted to coffee (a bad thing), albeit shade coffee (still not as good as natural forest).

This conversion of primary forest to coffee would most likely occur, the authors wrote, on slopes that are too steep to grow sun coffee, representing new exploitation of the land. They were especially concerned with higher elevation pine-oak forests, important endangered tropical habitats.  Coffee is one of the only crops that can be grown in these forests, and providing financial incentives through shade coffee promotion might convince farmers to begin cultivation in these areas.  Removal of the oak layer, which presumably would occur even in shade coffee management, would have profound impacts on the endangered Golden-cheeked Warbler, a migrant that depends on the oaks in the winter.

In general, the authors felt that endorsing shade coffee plantations as refuges of biodiversity was a “lowering of the bar” in terms of conservation goals.  They argued that diversity only measures numbers of species, which does not tell us anything about how ecologically equivalent two communities may be.  A shade coffee plantation may have 50 open-country species whereas the primary forest may also have 50 species, but they would be forest specialists which would be lost when the area was converted to coffee.  Finally, the authors were concerned that the consumer might not realize there are many variations in the way shade coffee is grown, and not all are good for biodiversity.

Philpott and Dietsch [2] replied, making the point loss of species richness in highly shaded coffee farms is minimal compared to the huge losses from other forms of agriculture. They argue that financial incentives that prevent farmers from converting their farms to sun coffee, cattle pasture, or illegal crops is beneficial.

Primarily, the authors argue for rigorous shade-certification programs to prevent premiums from going to farms that do not truly preserve biodiversity, and strong linkages between organic, shade-grown, and Fair Trade certification.  Further, to discourage conversion of primary forest to coffee, certification could be withheld for new farms, for a specified period, so that farmers are not rewarded for clearing forest.

The original authors [3] came back to say that there were a lot of “ifs” in Philpott and Deitsch’s vision of how shade coffee can advance conservation goals.  They felt certification programs had a long way to go, were uncoordinated, and that the promotion of shade coffee was outstripping certification efforts.  They end by saying that they feel the conservation value of coffee is hypothetical, dependent upon assumptions, especially considering certification, that have yet to be realized.

All the points in the papers are valid.  The lesson to consumers is that we have to be diligent in our choices by purchasing certified Fair Trade, organic, truly shade grown coffee.  Certainly, if we are going to purchase and drink coffee, we won’t be doing the environment any good by buying cheap coffee from a corporate giant that pays little to farmers and buys most of its coffee from sun plantations.

The primary goal of this blog is to continue to keep up with current research on biodiversity in coffee plantations, and current issues and debates on the conservation value of coffee to help consumers make informed choices.

[1] Rappole, J. H., D. I. King, and J. H. Vega Rivera.  2003.  Coffee and conservation.  Conservation Biology 17:334-336.

[2] Philpott, S. M. and T. Dietsch.  2003.  Coffee and conservation: a global context and the value of farmer involvement.  Conservation Biology 17:1844-1846.

[3] Rappole, J. H., D. I. King, and J. H. Vega Rivera.  2003.  Coffee and conservation III: reply to Philpott and Dietsch. Conservation Biology 17: 1847-1849.

Certifications

Shade grown coffee certification

As explained in the introductory post on shade grown coffee, there is no set definition of the term “shade grown.”  Coffee may be labeled shade grown even if it is grown under minimal overstory that does little to preserve biodiversity.

The Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center has made the most well-known effort to establish criteria for shade grown coffee.  In order to carry their trademarked “Bird Friendly” label, coffee must be grown under a minimum shade cover of 40%, and the overstory should include at least ten different species of shade trees, with no more than 70% of the trees being Inga species.  Pruning of the overstory and the removal of epiphytes is discouraged, and buffer zones are encouraged. These are the most stringent environmental criteria. Bird-Friendly certification is primarily focused on growers in Central and South America, but expanding to Africa. A description of Smithsonian’s Bird Friendly criteria is here.

The Rainforest Alliance has a certification program (using standards of the Sustainable Agriculture Network) which they apply not only to coffee, but to other crops as well. For coffee, it deals with an array of ecosystem issues such as water conservation, and as well as use of chemicals, community relations, and fair treatment of workers. Certification is awarded based on a score for meeting a minimum number of an array of criteria. More information on Rainforest Alliance standards can be found here.

Unlike Smithsonian’s Bird-Friendly standards, RA has no required criteria for shade management. Therefore it is important to note that Rainforest Alliance-certified coffee may NOT be shade grown. The requirements for shade that are one of the optional criteria under ecosystem conservation can be seen in comparison with Smithsonian’s criteria here. There are seven other criteria relating to ecosystem conservation in the RA standards.

There are pros and cons to the certification process, including the cost to the farmers and roasters (particularly expensive in the case of SMBC), and problems with applying one-size-fits-all biodiversity criteria to different regions. Coffee farmers, particularly small producers, are ultimately in the business of growing coffee to support their families. They are not in the biodiversity preservation business. If we want them to do so, we have to respect that and be willing to make it profitable for them.

Some roasters offer shade coffee that is not certified, but evaluated in various ways. Some say they use independent auditors, or visit the farms themselves.I don’t know how many, if any, of these evaluators have experience in actually assessing biodiversity, from a scientific viewpoint. For more on this topic, please see Who evaluates non-certified coffee?

Background information / Certifications

Shade grown, Organic, Fair Trade: how do they relate?

If it’s certified Fair Trade…
Much of the coffee certified Fair Trade in the U.S. (by TransFair USA) is also “shade grown”, although the volume is often overstated.  However, Fair Trade certification itself has no shade and few ecological requirements; see this post for details. Organizations that certify shade grown coffee are the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center and, in many cases, the Rainforest Alliance.

Nearly all of the coffee certified Fair Trade in the U.S. is also certified organic (various organizations provide organic certification). Those Fair Trade certified coffees that are not also certified organic are often passive organic.  For example, they are still required, under Fair Trade certification, to use integrated pest management (which cuts down on use of chemical pesticides), and Fair Trade farmers also use other soil and water conservation measure which help preserve biodiversity. In the Fair Trade system, certified organic coffee receives a per-pound premium, a strong incentive for farmers to go organic.

If it’s certified organic...
It’s likely to be Fair Trade as well. Over half of all organic coffee is Fair Trade certified.

Sun cultivated coffee relies heavily on chemical inputs of fertilizer and pesticides to produce successfully. Organic coffee is very difficult to grow without the presence of shade trees to provide habitat for beneficial insects, birds, and other organisms; to provide natural mulch; to aid in nutrient cycling; and to help in weed suppression.  Therefore, if coffee is organic, it is more likely to be shade grown, at least to some degree. While certification varies, organic coffee is usually grown completely free of synthetic chemicals, and have been for at least three years.

If it’s shade grown…
It is always also certified organic, if it has Bird-Friendly certification. Rainforest Alliance certified coffees have no organic requirement, and other “shade grown” claims that lack a certification are anybody’s guess. Read about shade grown certification here.

~~~~~~~~~~

Fair Trade, organic, and shade-grown.  The three work can together to protect the environment, biodiversity, and the economies of small farm cooperatives and coffee growers.  It is very important that the labels don’t just say organic or shade-grown, but actually show a certification label. There are many coffees on the market today that are “triple certified.”

See our Guide to Coffee Certifications page for a ton more information.

 

 

 

Background information / Fair and Direct Trade

What is Fair Trade?

Worldwide, habitat destruction is the leading cause of bird population declines and loss of biodiversity.  The link between poverty and environmental degradation is inescapable.  Making sure that coffee farmers receive a living wage is one way to help preserve habitat — both by  encouraging sustainable coffee farming methods that produce the highest quality coffee, and by empowering farmers economically and reducing their need to exploit the environment for survival.  Here is some background information on Fair Trade.

Fair Trade: What it does
Fair Trade helps small producers of various goods and agricultural products avoid exploitation.  Global Exchange, an excellent resource, lists these Fair Trade principals:

  • Producers receive a fair price; for commodities, farmers receive a stable, minimum price.
  • No forced or child labor allowed.
  • Working conditions are safe and healthy.
  • Equal employment opportunities are provided for all.
  • Buyers and producers trade under direct long-term relationships.
  • Producers have access to financial and technical assistance.
  • All aspects of trade and production are open to public accountability.
  • Sustainable production techniques are encouraged. NOTE: This does not mean that Fair Trade certified coffee was grown under strict environmental standards. See this post for more about the environmental criteria for Fair Trade certification.

Fair Trade certification

Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International sets standards and certifies. In order to reduce consumer confusion, it is working on using one label (the one in color here on the left) for Fair Trade products.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., Fair Trade USA (formerly TransFair USA) places this black and white “Fair Trade Certified” label (right) on coffee, chocolate, and other commodities. It only indicates that the labeled product is Fair Trade, not that all products from the same company are Fair Trade.

NOTE: As of January 1, 2012, Fair Trade USA will no longer be a member of FLO. See this post for more information.

Because Fair Trade certification can be expensive, and is available only to cooperatives, it is unavailable to some farms who may have otherwise qualified.  An interesting article at Reason Magazine highlights some of these types of Fair Trade issues.  Some roasters gather together to pay fair trade prices — or more — to growers, even though their coffees are not officially certified.  See Cooperative Coffees for an example.

More resources on Fair Trade: