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.

 

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.

 

Rainforest Alliance Cupping for Quality — April 2013

ra-sealThe Rainforest Alliance Cupping for Quality recognizes Rainforest Alliance certified coffees, highlighting the linkage between sustainable farm management practices and cup quality. There are two annual cuppings and awards, divided by geography. In December, coffees from the southern hemisphere compete. The April cupping covers countries in Latin America, as well as Ethiopia and India.  The following results were announced last week at the annual Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Coffee Breakfast at the Specialty Coffee Association of America’s annual event.

This spring’s cupping included 77 coffees from 12 countries. The top scorers were:

  1. Hacienda La Esmeralda (Panama ) – 89.94. This farm is famously known for its “discovery” (or at least popularization) of the Geisha variety, and it used to sweep all awards where it was entered. The last time it was in this competition was in 2009, when it took first place with a score of 88.99.
  2. Banko Gotiti (Ethiopia) – 89.69. This farm that is part of Ethiopia’s Yirgacheffe Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union (YCFCU), which currently represents over 43,794 farmers belonging to more than 300,000 families.
  3. inambariInambari (Peru) – 87.38. Inambari  is one of the organic cooperatives that is part of CECOVASA (Central de Cooperativas Agrarias Cafetaleras de los Valles de Sandia), a group of Fair Trade cooperatives totaling nearly 5000 members. CECOVASA has also been working with Conservation International. CECOVASA has won coffee quality awards before, with members winning Cupping for Quality awards the past several years, as well as an award for their work preserving biodiversity. The Inambari logo is a stylized hummingbird.
  4. mordo_logoMoredocofe (Ethiopia) – 87.06. Family-owned, also organic and UTZ Certified. Their logo features a Northern Carmine Bee Eater (Merops nubicus).
  5. Teppi Green Coffee Estate (Ethiopia) – 86.84. A very large (10,000 ha) farm managed by Green Coffee Agro Industry. Despite its large size, a portion of the coffee is still grown in fairly rustic conditions, as the company is a major exporter of “forest coffee” in the country.
  6. Ururi (Peru) – 86.05. Another CECOVSA branded coffee.
  7. Manantiales del Frontino (Colombia) – 86.13. Growing 10 varieties (including a Geisha which won the SCAA’s Coffee of the Year in 2011) at 1500-2000 meters; the farm includes 170 ha of forested area. Scored 84.48 in last April’s competition.
  8. Biloya (Ethiopia) – 85.94. Another member of the Yirgacheffe Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union (YCFCU).
  9. Los Cedros (Colombia) – 85.84.
  10. Finca Kassandra (Mexico) – 85.81. In central Veracruz, at 1200 to 1500 m. Scored 85.46 in 2011 competition. Their logo has a stylized bird, perhaps a motmot.

The average score of the 9 past winners from the last 6 years is 87.95, so the winner this spring is above average. The average score of the top ten from the past 6 years is 85.20, while this year it was 87.11.

Previous results are available here in the archives in the Coffee Awards and Competitions category.

Caribou Coffee’s new owners: killing the brand?

This post includes important updates, flagged in the text and at the end of the post.

Caribou Coffee, which sources all its beans from Rainforest Alliance certified farms, was acquired by the Joh. A. Benckiser Group (JAB), a private German holding company, in December 2012. Earlier in 2012, JAB acquired Peet’s Coffee & Tea.

When I wrote about the acquisition earlier this year, I stated,

I can only hope that under JAB, Caribou can continue with its transparency, excellent sustainability record, and its all-Rainforest Alliance coffee sourcing.

Unfortunately, it looks like JAB  is headed toward sourcing less certified coffee by favoring the Peet’s brand over Caribou and alienating many faithful Caribou customers and employees in the process.

Caribou abruptly announced the closing or rebranding of over a quarter of its 600+ stores. Eighty will be permanently closed in less than a week, including all or most in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, Illinois, eastern Wisconsin and Washington. U.S. states where Caribou will continue to operate (for now) under its own brand will include Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Kansas, western Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Colorado.

Another 88 stores will be converted to Peet’s Coffee & Tea stores. Peet’s is not a major purchaser of Rainforest Alliance coffee, or much of any certified coffee, for that matter. Of the 34 varieties currently listed on its website, only one is certified organic, while one is Fair Trade. Peet’s is also known for their very dark roasting (29 of the 34 are designated as “deep roasts”) and rather generically-labeled blends and “single origins.” Just what we need — more over-roasted mystery beans.

These changes have brought the ire of customers, many of whom are taking to social and other online media with responses ranging from dismay to vowing to never set foot in Peet’s to setting up Facebook pages denouncing the abrupt termination of employees. On the company’s own Facebook page, fans are expressing their dislike of the situation, complaining that the company is removing posts and comments, all while corporate Caribou has remained mum on the topic. This ham-handedness demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to Caribou customers, if nothing else. (Update: Forbes published an excellent piece on how poorly the company handled the public in the media, especially Facebook.)

JAB also owns 15% of D.E. [Douwe Egberts] Master Blenders 1753. Douwe Egberts is the Dutch company created when Sara Lee spun off all of its coffee and tea business.  As of April 12, 2013, Douwe Egberts has agreed to be acquired by JAB.  Allow me to be pessimistic and theorize that if this acquisition goes through, coffee sourcing will be streamlined via the supply chain of Douwe Egberts, one of the largest coffee buyers in the world.

The Douwe Egberts certifier of choice is UTZ Certified, not a bad certification, but very lean on environmental criteria and thus one which I do not consider an eco-certification. In 2012, Douwe Egberts sourced 65,000 tons of UTZ Certified coffee. Their goal is to have 25% of their coffee purchases “certified as sustainable” by 2015. Douwe Egberts gets a “D” grade on sustainability from RankABrand.

Regardless of what happens on the Douwe Egberts front, the recent actions by JAB seem to indicate a move towards away from sustainably-sourced and 100%-certified coffees…just what I was afraid of.

More updates: The Forbes piece mentioned above also talks about further potential changes, indicating what’s happened so far “doesn’t bode well for Caribou’s future.”

We also spoke confidentially to an employee of a local store slated to be converted to a Peet’s. He told us that in a team meeting when staff members brought up questions regarding differences in sustainable sourcing and certifications between Peet’s and Caribou, the management declined to discuss the topic.