Rainforest Alliance

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.)

 

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 / Coffee reviews / Rainforest Alliance

Coffee Review covers Rainforest Alliance coffees

Kenneth Davids’ excellent Coffee Review takes on Rainforest Alliance coffees for its September reviews. Please go read his concise and insightful introduction to the reviews. He provides a good overview of the RA program and how it differs from Fair Trade, how they complement each other, and RA’s efforts to adapt their standards to different cultures and types of coffee organizations.

Davids makes a couple of interesting observations about the RA coffees submitted by roasters for the reviews. Two dozen roasters submitted 34 single-origin RA-certified coffees, but they only represented eleven producers. Familiar RA producers Daterra Estate in Brazil, Panama’s Hacienda La Esmeralda, Selva Negra estate in Nicaragua, and the Mesa de los Santos farm in Colombia (which is also certified Smithsonian Bird-Friendly) were all in the mix.

In addition to the twelve submitted coffees that were reviewed, Davids threw in a review of Kraft’s Yuban coffee, which contains 30% RA-certified beans. The rest, based on his trained palate, is cheap robusta:

Based on a reading of cup profile, the blend we cupped (Yuban Original) probably contains enough Brazil from Rainforest Alliance Certified farms to qualify for the certification seal, with a good part of the remainder of the blend inexpensive robustas, perhaps steamed to remove flavor taints. The result is a Rainforest Alliance Certified version of the bland, woody, faintly sweet supermarket profile that has come to dominate canned coffee shelves over the last two decades.

I understand the theory behind RA working with Kraft or other multinationals to get them to buy more certified beans. However, I think there is a serious problem with consumers thinking that this is a truly sustainable coffee if 70% of the beans are not certified, and likely cheap, sun-grown beans grown with chemicals. Nor do I think RA is doing itself any favors by putting its seal on crappy-tasting supermarket coffees, especially when it is highly likely to be the first or only RA-certified coffee consumers will encounter.

Go enjoy the reviews and give some of the coffees a try — just skip the Yuban.

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

Rainforest Alliance introduces carbon module

In my post “Coffee farms and carbon sequestration,” I discussed the potential of carbon credits in helping coffee farmers earn extra income, and provided some statistics and references on carbon sequestration on coffee farms in and other tropical agroforestry systems.

As it turns out, Rainforest Alliance (RA) will be adding a carbon module to their certification for farms (coffee, and presumably other crops they certify). This announcement was first made in May at their Sustainable Coffee Breakfast at the SCAA annual conference in Minneapolis. The details are not final, but here is what RA’s Gretchen Ruethling explained to me regarding RA’s past experience and future plans:

We are working with other organizations to help farmers get paid for providing environmental services such as storing carbon and protecting watersheds and biodiversity. The Rainforest Alliance is a registered verifier for leading carbon offset programs including the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance and the Chicago Climate Exchange. We have verified carbon offsets on coffee farms through projects organized by Plan Vivo in Mexico. We verified an ambitious project in Aceh, Indonesia developed by Fauna & Flora International that will reduce deforestation on 750,000 hectares of rainforest. We verified a reforestation project in the highly endangered Atlantic Forest of Brazil as a carbon offset for Jacques Vabre, a coffee brand in France. (That project is managed by a coalition of Brazilian NGOs and led by the Nature Conservancy.)

We are working to offer more incentives to coffee farmers to encourage them to plant more trees. One exciting idea is developing a system that would allow coffee companies to buy carbon from farmers along with their coffee beans — through the existing supply chains. Companies could pay a small carbon premium. In order for this to work, we need a simple, low-cost yet rigorous and highly credible method to estimate the carbon on a coffee farm and verify that it remains year after year. This could be done by auditing the carbon as part of the annual farm inspection by members of the Sustainable Agriculture Network.

I’m thrilled RA is pursuing this concept — it’s a win-win-win situation for the farmer, biodiversity, and the planet.

Certifications / Coffee news and miscellany / Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance partners with the Coffee Quality Institute

A Problem
Judging by the enormous market shares of the Big Four corporate coffee multinationals, a lot of people don’t mind drinking lousy tasting coffee. However, plenty of people won’t do it. But more imporantly, if it doesn’t taste better, a lot of folks are not going to pay extra for certified coffee, and these coffees nearly always carry a premium. I’m not even willing to fork over more cash just for an eco-friendly label if the coffee is mediocre. If I can’t drink tasty, sustainable coffee, I just don’t drink it — although I’m as addicted as the next person. Unfortunately, I’m an exception.

Here’s the nasty truth: Even people who profess to caring about the environment tend to default to habitat-destroying, cheap coffee produced with tons of chemicals if there isn’t sufficient motivation to switch.  If they try a certified coffee and it doesn’t taste any better than the stuff they’ve been drinking, they don’t bother to buy it again.

A Partnership
That’s why it’s good news that the fastest growing and most familiar eco-labeller, Rainforest Alliance (RA), has inked an agreement with the non-profit Coffee Quality Institute (CQI). Among other things, this partnership will integrate CQI’s standardized coffee quality standards into RA’s tracking and traceability software and promote those standards within RA’s sustainable agriculture program. On a practical level, it means coffee buyers (importers, roasters, and consumers) will have some objective benchmark (the Q coffee score) indicating the quality of the coffee, as well as the flavor profile.

For the last five years, RA has had annual Cupping for Quality events and cupping competitions organized by CQI. These events and awards really help highlight the fact that sustainably-grown coffees can have amazing flavor, worthy of purchasing just for their taste alone. This partnership should really help buyer awareness and enhance interest in the quality of sustainable coffee.

A Conundrum
I’m not sure how RA will reconcile this commitment to quality — with an emphasis in this case on taste — with their partnerships with big corporate roasters like Kraft. Kraft’s Yuban coffee is 30% RA certified, and has been described by Ken Davids, one of the most respected coffee evaluators in the world, as “Cloyingly sweet, earthy/mildewed character with very distinct grassy notes.” This same review says that those who should drink Yuban are “on a budget with a commitment to organic growing principles that transcends the desire to drink decent coffee.” One could argue that the high-quality RA certified beans are being overwhelmed by the remaining 70%, mildewy, grassy, earthy, who-knows-where-they-come-from beans. But that certainly defeats the purpose. This odd dichotomy — fine work in environmentally and socially sustainable, high quality coffee, alongside helping corporate giants buff their green image by permitting their seal on products containing as little as 30% certified beans — produces not a small amount of cognitive dissonance among coffee lovers, myself included. This will eventually be the subject of its own post.

SCAA flavor wheel photo by AndyCiordia under a Creative Commons license.

Background information / Certifications / Rainforest Alliance / Smithsonian Bird-Friendly

Quick look at differing shade criteria

[NOTE: Rainforest Alliance standards have undergone several revisions since this post was first written. There is now no criteria for canopy cover and tree diversity, and native vegetation criteria do not have to be met for six years. The Bird-Friendly standard outlined below has been slightly revised, in part to align with requirements for certifying chocolate; while the older criteria are listed the new standard is still much more stringent than the RA standard. This post should only be for historical reference.]

I recently reviewed a paper, Field-testing ecological and economic benefits of coffee certification programs, that included a  summary table of the criteria used for shade certification by Rainforest Alliance, and Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (under the “Bird-Friendly” trademark).  I thought it would be useful to post a summary here, with a little commentary.

SMBC’s criteria are mandatory, while RA has no required criteria for shade management — the standards below are one of the optional criteria (more on the RA standards and scoring can be found here).

Criteria SMBC RA
No. tree species >10 >12/ha*
No. trees/ha (mean) na >70*
% allowed to be Inga trees <60 na
% shade cover >40 >40*
No. of shade layers 3 2
% leaf volume in each shade layer
….. >15 m (emergent) >20 na
….. 12 to 15 m (backbone) >60 na
….. <12 m (understory) >20 na
Epiphytes required? Yes na

*As of April 2009, standards were modified from the previous version, February 2008. In the old standards, one requirement was for at least 12 native tree species and at least 70 trees per hectare; now it is an average of 12 native tree species, with no minimum number of trees per hectare. Previous criteria stated a minimum of 40% shade cover, now the standard specifies this minimum only on cultivated land.

As noted in the previous post, the criteria having to do with vertical stratification — the number of layers of vegetation and the leaf volume in each — are critical components for preserving a rich mix of species.  Many ecological studies support the key role of structural diversity (sometimes referred to technically as floristic heterogeneity) in increased biodiversity — of many types in many ecosystems well beyond the realm of coffee growing. This is the classic schematic illustrating the various coffee production systems and their layers of shade diversity, from a paper by Patricia Moguel and Victor Toledo [1].

Here is a new graphic from SMBC that also illustrates this continuum:

As you can see from the table above, Rainforest Alliance requires (if this criteria is used) only two layers of shade, while Smithsonian requires three. RA has no standards for leaf volume in the shade layers. In short, RA certified farms that use these criteria would have still have structurally-simpler habitats (closer to commercial polyculture) that would likely not support as much biodiversity as farms that met SMBC criteria (closer to traditional polyculture).

A further note. SMBC inspectors visit farms and set up a number of plots and measure various vegetation parameters following methods used in typical ecological studies. The aforementioned paper reports that “Rainforest Alliance inspection auditors rely heavily on data provided by farm managers” (who are not ecologists), and confirm data provided during visits by various estimates and extrapolations.

As an ecologist myself, I am more comfortable that SMBC offers the more stringent, reliable assurance that coffee is grown sustainability if one is comparing certification schemes. And not to beat a dead horse, but the usual caveats apply: there are pros and cons of certification, and many uncertified farms grow coffee sustainably, meeting or exceeding the strongest criteria.

More on SMBCs criteria here, and in the “certifications” category of C&C.

[1] Biodiversity Conservation in Traditional Coffee Systems of Mexico. 1999. Conservation Biology 13:11—21.

Certifications / Coffee news and miscellany / Rainforest Alliance

KLM to serve Rainforest Alliance coffee

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines joins Asiana Airlines (Korea) and ANA (Japan) in pledging to serve Rainforest Alliance certified coffee on all its flights.  KLM serves 22 million cups of coffee annually.

This is a step in the right direction, but only a step.  First, the commitment is for "at least 30%" of the coffee it buys to be RA certified. This is the minimum level allowable by RA for a product to carry the RA seal.  It’s a familiar figure…remember the Yuban ad campaign?

According to the press release, the certified bean portion of KLM’s coffee comes from shaded coffee farms in the highlands of Colombia and the cerrado region of Brazil. I’m sure the Brazilian coffee isn’t shaded, since cerrado is savannah, not forest, and RA standards call for "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."  I have yet to find a Brazilian coffee I am comfortable with, because the cerrado area is so unique, biodiverse, and endangered that I am reluctant to encourage any further expansion of coffee agriculture there.

I can understand the charges of greenwashing reported in the press, as environmentalists correctly point out that airlines produce massive emissions that contribute to global warming. An industry spokesman made a great point when he said, ”While this is not a directly hypocritical move and it’s great that sustainable coffee is being used, it does not make KLM an ethical company.” 

I tend to think that any move in the right direction is a good one, which I believe is the outlook taken by RA when they are criticized for what appears to be aiding large corporations green their images.  If RA required 40% of beans to be certified to allow use of their seal, would that really thwart some companies from participating? Could they require a phased approach, with increasing volumes over time as a requirement?  Frankly, it looks like there needs to be a "next step" beyond these first steps.

Certifications / Corporate coffee / Jacobs Douwe Egberts/KraftHeinz / Rainforest Alliance

Yuban ad campaign

As I was perusing a magazine, I came across an ad for Yuban coffee with the headline “The coffee you make can make a difference.”  It showed their coffee cans, emblazoned with the Rainforest Alliance seal and a banner saying “Conserving the environment & supporting coffee farmers.  Minimum 30% Rainforest Alliance Certified Coffee.”

Let’s examine. Who are we dealing with? Yuban is a Maxwell House brand, which in turn is owned by Kraft Foods. (More on which corporations own which brands here.)

How big a deal is it that Kraft is buying RA beans? While Kraft will purchase 12,000 tons of RA coffee in 2006, this represents a tiny fraction (I’ve calculated about 1.5%) of Kraft’s coffee bean purchases.

What’s with the 30%? Rainforest Alliance (RA) allows use of their seal on products with a minimum of 30% certified beans (a fact for which they are sometimes criticized).  In order for Kraft to keep their prices so low (suggested retail for a 12-ounce can of RA-bean-containing Yuban is $3.89; a 13-ounce can of Maxwell House is $2.56), the other two-thirds of the beans in the can must be lower quality, likely technified/sun coffee.  I don’t see any other way they can do it.  The cost differential between certified beans and non-certified beans also means that I doubt Yuban will ever contain more RA certified beans than the 30% minimum required for use of the RA seal. (Update: As of January 2013, the Yuban can still indicates 30% certified beans. However, RA is requiring companies to scale up their percentages over time…read more here.)

Does this move really help farmers? While RA certification includes fair labor practices, and RA certified coffee usually commands some premium, the criteria does not set a minimum price paid to farmers. RA certification is cheaper for corporations that Fair Trade certification.  Oxfam is still pressuring Kraft to agree to buy Fair Trade coffee.

RA cannot be faulted for their efforts in promoting and making sustainable coffee available to mainstream consumers.  Nor can they really be criticized for partnering with Kraft, since RA certifies a product, not a company.

Still, it difficult for me to endorse supporting a corporation like Kraft which has a dubious ethical record (Responsible Shopper profile here). And while Kraft deserves some credit, as none of the other Big Coffee companies is making this type of effort, real environmental preservation and fair prices for farmers is far, far better served by purchasing sustainable coffees from small companies and roasters with relationships with their suppliers, especially those that provide information on the specific farms where their beans are sourced.  Plus I guarantee it will taste better!

UPDATE! The January 2007 issue of Coffee Review goes over supermarket coffees, including this coffee, which is “dominated by a cloyingly sweet nut character, the calling card of inexpensive coffees of the robusta species.”  Robusta tastes bad, and is sun coffee.  Very bad!  As for the Yuban Organic brand, that review notes it is recommended for “Those on a budget with a commitment to organic growing principles that transcends the desire to drink decent coffee.”  Please also read the accompanying article or my post about it.

More information:

 

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 / 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.